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.

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

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

ITA 1217/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…

Nkc Projects (P) Ltd., Gurgaon vs. JCIT, Range-76, New Delhi

ITA 803/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manu Chaurasiya, Senior DR
Section 2Section 200(3)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 272Section 272A(2)(K)Section 272A(2)(k)

…be completed by 31.03.2013 u/s 275(1)(c) of the Act whereas issuance of penalty notice in this case on 17.05.2016 is time barred. 9. Identical issue has been dealt with by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Pr.CIT vs. Mahesh Wood Products Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 394 ITR 312 (Delhi) and held that the limitation in such cases would began to run from the date of letter sent by AO recommending initiation of the penalty proceedings by returning following findings :- “Held, dismissing the appeals, that under section 275(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the starting point of "initiation" of penalty proceedings, would…

M/S Manlife Trading Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. JCIT (TDS), - 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2944/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm M/S. Manlife Trading Pvt. Vs. Jt. Commissioner Of Income Ltd., Tax (Tds)-1(3) Off. No.105-B, 65, Kusal Mumbai Bhavan 5Th Kumbharwada Lane Mumbai – 400 004 Pan/Gir No.Aaecm5805C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Kalpesh Manohar Vs. Jt. Commissioner Of Income Sanghvi Tax (Tds)-1(3) (Proprietor: Kms Mumbai International) Shop No.2, 65, Kushal Bhavan 5Th Kumbharwada Mumbai – 400 004 Pan/Gir No.Atbps3875K (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 201(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271CSection 275Section 275(1)(c)

…ore us, the penalty was initiated with the order passed u/s.201(1) & 201(1A) of the Act 29.2.2016. The ld. AR relied on the Hon’ble Delhi High Court decisions JKD Capital and Finlease Ltd(2015)378 ITR 614(Delhi) and PCIT Vs Mahesh Wood Products Pvt Ltd.(2017) 394 ITR 312(Delhi). The ld. AR therefore, prayed that the penalty order may kindly be quashed as being barred by limitation, as has been held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the aforesaid two decisions wherein it has been held that initiation of penalty has to be taken from the date of the concerned order and not from the date of show-cause notice issued…

The Mamurpur Co-Operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Range- 38, New Delhi

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

ITA 1371/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271ESection 27ISection 80P

…orldwide Township Projects Ltd., 2014 (269) CTR 444 (Delhi), in the case of PCIT V/s. JKD Capital & Fin lease Ltd. (2015) 378ITR 640 (Del) , Commissinoer of 12 ITA No. 1370 & 1371/Del./2019 Income Tax (Central) - 2 V/s. Mahesh Wood Products Pvt. Ltd., (2017) 394 ITR 312 (Delhi) , the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Hissaria Brothers, (2016) 386 ITR 719 (SC), and the decision of Delhi High court in the case of CIT V/s. JKD Capital &Finlease Ltd., (2015) 378 ITR 640 (Del). 10. He also placed reliance on the decision of the Rajasthan High court in the case of Commissioner…

The Mamurpur Co-Operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Range- 38, New Delhi

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

ITA 1370/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271ESection 27ISection 80P

…orldwide Township Projects Ltd., 2014 (269) CTR 444 (Delhi), in the case of PCIT V/s. JKD Capital & Fin lease Ltd. (2015) 378ITR 640 (Del) , Commissinoer of 12 ITA No. 1370 & 1371/Del./2019 Income Tax (Central) - 2 V/s. Mahesh Wood Products Pvt. Ltd., (2017) 394 ITR 312 (Delhi) , the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Hissaria Brothers, (2016) 386 ITR 719 (SC), and the decision of Delhi High court in the case of CIT V/s. JKD Capital &Finlease Ltd., (2015) 378 ITR 640 (Del). 10. He also placed reliance on the decision of the Rajasthan High court in the case of Commissioner…

Dr. Sanjiv Keshav Karande, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 11(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1540/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1540/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dr. Sanjiv Keshav Karande, H. No.158, Samata Nagar, Deepmala, A/P Daund, Dist. Pune-413801. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Asrpk5180G बनाम / V/S. Ito, Ward-11(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri M. R. Bhagwat Revenue By : Shri Sanghamitra Khobragaae सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04.02.2020 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 06.02.2020 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Pune Dated 27.03.2017 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Jt.Cit Levied The Penalty U/S 271D Of The Act. The Cit(A) Confirmed The Same. 2. Before Us, At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That This Is A Case Where The Penalty Order Dated 29.11.2016 Is Time Barred. Referring To The Provisions Of Clause (C) Of Section 275(1) Of The Act, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Penalty Order Passed On 29.11.2016 Is A Time Barred One. Otherwise, On Merits Of Levy Of Penalty, Ld.

