Shanbhag Restaurant v. DCIT

266 ITR 393High Court2004#15554 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 269TSection 271ESection 44ABSection 254Section 263

Issues it is cited on

section 269tsection 271esection 269section 44absection 133alevy of penaltygenuineness of the transactionsection 154section 263section 26incriminating materialsearch and seizure

Judgments citing Shanbhag Restaurant v. DCIT

MENACHERY ANTONY JOS,PALAKKAD vs. JCIT, PALAKKAD RANGE, PALAKKAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 298/COCH/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 263Section 271ESection 44A

…of Sunilkumar Goel (supra). It is further submitted that the penalty proceedings are bad in law as the proceedings are barred by limitation placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Shanbhag Restaurant v. DCIT [2004] 266 ITR 393. 8. On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR submits that no interference is called for. 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The issue that arises for our determination is whether the CIT(A) was right in law in confirming the levy of penalty u/s. 271E of the Act having regard to the fact of the case.…

MENACHERY ANTONY JOS,PALAKKAD vs. JCIT, PALAKKAD RANGE, PALAKKAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 297/COCH/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 263Section 271ESection 44A

…of Sunilkumar Goel (supra). It is further submitted that the penalty proceedings are bad in law as the proceedings are barred by limitation placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Shanbhag Restaurant v. DCIT [2004] 266 ITR 393. 8. On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR submits that no interference is called for. 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The issue that arises for our determination is whether the CIT(A) was right in law in confirming the levy of penalty u/s. 271E of the Act having regard to the fact of the case.…

MENACHERY ANTONY JOS,PALAKKAD vs. JCIT, PALAKKAD RANGE, PALAKKAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 296/COCH/2025[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 263Section 271ESection 44A

…of Sunilkumar Goel (supra). It is further submitted that the penalty proceedings are bad in law as the proceedings are barred by limitation placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Shanbhag Restaurant v. DCIT [2004] 266 ITR 393. 8. On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR submits that no interference is called for. 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The issue that arises for our determination is whether the CIT(A) was right in law in confirming the levy of penalty u/s. 271E of the Act having regard to the fact of the case.…

MENACHERY ANTONY JOS,PALAKKAD vs. JCIT, PALAKKAD RANGE, PALAKKAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 295/COCH/2025[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 263Section 271ESection 44A

…of Sunilkumar Goel (supra). It is further submitted that the penalty proceedings are bad in law as the proceedings are barred by limitation placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Shanbhag Restaurant v. DCIT [2004] 266 ITR 393. 8. On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR submits that no interference is called for. 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The issue that arises for our determination is whether the CIT(A) was right in law in confirming the levy of penalty u/s. 271E of the Act having regard to the fact of the case.…

MENACHERY ANTONY JOS,PALAKKAD vs. JCIT, PALAKKAD RANGE, PALAKKAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 294/COCH/2025[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 263Section 271ESection 44A

…of Sunilkumar Goel (supra). It is further submitted that the penalty proceedings are bad in law as the proceedings are barred by limitation placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Shanbhag Restaurant v. DCIT [2004] 266 ITR 393. 8. On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR submits that no interference is called for. 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The issue that arises for our determination is whether the CIT(A) was right in law in confirming the levy of penalty u/s. 271E of the Act having regard to the fact of the case.…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SAHARA INDIA FINANCIAL CORPORATION LTD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the four cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3310/DEL/2009[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2016AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…62/Del/2014 Sahara India Financial corporation Limited V ACIT Co No :- 301 to 304/ Del/2009 and 251 to 258/del/2011 A Y 1993-94 , 1999-2000 to 2005-06 and 2009-10 Page 28 of 34 (b) CIT Vs Hissaria Brothers 291 ITR 244 (Raj.) (c) Shanbhag Restaurant vs DCIT, 266 ITR 393 (Karnataka); (d) CIT Vs NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation 305 ITR 137 (del.) 6. It is also submitted that although the decision of Special Bench of the Tribunal rendered in the case of Diwan Chand Amrit Lal Vs CIT 98 ITD 200 (Chd. S.B.) is against the assessee but as per this decision of the special bench of the Tribunal, the Tribunal decision r…

Shanbhag Restaurant v. DCIT (266 ITR 393) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax