Sri Venkatesa Paper & Boards Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Salary Circle-I, Coimbatore

98 ITD 200Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2006#4241 most cited

What is Sri Venkatesa Paper & Boards Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Salary Circle-I, Coimbatore authority for?

Recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer is a prerequisite for initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271. However, this requirement is not explicitly present for penalties under Sections 271D and 271E.

28

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Sri Venkatesa Paper & Boards Ltd. v. Dy. CIT · 98 ITD 200 · section 271 · section 271D · section 271E · penalty proceedings · recording of satisfaction · condition precedent · ITAT

Sections most often in play

Section 139 (Income Tax Act)Section 139(4)Section 142(1) (Income Tax Act)Section 143(2) (Income Tax Act)Section 143(3)Section 143(3) (Income Tax Act)Section 147 (Income Tax Act)Section 148 (Income Tax Act)

Issues it is cited on

section 275(1)(a)section 275(1)section 271aaasection 275(1)(c)section 269tsection 271esection 269ssection 249(3)section 275section 249(2)section 269section 269ss

Judgments citing Sri Venkatesa Paper & Boards Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Salary Circle-I, Coimbatore

Trident Sales Corporation, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward - 3(4), Gurgaon

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 70/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 5

…DR are: (i) Baroda Rayon Corporation Ltd. Gujarat 87 STC 266; (ii) Ramlal and others vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361; (iii) Agricultural Market Committee vs. ADIT in ITA No. 1275/Hyd/2022 decided on 10.02.2012; (iv) Sri Venkatesa Paper & Boards Ltd. 98 ITD 200 (Chennai); and (v) Prabhudas Kishoredas Tobacco Products P. Ltd., vs. DCIT 48 ITD 543 (Ahd.) 4. Submissions of both sides heard on the issue of condonation of delay, reasons given in the condonation application examined and case laws on which ld. DR has placed reliance considered. 5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition…

Celestial Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Ambalamugal vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Ernaluam

In the result, appeal is "Dismissed"

ITA 160/COCH/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhcelestial Infrastructure (P) Ltd. Dcit, Corporate Circle - 1(1) Aiswarya Towers Cr Building, Is Press Road Hoc Junction, Ambalamugal Vs. Kochi 682018 Ernakulam 682302 [Pan: Aaccc6737F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Thomas Thomas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 249Section 249(3)Section 250

…show reason for delay on the last date of limitation period and thereafter for each day. Further, condonation of delay is not a matter of right. Court has to exercise the discretionary Jurisdiction. 7.10 In the case of Sri Venkatesa Paper & Boards Ltd. [2006] 98 ITD 200, Hon'ble ITAT Chennai held that in granting indulgence and condoning delay, appellate authority must be satisfied that there had been diligence on part of appellant and it was not guilty of negligence. It is further held that sufficient cause within contemplation of provisions of section 249(3) must be a cause which is beyond control of party invo…

Romaa Housing Private Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment

ITA 1347/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1345 To 1346 & 1347/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 V. M/S.Romaa Housing Pvt. Ltd., The Addl.Cit, No.1/107 & 108, Agr Tower, Central Range-3, P.H.Road Nerkundram, Chennai. Chennai-600 107. [Pan: Aaecr 6992 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Lekha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. T.M. Suganthamala
Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 274Section 275(1)(c)

…nded that since the assessment order dt 5.8.2021 had not initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271D/E, he AO had no satisfaction to Initiate any penalty. 3.1 In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of the Special Bench of the ITAT, Chandigarh Bench in 98 ITD 200. The relevant portion of the decision is extracted below: "21. Another factor that deserves consideration is the requirement of recording of satisfaction in the course of any proceedings. When the language of provisions of Section 271 is compared with Section 271D/271E, the distinction is prominently visible. Under Section 271, recording of satis…

Romaa Housing Private Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment

ITA 1346/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1345 To 1346 & 1347/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 V. M/S.Romaa Housing Pvt. Ltd., The Addl.Cit, No.1/107 & 108, Agr Tower, Central Range-3, P.H.Road Nerkundram, Chennai. Chennai-600 107. [Pan: Aaecr 6992 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Lekha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. T.M. Suganthamala
Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 274Section 275(1)(c)

…nded that since the assessment order dt 5.8.2021 had not initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271D/E, he AO had no satisfaction to Initiate any penalty. 3.1 In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of the Special Bench of the ITAT, Chandigarh Bench in 98 ITD 200. The relevant portion of the decision is extracted below: "21. Another factor that deserves consideration is the requirement of recording of satisfaction in the course of any proceedings. When the language of provisions of Section 271 is compared with Section 271D/271E, the distinction is prominently visible. Under Section 271, recording of satis…

Romaa Housing Private Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment

ITA 1345/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1345 To 1346 & 1347/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 V. M/S.Romaa Housing Pvt. Ltd., The Addl.Cit, No.1/107 & 108, Agr Tower, Central Range-3, P.H.Road Nerkundram, Chennai. Chennai-600 107. [Pan: Aaecr 6992 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Lekha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. T.M. Suganthamala
Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 274Section 275(1)(c)

…nded that since the assessment order dt 5.8.2021 had not initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271D/E, he AO had no satisfaction to Initiate any penalty. 3.1 In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of the Special Bench of the ITAT, Chandigarh Bench in 98 ITD 200. The relevant portion of the decision is extracted below: "21. Another factor that deserves consideration is the requirement of recording of satisfaction in the course of any proceedings. When the language of provisions of Section 271 is compared with Section 271D/271E, the distinction is prominently visible. Under Section 271, recording of satis…

Farman Khan, Chaksu vs. Income-Tax Officer Ward 7(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 590/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CITa
Section 269Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

…DCIT vs Shri Gangadhara Murthy (ITA No. 2631, 2655 to 2637/Bang/2018 dated 20-09-2021 – ITAT Bang. Bench) 3. Dr. Sankaran Sundar vs ITO, Ward -2 (2)(7), Bangalore (ITA No. 572/Bang /2022 dated 21-09-2022 4. Dewan Chand Amrit Lal vs DCIT, Hisssar Range (2006) 98 ITD 200 (Chd. Special Bench). 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials on record including the case laws cited by the respective parties. In this case, it is noted that the AO imposed the penalty of Rs.24.70 lacs u/s 271D of the Act on the ground that the assessee has violated the provisions of Section 269SS by receiving cash of Rs.24.…

Srd Management Company, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-22(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1237/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R.Kumar[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Srd Management Company, Vs Dcit, 304, 3Rd Floor, 44 Deenar Circle-22(2), Bhawan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi-110019. Pan-Aamcs3799K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Bawa Kanwarjit Singh, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 01.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2023

…ence and inaction of the assessee which have been very well avoided by the exercise of due care and attention." 7 [Whether the appellant has proved that he was diligent and was not guilty of negligence?] In the case of Sri Venkatesa Paper & Boards Ltd. [2006) 98 ITD 200, Hon'ble ITAT Chennai held that in granting indulgence and condoning delay, appellate authority must be satisfied that there had been 'diligence on part of appellant and it was not guilty of negligence. It is further held that sufficient cause within contemplation of provisions of Section 249(3) must be a cause which is beyond control of party inv…

Mita Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addll. CIT - CC - 3, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1817/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2023AY 2014-15
Section 269TSection 271E

…sposal of appeals and therefore, it also implies that an enhancement of assessment/penalty by CIT(A) is also not bound by any limitation of time. This view is supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Special Bench of ITAT in the case of Dewan Chand Amrit Lal (98 ITD 200). The instant case Involves enhancement of penalty us. 271E which has already been levied by the Range-head. However, while levying this penalty u/s. 271E, the Range-head had only considered the violation made by the transferee company and not by the transferorfamalgamating companies prior to the amalgamation. The instant case is only of enlargeme…