For Appellant: Shri M. R. BhagwatFor Respondent: Shri Sanghamitra Khobragaae
Section 269SSection 271BSection 271DSection 273BSection 275(1)Section 44A

…fficer passed the order in time and he has time to 31st March, 2017 to pass the penalty order. 9. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the judgement of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr.CIT vs. Mahesh Wood Products Pvt. Ltd., 394 ITR 312. Decision of the Tribunal on the legal issue 10. We heard both the parties on this legal issue and perused the orders of the Revenue. For the sake of ready reference, the provisions of clause (c) of section 275(1) of the Act are extracted hereunder :- “Section 275 (1) (a) ……… (b) ……… (c) in any other case, after the expiry of the financial year i…

M/S Sha Thanmal Sukharajji & Co, Ranebennur vs. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax TDS Range, Hubbali

In the result, appeals by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 1726/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodia

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT) Bengaluru
Section 115Section 133ASection 194Section 194BSection 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271Section 271CSection 271C(2)

…refore clause (c) of Sec.275(1) would govern the period of limitation for passing such orders imposing penalty u/s.271D and 271E of the Act. He also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of Pr.CIT Vs. Mahesh Wood products Pvt.Ltd. 394 ITR 312 (Del) & CIT Vs. JKD Capital ITA Nos. 1724 to 1726/Bang/2018 Page 6 of 14 & Finlease Ltd. 378 ITR 614(Del) wherein it was held that date on which the AO informs the Officer competent to impose penalty u/s.271E of the Act, would be date of initiation of penalty proceedings u/s.271E of the Act for the purpose of computing period of limitation in…

M/S Sha Thanmal Sukharajji & Co, Ranebennuru vs. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax TDS Range, Hubli

In the result, appeals by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 1725/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodia

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT) Bengaluru
Section 115Section 133ASection 194Section 194BSection 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271Section 271CSection 271C(2)

…refore clause (c) of Sec.275(1) would govern the period of limitation for passing such orders imposing penalty u/s.271D and 271E of the Act. He also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of Pr.CIT Vs. Mahesh Wood products Pvt.Ltd. 394 ITR 312 (Del) & CIT Vs. JKD Capital ITA Nos. 1724 to 1726/Bang/2018 Page 6 of 14 & Finlease Ltd. 378 ITR 614(Del) wherein it was held that date on which the AO informs the Officer competent to impose penalty u/s.271E of the Act, would be date of initiation of penalty proceedings u/s.271E of the Act for the purpose of computing period of limitation in…

M/S Sha Thanmal Sukharajji & Co, Ranebennuru vs. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax TDS Range, Ranebennuru

In the result, appeals by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 1724/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodia

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT) Bengaluru
Section 115Section 133ASection 194Section 194BSection 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271Section 271CSection 271C(2)

…refore clause (c) of Sec.275(1) would govern the period of limitation for passing such orders imposing penalty u/s.271D and 271E of the Act. He also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of Pr.CIT Vs. Mahesh Wood products Pvt.Ltd. 394 ITR 312 (Del) & CIT Vs. JKD Capital ITA Nos. 1724 to 1726/Bang/2018 Page 6 of 14 & Finlease Ltd. 378 ITR 614(Del) wherein it was held that date on which the AO informs the Officer competent to impose penalty u/s.271E of the Act, would be date of initiation of penalty proceedings u/s.271E of the Act for the purpose of computing period of limitation in…

Kanakara Rajendra Prasad Reddy, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Range-3(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1962/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Smt. K. Lakshmi, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 269Section 269TSection 271Section 271ESection 275Section 275(1)(c)

…September, 2016. Page 4 of 11 6. Before the CIT(A), the Assessee placed reliance on decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hissaria Bros. 291 ITR 244 (Raj) and Delhi High court in the case of Pr.CIT Vs. Mahesh Wood products Pvt.Ltd. 394 ITR 312 (Del) wherein it was held that when the subject matter of the quantum proceedings was the non-compliance with Section 269 T of the Act, there was no need for the appeal against the said order in the quantum proceedings to be disposed of before the penalty proceedings could be initiated. In other words, the initiation of penalty proceedings did no…

Suparshwa Constructions, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6, Mumbai

In the result, additional ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 3083/MUM/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Respondent: Ms. Dinkle Haria (AR)
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 269SSection 271Section 271DSection 271ESection 273BSection 279S

