Principal Commissioner of Income-tax\n(Central)-2 v. Mahesh Wood Products (P.) Ltd.

394 ITR 312High Court2017#1332 most cited

What is Principal Commissioner of Income-tax\n(Central)-2 v. Mahesh Wood Products (P.) Ltd. authority for?

The date of initiation of penalty proceedings for the purpose of Section 275(1)(c) is when the Assessing Officer records a satisfaction or recommends penalty, not the later date when the Joint/Additional Commissioner of Income Tax issues the penalty notice.

86

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

PCIT v. Mahesh Wood Products · Section 275(1)(c) · penalty initiation date · limitation for penalty order · Assessing Officer recommendation · JCIT penalty notice · Section 271D · Section 271E · Section 269SS · Section 269T

Also reported as

82 Taxmann.com 39

Sections most often in play

Section 271DSection 269SSSection 269TSection 271ESection 153ASection 275(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 275

Issues it is cited on

section 275(1)section 275(1)(c)section 275(1)(a)penalty under section 271esection 275penalty under section 271dsection 269tsection 271esection 245hsection 269sssection 271drevision under section 263

Judgments citing Principal Commissioner of Income-tax\n(Central)-2 v. Mahesh Wood Products (P.) Ltd.

Vimal Todi, Indore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Indore

Appeals are allowed

ITA 189/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 153ASection 253(5)Section 269SSection 271D

…decisions where the starting point for the purpose of section 275(1)(c) had been construed as the date on which the AO wrote letter to the Competent Officer recommending issuance of showcause notice: (a) PCIT Vs. Mahesh Wood Products Private Limited (2017) 394 ITR 312 (Delhi) (b) PCIT Vs. JKD Capital & Finlease Ltd. (2015) 378 ITR 614 (Delhi) (c) PCIT Vs. Rishikesh Buildcon Private Limited (2023) 451 ITR 108 (Delhi) 12. With these submissions, Ld. AR prayed to quash the penalty-orders as time-barred. 13. Per contra, Ld. DR submitted that in Para 20.5 of assessment-order, there is no initiation of penalty-pr…

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 618/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : H : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITAs No.611 to 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. CIT, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. PAN: ABXPA4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, CA Revenue by : Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement : .07.2024 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:…

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 617/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : H : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITAs No.611 to 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. CIT, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. PAN: ABXPA4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, CA Revenue by : Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement : .07.2024 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:…

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 616/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : H : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITAs No.611 to 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. CIT, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. PAN: ABXPA4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, CA Revenue by : Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement : .07.2024 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:…

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 615/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : H : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITAs No.611 to 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. CIT, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. PAN: ABXPA4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, CA Revenue by : Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement : .07.2024 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:…

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 614/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : H : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITAs No.611 to 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. CIT, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. PAN: ABXPA4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, CA Revenue by : Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement : .07.2024 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:…

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 613/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : H : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITAs No.611 to 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. CIT, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. PAN: ABXPA4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, CA Revenue by : Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement : .07.2024 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:…

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 612/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : H : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITAs No.611 to 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. CIT, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. PAN: ABXPA4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, CA Revenue by : Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement : .07.2024 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:…

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 611/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : H : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITAs No.611 to 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. CIT, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. PAN: ABXPA4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, CA Revenue by : Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement : .07.2024 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:…

Pearl Beach Promoters Private Limited, Chennai vs. AO, Corporate Ward-5(1), Chennai

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 1290/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 1289 & 1290/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-2018

For Appellant: Shri M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Srinivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 273BSection 275

…curb black money brought in the guise of the loans. The assessee also took a legal argument that proceedings u/s 271D would be barred by limitation in terms of decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Mahesh Wood 3 Products Pvt. Ltd. (82 Taxmann.com 39) holding that date of initiation of penalty would be the date on which the case was referred to the concerned authority. If that date is reckoned, the proceedings initiated after lapse of more than 2 ½ years would be time barred. The proceedings should be initiated within a reasonable period. 3.3 However, Ld. JCIT rejected the merits of the…

Pealrl Beach Promoters Private Limited, Chennai vs. AO, Corporate Ward-5(1), Chennai

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 1289/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 1289 & 1290/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-2018

For Appellant: Shri M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Srinivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 273BSection 275

…curb black money brought in the guise of the loans. The assessee also took a legal argument that proceedings u/s 271D would be barred by limitation in terms of decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Mahesh Wood 3 Products Pvt. Ltd. (82 Taxmann.com 39) holding that date of initiation of penalty would be the date on which the case was referred to the concerned authority. If that date is reckoned, the proceedings initiated after lapse of more than 2 ½ years would be time barred. The proceedings should be initiated within a reasonable period. 3.3 However, Ld. JCIT rejected the merits of the…

DCIT, Centralcircle-2(2), Chennai vs. Subramaniam Thanu, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

ITA 788/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

For Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 271E

…ence was made by the AO to the Addl. CIT for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271D. In support of this contention, the appellant placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Principal CIT Vs Mahesh Wood Products P Ltd (2017) 394 ITR 312 (Delhi). 26. The legal ground raised by the appellant has been carefully examined. In the said decision, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that the date on which reference was made by the AO to the Addl. CIT requesting for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271D is required to be considered as the date of initiation of penalty proceedings and…

DCIT, Centralcircle-2(2), Chennai vs. Subramaniam Thanu, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