Sun Combine, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-1, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 173/CHNY/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri A. Arjun Raj, CAFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT
Section 153ASection 271Section 271A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "संह, उपा"य" एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 170 & 171/CHNY/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008 – 09 & आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 172 & 173 /CHNY/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Sun Combine, The DCIT, 64, Balasundaram Road, vs. Central Circle-1, Near RTO Office, Coimbatore. Coimbatore – 641 018. PAN: AAEFS 6892A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by :…

Sun Combine, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-1, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 172/CHNY/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri A. Arjun Raj, CAFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT
Section 153ASection 271Section 271A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "संह, उपा"य" एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 170 & 171/CHNY/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008 – 09 & आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 172 & 173 /CHNY/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Sun Combine, The DCIT, 64, Balasundaram Road, vs. Central Circle-1, Near RTO Office, Coimbatore. Coimbatore – 641 018. PAN: AAEFS 6892A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by :…

Sun Combine, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-1, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 171/CHNY/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri A. Arjun Raj, CAFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT
Section 153ASection 271Section 271A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "संह, उपा"य" एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 170 & 171/CHNY/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008 – 09 & आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 172 & 173 /CHNY/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Sun Combine, The DCIT, 64, Balasundaram Road, vs. Central Circle-1, Near RTO Office, Coimbatore. Coimbatore – 641 018. PAN: AAEFS 6892A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by :…

Sun Combine, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-1, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 170/CHNY/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri A. Arjun Raj, CAFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT
Section 153ASection 271Section 271A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "संह, उपा"य" एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 170 & 171/CHNY/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008 – 09 & आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 172 & 173 /CHNY/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Sun Combine, The DCIT, 64, Balasundaram Road, vs. Central Circle-1, Near RTO Office, Coimbatore. Coimbatore – 641 018. PAN: AAEFS 6892A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by :…

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. Sanathanagar Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and all Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3143/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2021AY 2012-13
Section 271D

…axmi Vision vs Addll. CIT [ITA 83/2014] has held that the time period of section 275(1)(c) starts from the day when the Addl. GIT issues the notices. Identical view was taken by the Hon’ble Special Bench Chandigarh in the case of Dewan Chand Amritlal vs DCIT [98 ITD 200]. Subsequent to above order of the ITAT, the CBDT has also clarified the position vide circular dated 26.04.2016 bearing number 09/DV/2016 wherein the CBDT has stated that the period of limitation u/s 275(1)(c) shall start from the date when the JCIT issues the notice. Therefore, following the recent judgment of Kerala High Court read with the CBD…

Anish Metals P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(1), Mumbai

ITA 5474/MUM/2011[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2019AY 1999-00

Bench: Hon‟Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon‟Ble Sh. G. Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi & MsFor Respondent: Shri Satishchandra Rajore
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities and also rejoinder dated 21.01.19 containing judgments such as AKK Nambiar Vr.s Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 652, Kunal Sharma Vrs. ITO (36 taxmann.com 319), Shri Venkatesa Paper & Boards Ltd. Vrs. DCIT (2006) 98 ITD 200 (Chen) and Nihalkaran Vrs. CWT (1989) 175 ITR 14, etc. 7 I.T.A. No. 6274/Mum/2008 & 1093/Mum/10 & ITA No. 5474 & 5475/Mum/2011 M/s Anish Metals Pvt. Ltd. 10. We have heard the counsels for both the parties and we have also perused the material placed on record, judgments cited by the parties as well as the orders passed by revenue authorities. Af…

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

…ea that the date of initiation of penalty is the date on which the AO has communicated to the JCIT for imposition of penalty is on a misplaced presumption. Relying on the decision of Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Deewan Chandra Amritlal v. DCIT 98 ITD 200 (Chd) (SB) (2006), the CIT(A) observed that the period of limitation for purpose of section 275 is to be reckoned from the date when penalty proceedings are initiated by the Deputy Commissioner (now Joint Commissioner). Also discussing on merit, the CIT dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 5. Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee files…