…, therefore, the order passed under section 271D/E dated 28.09.2012 is beyond the prescribed period of limitation. In support of her submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the following decisions: 1. Pr.CIT v. Mahesh Wood Products P. Ltd. [(2017) 394 ITR 312 (Delhi)]. 2. Pr.CIT v JKD Capital & Finlease Ltd [(2015) 378 ITR 614 (Delhi)]. 3. CIT v. Jitendra Singh Rathore [(2013) 352 ITR 327 (Rajasthan)]. 4. CIT v. Narayani & Song (P.) Ltd. [(2016) 73 taxmann.com 21 (Calcutta)]. 5. Lodha Builders P. Ltd. v. ACIT [2015] 34 ITR(T) 157 (Mum. Trib.). 6. M.D.S University v. ACIT [(2014) 49 taxmann.com 297 (J…

M/S Agro Tech Cold Storage Private Limited, Bellary vs. Addl.Commissioner of Income Tax Bellary Rang E, Bellary

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 110/BANG/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri. A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri. Ramasubramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Vikram Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT
Section 269ASection 271DSection 275(1)(c)

…ter the statutory period of six months provided u/s.275(1)(c) of the Act. It was submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the ITA.110/Bang/2017 Page - 3 matter of PCIT v. JKD Capital & Finlease Ltd [378 ITR 614] and PCIT v. Mahesh Wood Products P. Ltd [394 ITR 312] had decided the issue in favour of the assessee and held that the initiation of proceedings would initiate, when the reference was made by the AO to the JCIT. Our attention was drawn to para 9 in the matter of Mahesh Wood Products P. Ltd (supra) to the following effect : 9. However, this question came up for consideration in Principal CIT v. JK…

Mrs.Tarulata Shah, Mumbai vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Range-2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6464/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mrs. Sonal Shah Joint Commissioner Of 17/18, Swastik Bldg. 4Th Vs. Income Tax (Tds) Floor, N.S. Road, No. 1. Range-3, Mumbai. Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400056. Pan No. Aqops1855M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mrs. Tarulata Shah Joint Commissioner Of 21/22, Swastik Bldg. Vs. Income Tax (Tds) 5Thfloor, N.S. Road, No. 1. Range-3, Mumbai. Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400056. Pan No. Aadps0777K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Raveevwaglay, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/11/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/02/2019

For Appellant: Mr. RaveevWaglay, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271C

…there was no reasonable ground for not deducting the lax at source as against the Mrs. Sonal Shah & Mrs. Tarulata Shah deducting the tax at source. 5. not considering the Delhi High Court Judgments in the case of PCIT Vs. Mahesh Wood Product Pvt. Ltd.–(2017) 394 ITR 312 and PCIT Vs. JKD Capital and Finlease Ltd. – (2015) 378 ITR 614 wherein it was clearly held that the order passed by the Joint Commissioner in that case was time barred since he should have passed the order within 6 months from the date on which he received the letter from the Assessing Officer and that the limitation began from the date of the l…

Mrs. Sonal Shah, Mumbai vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Range-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6462/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mrs. Sonal Shah Joint Commissioner Of 17/18, Swastik Bldg. 4Th Vs. Income Tax (Tds) Floor, N.S. Road, No. 1. Range-3, Mumbai. Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400056. Pan No. Aqops1855M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mrs. Tarulata Shah Joint Commissioner Of 21/22, Swastik Bldg. Vs. Income Tax (Tds) 5Thfloor, N.S. Road, No. 1. Range-3, Mumbai. Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400056. Pan No. Aadps0777K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Raveevwaglay, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/11/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/02/2019

For Appellant: Mr. RaveevWaglay, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271C

…there was no reasonable ground for not deducting the lax at source as against the Mrs. Sonal Shah & Mrs. Tarulata Shah deducting the tax at source. 5. not considering the Delhi High Court Judgments in the case of PCIT Vs. Mahesh Wood Product Pvt. Ltd.–(2017) 394 ITR 312 and PCIT Vs. JKD Capital and Finlease Ltd. – (2015) 378 ITR 614 wherein it was clearly held that the order passed by the Joint Commissioner in that case was time barred since he should have passed the order within 6 months from the date on which he received the letter from the Assessing Officer and that the limitation began from the date of the l…

Amit Chakrapani, Faridabad vs. JCIT, Range-1, Faridabad

In the result ground No. 1 and 2 of the appeal are allowed

ITA 2493/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishiamit Chakrapani, Vs. Jcit, S/O. Shri C.K. Chakrapani, 327, Range-1, Sector-46, Faridabad Faridabad Pan: Aeqpc1310P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Sanchet Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Jiwani, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 269SSection 271DSection 275

