Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) PTE Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) & Ors.

Q: How many judgments cite Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) PTE Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) & Ors.?

29 judgments on BharatTax cite Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) PTE Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) & Ors. (443 ITR 186), spanning 2023 to 2026.

Q: Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) PTE Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) & Ors. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 270A, Section 143(3), Section 270AA, Section 270A(8), Section 270A(9), Section 274.

443 ITR 186High Court2022#4055 most cited

What is Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) PTE Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) & Ors. authority for?

Penalty under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be imposed if the Assessing Officer fails to specify which clause under Section 270A(9) applies and fails to show cause to the assessee accordingly. Strict adherence to the conditions of Section 270A is mandatory for its applicability.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) PTE Ltd. · Section 270A · Section 270A(9) · Section 270A(8) · mis-reporting of income · under-reporting of income · penalty proceedings · show cause notice · AO failure · invalid proceedings

Sections most often in play

Section 270A Section 143(3)Section 270AA Section 270A(8)Section 270A(9)Section 274 Section 133A Section 143(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 270a(8)section 270a(2)(a)section 270a(9)(a)section 270a(9)section 270a(2)section 270a(1)section 115jc immunity under section 270aa section 270aa mis-reporting of income section 270a(6)(a)under-reporting of income

Judgments citing Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) PTE Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) & Ors.

Shri Shivaji Dattatray Sonawane, Nashik vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Nashik

ITA 708/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, JCIT

Section 270ASection 270A(8)Section 270A(9)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.Nos.708 & 1089/PUN./2023 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Shri Shivaji Dattatray The Income Tax Officer, Sonawane, Sonawane Ward – 2 (1), Kendriya Mala, Samangaon Road, vs. Rajasva Bhavan, Gadkari Sinnar Phata, Nashik Chowk, Old Agra Road, Road, Nashik – 422 101. Nashik – 422 002. Maharashtra. Maharashtra PAN ACAPS3868A (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Sanket Joshi For Revenue : Shri Sourabh Nayak, JCIT Date of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date of…

Shri Shivaji Dattatray Sonawane, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Nashik

ITA 1089/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, JCIT

Section 270ASection 270A(8)Section 270A(9)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur vs. Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd., Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 3/RPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2 & 3/Rpr/2023 Co Nos. 19 & 20/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K Meena, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)

…penalty under the aforesaid statutory provision. The Ld. AR, to fortify his aforesaid claim, had drawn support from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Schneider CO Nos. 19 & 20/RPR/2023 Electric South East Asia (HQ) PTE Vs. ACIT (2022) 443 ITR 186 (Delhi) and orders of the Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunals, viz., (i) M/s. Alrameez Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (NFAC) (2023) 202 ITD 379 (Mum); (ii) Kishor Digambar Patil Vs. ITO, ITA Nos,54 & 55/PUN/2023 dated 30.03.2023; and (iii) Saltwater Studio LLP Vs. NFAC (2023) 68 CCH 113 (Mum). The Ld. AR took us through the relevant observations…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur vs. Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd., Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 2/RPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K Meena, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)

Sri Harikuttan T, Kayamkulam vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2, Alleppey

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

ITA 885/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember Harikuttan T. The Income Tax Officer (2) 1, Edayilaveetil Tharayil Aayakar Bhavan Njakkanal P.O., Pathiyoor Vs. Alappuzha Co0Llectorate Kayalmulam 690533 Alappuzha 688011 [Pan:Alrpt7536J] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri M.S. Venkitachalam, Ca Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing:08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement:03.11.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By Assessee Challenging The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Vide Order Dated 17/02/2022, By The First Appellate Authority, Being The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nfac [Cit(A)] Vide It’S Order Dated 06.07.2022. 2.1 The Brief Background Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Retired Defence Personnel, Is A Registered Money Lender Under The Kerala Money Lenders Act (Kml Act), Lending Money On Interest Against Mortgage Of Loan. For The Relevant Year He Returned, Besides Pension, Income From This Business At Rs.2,05,691. On Verification, It Was Found By The Assessing Officer (Ao) That The Assessee Was Maintaining Six Bank Accounts, I.E., Three Each With Two Banks, Being South Indian Bank (Sib) & State Bank Of India (Sbi). Transactions With The Former Were Undisclosed. The Reason Explained Was That The Gold Pawned By His Customers With Him For Availing Loan, Was In Turn Mortgaged With This Bank To Source Funds For Further Lending. These