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

…ea that the date of initiation of penalty is the date on which the AO has communicated to the JCIT for imposition of penalty is on a misplaced presumption. Relying on the decision of Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Deewan Chandra Amritlal v. DCIT 98 ITD 200 (Chd) (SB) (2006), the CIT(A) observed that the period of limitation for purpose of section 275 is to be reckoned from the date when penalty proceedings are initiated by the Deputy Commissioner (now Joint Commissioner). Also discussing on merit, the CIT dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 5. Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee files…

M/S M.D.Educational Society, Gurgaon vs. Addl.CIT (Exemption), Panchkula

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5000/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.D. Agarwal & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri T.R. Talwar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rinku Singh, Sr.D.R
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 269TSection 271ESection 275(1)(c)

…vide judgment and order dated 20th August, 2016 in Civil Appeal No.5252/2008. In so far as issue of limitation of penalty proceedings is concerned, she relied upon the decision of Special Bench, Chandigarh in the case of Dewan Chand Amrit Lal vs. DCIT, (2006) 98 ITD 200. On merits, she submitted that it was a clear cut case of repayment of loan in cash, and therefore, penalty u/s.271 E has rightly been levied. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and also perused the relevant findings given in the impugned orders. Here, in this case, Chairman of the Assessee Society, Sri Satbir Singh has given an advance of Rs…

ITO, Meerut vs. M/S. Pearson Chemicals Corporation, Meerut

The appeals of the department stand dismissed

ITA 1930/DEL/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. G.D. Agrawal & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Chander Mehra, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. Amir Jain, Sr. DR
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271Section 271DSection 271ESection 275Section 27I

…the course of assessment proceedings. It was submitted that such an interpretation would render the provisions ineffective. Reference was also made to an order of the Special Bench of ITAT, Chandigarh Bench in the case of Diwan Chand Amrit Lal reported in 98 ITD 200 (Chandigarh) (SB) wherein it was held that the object behind incorporation of sections 269SS and 269T was to counter attempts to circulate black money and if it was to be accepted that penalty proceedings are necessarily to be initiated in the course of assessment proceedings, then the object behind incorporation of Sections 269SS and 269T will…

ITO, Meerut vs. M/S. Pearson Chemicals Corporation, Meerut

The appeals of the department stand dismissed

ITA 1929/DEL/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. G.D. Agrawal & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Chander Mehra, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. Amir Jain, Sr. DR
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271Section 271DSection 271ESection 275Section 27I

…the course of assessment proceedings. It was submitted that such an interpretation would render the provisions ineffective. Reference was also made to an order of the Special Bench of ITAT, Chandigarh Bench in the case of Diwan Chand Amrit Lal reported in 98 ITD 200 (Chandigarh) (SB) wherein it was held that the object behind incorporation of sections 269SS and 269T was to counter attempts to circulate black money and if it was to be accepted that penalty proceedings are necessarily to be initiated in the course of assessment proceedings, then the object behind incorporation of Sections 269SS and 269T will…

Athashri Foundation, Mumbai vs. Asst DIT (E) -II(2), Mumbai

Appeal stand allowed

ITA 6590/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.6590/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12) Athashri Foundation Assistant Director Of Income Tax 101, Somnath, Cts No.988 [Exemption]-Ii(2) बनाम/ Ram Mandir Road, Piramal Chamber Vs. Vile Parle (E) Lalbaug Mumbai-400 057 Mumbai "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aaata-8602-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Revenueby : Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Ld.Dr Assessee By : Yogesh Thar & Hardik Nirmal, Ld.Ar’S सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 02/07/2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 11/07/2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Yogesh Thar & Hardik NirmalFor Respondent: Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Ld.DR
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 249(2)Section 25

…ITA No.6590/Mum/2016 Athashri Foundation Assessment Year-2011-12 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी सी .नाग" "साद, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.6590/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12) Athashri Foundation Assistant Director of Income Tax 101, Somnath, CTS No.988 [Exemption]-II(2) बनाम/ Ram Mandir Road, Piramal Chamber Vs. Vile Parle (E) Lalbaug Mumbai-400 057 Mumbai "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.AAATA-8602-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (…