Sait Bansilal & Rangisetti Veeranna v. Commissioner of Income Tax (83 ITR 750)

Msn Laboratories Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Addl. CIT, Central Range-2, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 2172/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 2164, 2165, 2171 & 2172/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2021-22) M/S. Msn Laboratories (P) Ltd Vs. Additional Cit Hyderabad Central Range-2 Pan:Aadcm6283F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per. Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate, But Identical Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad, All Dated 08/10/2025 For The A.Ys 2018-19 To 2021-22 Respectively. Since, Identical Issues Have Been Raised By The Assessee In All These Four Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Common Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 132Section 153ASection 269Section 271DSection 274

…s sole factor and sufficient evidences for levy of penalty. This legal principle is supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Sait Bansilal & Rangisetti Veeranna Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax - [1972] 83 ITR 750 (AP), wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that "Tax and Penalty, like tax and penal interest, are distinct and different concepts under the Act. Penalty is in addition to the tax determined as payable by the assessee. Penalty cannot be taken as additional tax for all purposes. The penalty and assessment proceedings are not one an…

Msn Laboratories Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Addl CIT, Central Range-2, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 2165/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 2164, 2165, 2171 & 2172/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2021-22) M/S. Msn Laboratories (P) Ltd Vs. Additional Cit Hyderabad Central Range-2 Pan:Aadcm6283F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per. Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate, But Identical Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad, All Dated 08/10/2025 For The A.Ys 2018-19 To 2021-22 Respectively. Since, Identical Issues Have Been Raised By The Assessee In All These Four Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Common Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 132Section 153ASection 269Section 271DSection 274

…s sole factor and sufficient evidences for levy of penalty. This legal principle is supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Sait Bansilal & Rangisetti Veeranna Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax - [1972] 83 ITR 750 (AP), wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that "Tax and Penalty, like tax and penal interest, are distinct and different concepts under the Act. Penalty is in addition to the tax determined as payable by the assessee. Penalty cannot be taken as additional tax for all purposes. The penalty and assessment proceedings are not one an…

Suwalka and Suwalka Properties and Builders Pvt Ltd, Kota, Rajasthan vs. ACIT, Central Cirlce, Kota, Rajasthan

ITA 302/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Him Challenging The 2 Suwalka & Suwalka Properties & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2019 Passed U/S.143(3)Of The Income Tax

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 115BSection 129Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68Section 69A

…not considered expressly or by necessary implication by the Assessing Officer at all. Such is the mandate of the decisions of various high courts such as in CIT v. National Co. Ltd. [1993] 199 ITR 445 (Cal), Sait Bansilal and Rangisetti Veeranna v. CIT [1972] 83 ITR 750 (AP), Sterling Construction & Trading Co. v. ITO [1975] 99 ITR 236 (Kar) and LokenathTolaram v. CIT [1986] 24 Taxman 486/161 ITR 82 (Bom). Hence issue no 11 enlisted in para no 13 of the order is decided in favour of the assessee. In view of our decision on issue no (i), issue no (ii) does not survive and issue no (iii) is dealt with separately. I…

Ramoji Rao (HUF), Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 815/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri V.Siva Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…estion as to whether the CIT(A) enhances assessee’s income by way of making altogether a new disallowance is found to be no more res integra in view of the CIT Vs. Shaporji Pallonji Mistry (1962) [44 ITR 891] (SC), Sait Bansilal and Raggisetti Veeranna (1972) 83 ITR 750 (AP), Gurvinder Mohan Singh Nindrajog (2012) [348 ITR 170] (Del), CIT Vs. Union Tyres 240 ITR 556 (Del) adjudicated the same in assessee’s favour and against the department. Their lordships hold that such an enhancement is restricted only to the additions made in the assessment only. We therefore direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned…

Ramoji Rao (HUF), Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 810/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri V.Siva Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…estion as to whether the CIT(A) enhances assessee’s income by way of making altogether a new disallowance is found to be no more res integra in view of the CIT Vs. Shaporji Pallonji Mistry (1962) [44 ITR 891] (SC), Sait Bansilal and Raggisetti Veeranna (1972) 83 ITR 750 (AP), Gurvinder Mohan Singh Nindrajog (2012) [348 ITR 170] (Del), CIT Vs. Union Tyres 240 ITR 556 (Del) adjudicated the same in assessee’s favour and against the department. Their lordships hold that such an enhancement is restricted only to the additions made in the assessment only. We therefore direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned…

M/S Ginni Goldlimited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 673/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Hiren Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…nsidered expressly or by necessary implication by the Assessing Officer at all. Such is the mandate of the decisions of various high courts such as in CIT vs. National Company Ltd. (1993) 199 ITR 445 (Cal), Sait Bansilal and Raggisetti Veeranna vs. CIT (1972) 83 ITR 750 (AP), Sterling Construction & Trading Co. vs. ITO (1975) 99 ITR 236 (Kar) and Lokenath Tolaram vs. CIT (1986) 50 CTR (Bom) 237 : (1986) 161 ITR 82 (Bom). Hence issue no 1 I enlisted in para no 13 of the order is decided in favour of the assessee. In view of our decision on issue no (i), issue no (ii) does not survive and issue no (iii) is dealt wi…

DCIT, Cir-5(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Proficient Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee in CO No

ITA 1346/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1346/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Ram Bilash Meena, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…Unless there are express provisions in the statute, there is no scope of effecting transfer of pending proceedings to the newly created jurisdiction. 6.4 However, Mr. Agarwal sought to rely upon the decision in SaitBansilal&RangisettiVeeranna vs. CIT (1972) 83 ITR 750 (AP) to contend that unless the statute contains words, whether expressly or by necessary implication, ousting the jurisdiction of the ITO once vested in him, the jurisdiction cannot be taken away. Nothing but express words in the section can take away the jurisdiction of an officer. That a presumption exists in law in favour of the continuance of…

Sait Bansilal & Rangisetti Veeranna v. Commissioner of Income Tax

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Sait Bansilal & Rangisetti Veeranna v. Commissioner of Income Tax