ITA 787/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

For Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 271E

…ence was made by the AO to the Addl. CIT for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271D. In support of this contention, the appellant placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Principal CIT Vs Mahesh Wood Products P Ltd (2017) 394 ITR 312 (Delhi). 26. The legal ground raised by the appellant has been carefully examined. In the said decision, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that the date on which reference was made by the AO to the Addl. CIT requesting for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271D is required to be considered as the date of initiation of penalty proceedings and…

DCIT, Centralcircle-2(2), Chennai vs. Subramaniam Thanu, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

ITA 786/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

For Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 271E

…ence was made by the AO to the Addl. CIT for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271D. In support of this contention, the appellant placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Principal CIT Vs Mahesh Wood Products P Ltd (2017) 394 ITR 312 (Delhi). 26. The legal ground raised by the appellant has been carefully examined. In the said decision, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that the date on which reference was made by the AO to the Addl. CIT requesting for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271D is required to be considered as the date of initiation of penalty proceedings and…

DCIT, Centralcircle-2(2), Chennai vs. Subramaniam Thanu, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

ITA 785/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

For Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 271E

…ence was made by the AO to the Addl. CIT for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271D. In support of this contention, the appellant placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Principal CIT Vs Mahesh Wood Products P Ltd (2017) 394 ITR 312 (Delhi). 26. The legal ground raised by the appellant has been carefully examined. In the said decision, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that the date on which reference was made by the AO to the Addl. CIT requesting for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271D is required to be considered as the date of initiation of penalty proceedings and…

Isys Softech Private Limited, Jaipur vs. CIT (A), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 528/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. G. M. MehtaFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(1)Section 271CSection 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…ed out that limitation of penalty u/s 271C is guided by section 275(1)(c) and therefore independent of any assessment order through which the penalty might have been initiated. Therefore, the cited court case of Pr.CIT Vs. Mahesh Wood Products Pvt. Ltd. (2017)394 ITR 312 (Del) is not applicable to the fact of the instant case. The appellant has raised the issue of reasonable cause for failure to deduct tax at source and has cited the case of CIT Vs. I.T.C Ltd. (2017)297 CTR (Del) 47. In the case of the appellant, the liability to deduct TDS has been upheld by the CIT(A) as well as the Ld. ITAT in appellant's case…

Shri Sai Balaji Gas Cylinders P. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT(OSD), Corporate Cirlce-6, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3223/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

For Respondent: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 269SSection 269TSection 271Section 271D

…barred by limitation in terms of provisions of Sec.275(1)(c) of the Act, and thus, same needs to be quashed. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT v. Mahesh Wood Products (P) Ltd., reported in [2017] 394 ITR 312(Delhi) and also in the case of PCIT v. Rishikesh Buildcon (P) Ltd., reported in [2023] 451 ITR 108 (Delhi). 8. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee on merits of the case submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining penalty levied by the AO u/s.271D & 271E of the Act, even though, the assessee has explained before the authorities that transacti…

Shri Sai Balaji Gas Cylinders P. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT(OSD), Corporate Cirlce-6, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3222/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

For Respondent: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 269SSection 269TSection 271Section 271D

…barred by limitation in terms of provisions of Sec.275(1)(c) of the Act, and thus, same needs to be quashed. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT v. Mahesh Wood Products (P) Ltd., reported in [2017] 394 ITR 312(Delhi) and also in the case of PCIT v. Rishikesh Buildcon (P) Ltd., reported in [2023] 451 ITR 108 (Delhi). 8. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee on merits of the case submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining penalty levied by the AO u/s.271D & 271E of the Act, even though, the assessee has explained before the authorities that transacti…

Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Co. P.Ltd, Gurugram vs. JCIT, Range-74, New Delhi

Accordingly, the stay application is dismissed as

ITA 3018/DEL/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3018/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 बनाम Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Jcit Vs. Co. P. Ltd., Range-74, Unit No. 303-304, 3Rd Floor, New Delhi. Baani Address One, Golf Course Road, Sector-56, Gurgaon, Haryana. Pan No. Aaach3005M अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & Stay Appl. No.413/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 बनाम Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Jcit Co. P. Ltd., Vs. Range-74, Unit No. 303-304, 3Rd Floor, New Delhi. Baani Address One, Golf Course Road, Sector-56, Gurgaon, Haryana. Pan No. Aaach3005M अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 201Section 250(6)Section 271CSection 275(1)(c)Section 40

…ed by limitation under Section 275 of the Act a) Admittedly, JCIT Spcl Range-4, New Delhi forwarded the proposal on 27.03.2019 - See para 1 of Impugned Order. b) In terms of decisions of jurisdictional Delhi High Court in CIT v. Mahesh Woods Products (P) Ltd. 394 ITR 312 and PCIT v. Rishikesh Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.577/2019, the date of initiation for the purposes of Section 275 is 27.03.2019 and, therefore, order ought to have been passed by 30.09.2019 whereas order has been passed on 31.10.2019. Hence, beyond limitation.” 7. Per contra, learned Departmental Representative relied upon the orders of the autho…

Triumph Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. Additional CIT Cen Cir 6, Mumbai

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1218/MUM/2018[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2000-01

Bench: Sri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Sri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dr. P Daniel, DR
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271DSection 271E

…He submitted that as penalty is levied on 30th July 2004 it is barred by limitation and therefore, it should be quashed. For this proposition, he relied on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Mahesh Wood Products (P.) Ltd. [2017] 394 ITR 312 (Delhi), Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. JKD capital and Finlease Limited 378 ITR 640. 019. Similarly, first show cause notice u/s 271D was issued on 15/12/2003 and penalty was levied by order dated 30/7/2004. 020. On the merits of the penalty levied under section 271D and 271E of the Act, he submitted that learned Addl. Commissioner of Income…