…ection 269SS of the Act. therefore, penalty proceedings u/s 271D of the Act would be initiated separately. Further, he intimated the same to the ld Addll. CIT on 11.05.2015. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Mahesh Wood Products Pvt. Ltd 82 Taxmann.com 39 (Delhi) has held that date of initiation of penalty is the date on which the case is referred to the concerned authority. According to that decision the intimation by the ld AO to the Addll. CIT was made on 11.05.2015. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Pr. CIT Vs. Mahesh Wood Products…

Sanghvi Premises P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cen RG 6, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2397/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, D.R
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271ASection 271DSection 271ESection 275Section 275(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/s. Sanghvi Premises Addl. CIT, Pvt. Ltd., Central Range-6, 6th Floor, Gr Floor, Veetrang Vs. Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, Cawasji Patel Street, Mumbai Fort, Mumbai 400 001 PAN: AAACL 0598D (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Ms. Dinkle Hariya, A.R. Revenue by : Shri V. Justin, D.R. Date of Hearing : 26.06.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 27.08.2018 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been prefer…

Rmg Benefit Fund Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle 2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 634/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.628, 629, 630, 631, 632, 633 & 634/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2014-15 M/S Rmg Benefit Fund Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of No.38, Jeenis Road, V. Income Tax, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015. Central Circle – 2(1), Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aaacr 5172 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271D

…ing proceeding under Section 271D of the Act. The notice was, in fact, issued by the Additional Commissioner only on 28.10.2016. Referring to the 5 I.T.A. Nos.628 to 634/Chny/18 judgment of Delhi High Court in Principal CIT v. Mahesh Wood Products (P.) Ltd. (394 ITR 312), the Ld.counsel submitted that the limitation period has to be computed from the date of letter written by the Assessing Officer, i.e. on 23.09.2016. Therefore, according to the Ld. counsel, it is beyond the period of limitation provided for passing the order under Section 271D of the Act. 5. Coming to the merit of the appeal, Shri G. Baskar, t…

Rmg Benefit Fund Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle 2 (1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 633/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.628, 629, 630, 631, 632, 633 & 634/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2014-15 M/S Rmg Benefit Fund Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of No.38, Jeenis Road, V. Income Tax, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015. Central Circle – 2(1), Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aaacr 5172 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271D

…ing proceeding under Section 271D of the Act. The notice was, in fact, issued by the Additional Commissioner only on 28.10.2016. Referring to the 5 I.T.A. Nos.628 to 634/Chny/18 judgment of Delhi High Court in Principal CIT v. Mahesh Wood Products (P.) Ltd. (394 ITR 312), the Ld.counsel submitted that the limitation period has to be computed from the date of letter written by the Assessing Officer, i.e. on 23.09.2016. Therefore, according to the Ld. counsel, it is beyond the period of limitation provided for passing the order under Section 271D of the Act. 5. Coming to the merit of the appeal, Shri G. Baskar, t…

Rmg Benefit Fund Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle 2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 632/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.628, 629, 630, 631, 632, 633 & 634/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2014-15 M/S Rmg Benefit Fund Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of No.38, Jeenis Road, V. Income Tax, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015. Central Circle – 2(1), Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aaacr 5172 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271D

…ing proceeding under Section 271D of the Act. The notice was, in fact, issued by the Additional Commissioner only on 28.10.2016. Referring to the 5 I.T.A. Nos.628 to 634/Chny/18 judgment of Delhi High Court in Principal CIT v. Mahesh Wood Products (P.) Ltd. (394 ITR 312), the Ld.counsel submitted that the limitation period has to be computed from the date of letter written by the Assessing Officer, i.e. on 23.09.2016. Therefore, according to the Ld. counsel, it is beyond the period of limitation provided for passing the order under Section 271D of the Act. 5. Coming to the merit of the appeal, Shri G. Baskar, t…

Rmg Benefit Fund Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle 2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 631/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.628, 629, 630, 631, 632, 633 & 634/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2014-15 M/S Rmg Benefit Fund Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of No.38, Jeenis Road, V. Income Tax, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015. Central Circle – 2(1), Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aaacr 5172 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271D

…ing proceeding under Section 271D of the Act. The notice was, in fact, issued by the Additional Commissioner only on 28.10.2016. Referring to the 5 I.T.A. Nos.628 to 634/Chny/18 judgment of Delhi High Court in Principal CIT v. Mahesh Wood Products (P.) Ltd. (394 ITR 312), the Ld.counsel submitted that the limitation period has to be computed from the date of letter written by the Assessing Officer, i.e. on 23.09.2016. Therefore, according to the Ld. counsel, it is beyond the period of limitation provided for passing the order under Section 271D of the Act. 5. Coming to the merit of the appeal, Shri G. Baskar, t…