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.

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 630/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

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 629/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

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 628/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

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…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Rishikesh Buildcon Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 3178/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Smt. Pramita Tripathy, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Saxena, Mrs. Sumangala Saxena, Advs
Section 144Section 269SSection 271D

…in 269 CTR 444. The Ld. Authorised Representative also placed reliance on another decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in 6 Assessment year 2006-07 the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax versus Mahesh Food Products Private Limited reported in 394 ITR 312 for the proposition that as per the scheme of section 275 (1) (c), limitation begins to run from the date on which the penalty proceedings were initiated. The Ld. Authorised Representative reiterated that since the penalty orders were passed beyond the limitation period, the same were void ab initio. 4. In response, the Ld. CIT DR submitted t…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Rupa Promoters Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 3171/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Smt. Pramita Tripathy, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Saxena, Mrs. Sumangala Saxena, Advs
Section 144Section 269SSection 271D

…in 269 CTR 444. The Ld. Authorised Representative also placed reliance on another decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in 6 Assessment year 2006-07 the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax versus Mahesh Food Products Private Limited reported in 394 ITR 312 for the proposition that as per the scheme of section 275 (1) (c), limitation begins to run from the date on which the penalty proceedings were initiated. The Ld. Authorised Representative reiterated that since the penalty orders were passed beyond the limitation period, the same were void ab initio. 4. In response, the Ld. CIT DR submitted t…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Rishikesh Properties Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 3150/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Smt. Pramita Tripathy, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Saxena, Mrs. Sumangala Saxena, Advs
Section 144Section 269SSection 271D

…in 269 CTR 444. The Ld. Authorised Representative also placed reliance on another decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in 6 Assessment year 2006-07 the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax versus Mahesh Food Products Private Limited reported in 394 ITR 312 for the proposition that as per the scheme of section 275 (1) (c), limitation begins to run from the date on which the penalty proceedings were initiated. The Ld. Authorised Representative reiterated that since the penalty orders were passed beyond the limitation period, the same were void ab initio. 4. In response, the Ld. CIT DR submitted t…