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Venkitachalam, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 270ASection 274Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, AccountantMemberand Shri Manomohan Das, JudicialMember Harikuttan T. The Income Tax Officer (2) 1, Edayilaveetil Tharayil Aayakar Bhavan Njakkanal P.O., Pathiyoor vs. Alappuzha Co0llectorate Kayalmulam 690533 Alappuzha 688011 [PAN:ALRPT7536J] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri M.S. Venkitachalam, CA Respondent by: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing:08.08.2023 Date of Pronouncement:03.11.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, AM This is an Appeal by Assessee challenging the confirmation of penalty levied under sec…

Lear India Engineering LLP, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune

ITA 890/PUN/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Sept 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Ms. Hirali Desai & Mr. HardikFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 270ASection 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 9

…me in consequence of mis-reporting, they have nowhere specified any of the statutory limbs in clauses (a) to (f) of sub-section 9 in Section 270A of the Act which is not sustainable in light of Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) Pte Ltd. vbs. ACIT (2022) 443 ITR 186 (Delhi). We therefore reject the Revenue’s vehement contentions supporting the impugned penalty. The assessee succeeds in its instant latter appeal ITA No.890/Pun./2023. Ordered accordingly. 4 ITA.No.870 & 890/PUN./2023 Lear india Engineering LLP 7. To sum up, the assessee’s former appeal ITA No.870/Pun./2023 is partly allowed and its latter app…

Lear India Engineeringllp, Pune vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Pune

ITA 870/PUN/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Sept 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Ms. Hirali Desai & Mr. HardikFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 270ASection 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 9

Parsben Jivanbhai Vadhiya, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -2(3), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse is allowed

ITA 47/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.47/Srt/2023 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Parasben Jivanbhai Vadhiya Deputy Commissioner Of 1, Village Budhaleshwar, Tal. Income-Tax, Circle-(3), Vs Mahuva, Surat-394250 Surat Pan No: Apvpv 0109 F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr Date Of Filing Appeal 25.01.2023 सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 06.03.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 06.03.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As “Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 05.01.2023 For Assessment Year 2017-18, Which In Turn Arises Out Against The Penalty Levied By Assessing Officer Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 26.11.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. On The Facts Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Nfac Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Officer In Imposing Penalty Of Rs.1,54,500/- U/S 270A Of The I.T.Act, 1961. Parasben J. Vadhiya 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals), Nfac Has Erred In Passing Ex-Parte Order Although Assessee Sought Adjournment Upto 12/01/2023. 3. It Is Therefore Prayed That Penalty Imposed By Assessing Officer & Confirmed By Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) May Please Be Deleted.

Section 139(1)Section 254(1)Section 270ASection 270A(2)Section 270A(6)Section 274Section 43B

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, सुरत "यायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT “SMC” BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अ.सं./ITA No.47/SRT/2023 (AY 2017-18) (Hearing in virtual Court) Parasben Jivanbhai Vadhiya Deputy Commissioner of 1, Village Budhaleshwar, Tal. Income-tax, Circle-(3), Vs Mahuva, Surat-394250 Surat PAN No: APVPV 0109 F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR Date of filing appeal 25.01.2023 सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing 06.03.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of 06.03.…

Okasi Ceramics, Perinthalmanna vs. ACIT, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 779/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 779/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. Shaji Poulose, CAFor Respondent: Shri. AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 144Section 270ASection 270A(8)Section 270A(9)

…ceedings have been initiated for misreporting . In all the notices preceding the levy of penalty only underreporting is stated and not misreporting. Kind attention is invited to decision in SCHEIDER ELECTRIC SOUTH EAST ASIA PRIVATE LIMITED V AAST C.I.T( 2022) 443 ITR 186( DELHI) wherein in similar circumstances penalty levied has been annulled. 1.2 I is submitted that Circular number 3/2017 dated 20/01/2017 states that provisions of section 270A is introduced for rationalizing of provisions and levy of penalty is not mandatory. 2. It is submitted that the findings in the assessment order is as under " 3. Determin…