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

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. National Standard India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6607/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271ESection 273BSection 275(1)

…xmi Vision vs Addll. CIT [ITA 83/2014] has held that the time period of section 275(1)(c) starts from the day when the Addll. CIT 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)© shall start from the date when the JCIT issues the notice. Therefore, following the recent judgment of Kerala High Court read with the CBDT'…

Reliance Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Large Taxpayer Unit, Mumbai

ITA 5073/MUM/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainreliance Industries Ltd. Maker Chambers, Iv, 3Rd Floor, 222,Nariman Point, ……………. Appellant Mumbai-400021 Pan-Aaacr5055K V/S

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri Jacinta Zimik Vashai-CIT-DR
Section 11Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 80H

….G.Diiir Vs DCIT 41 taxmann.com88, Hon’ble Allahabad High Court hove held that where delay in filing of appeal was due to negligence of assessee, application for condonation of delay was to be rejected. Also, in the case of Venkatesh Paper ST Boards vs, DCIT [98 ITD 200], the Hon’ble Chennai FIAT have held that for condonation of delay u/s,249(3), the appellant should have sufficient cause and has to prove that there has been diligence on its part and was not guilty of negligence whatsoever and further the cause for delay in filing appeal which by due care and attention could have been avoided cannot be sufficien…

ITO, Virudhunagar vs. S.Arun Kumar, Rajapalayam

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

ITA 95/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddy

For Appellant: Shri. K. Ravi, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Ms. S. Vidya, CA
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271D

…of penalty proceedings under section 271D is prescribed under the Income-tax Act 1961. 4.4 The ld. Departmental Representative had also placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble IT AT, Chandigarh in the case of Dewan Chand Amrit Lal Vs DCIT dated 03.11.2015(98 ITD 200) wherein it was held that the legislature has consciously not prescribed any limitation for initiation of penalty proceedings under sections 271D and 271E and there was neither any necessity nor the tribunal is empowered to prescribe any limitation for initiation of penalty proceedings under sections 271D and 271 E in interpreting the provisions.…

The ACIT, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Raghubhai B.Vaghela, Ahmedabad

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is also allowed

ITA 1036/AHD/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradsn It(Ss)A/Ita No. Ay Appellant Respondent 2004-05 Acit, Shri Raghubhai B. Vaghela, 1034/Ahd/2013 Central Circle 1 (4), 8, Riddhi Siddhi Bunglows, Ahmedabad Sanand, Ahmedabad-382210 Pan : Afgpv 8496 N 2009-10 Revenue Assessee 1035/Ahd/2013 2010-11 Revenue Assessee 1036/Ahd/2013 4 It(Ss)A No. 2004-05 Assessee Revenue 153/Ahd/2014 5 It(Ss)A No. 2009-10 Assessee Revenue 154/Ahd/2014 6 It(Ss)A No. 2010-11 Assessee Revenue 155/Ahd/2014 7 It(Ss)A No. 2004-05 Assessee Revenue 36/Ahd/2016 8 It(Ss)A No. 2005-06 Assessee Revenue 37/Ahd/2016 9 It(Ss)A No. 2009-10 Assessee Revenue 38/Ahd/2016 10 It(Ss)A No. 2010-11 Assessee Revenue 39/Ahd/2016 Revenue By : Ms. Vibha Bhalla, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Sakar Sharma, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/05/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/05/2017 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench :

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vibha Bhalla, CIT-DR

…ollen Mills vs. ACIT, vide order dated 26.11.2012 has rejected the condonation application of the assessee, by relying on various judgments in the cases of viz. P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, AIR 1998 SC 2276; Sri Venkatesa Paper & Boards Ltd vs. DCIT, 98 ITD 200; Vinay Extraction (P) Ltd vs. Vijay Khanna [2004] 271 ITR 450 (Guj), Nihalkaran vs. CWT [1989] 175 ITR 14 etc. The ITA Nos.1034to1036 Ahd 13, ITSS 153to155 Ahd 14 & ITSS 36to39 of 16- Assessee- Raghubhai B. Vaghela AY : 2004-0, 2009-10 & 2010-11 - 5 – relevant finding of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Shree Balaji Woollen Mills (supra) is repro…

The ACIT, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Raghubhai B.Vaghela, Ahmedabad

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is also allowed

ITA 1035/AHD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradsn It(Ss)A/Ita No. Ay Appellant Respondent 2004-05 Acit, Shri Raghubhai B. Vaghela, 1034/Ahd/2013 Central Circle 1 (4), 8, Riddhi Siddhi Bunglows, Ahmedabad Sanand, Ahmedabad-382210 Pan : Afgpv 8496 N 2009-10 Revenue Assessee 1035/Ahd/2013 2010-11 Revenue Assessee 1036/Ahd/2013 4 It(Ss)A No. 2004-05 Assessee Revenue 153/Ahd/2014 5 It(Ss)A No. 2009-10 Assessee Revenue 154/Ahd/2014 6 It(Ss)A No. 2010-11 Assessee Revenue 155/Ahd/2014 7 It(Ss)A No. 2004-05 Assessee Revenue 36/Ahd/2016 8 It(Ss)A No. 2005-06 Assessee Revenue 37/Ahd/2016 9 It(Ss)A No. 2009-10 Assessee Revenue 38/Ahd/2016 10 It(Ss)A No. 2010-11 Assessee Revenue 39/Ahd/2016 Revenue By : Ms. Vibha Bhalla, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Sakar Sharma, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/05/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/05/2017 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench :

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vibha Bhalla, CIT-DR

…ollen Mills vs. ACIT, vide order dated 26.11.2012 has rejected the condonation application of the assessee, by relying on various judgments in the cases of viz. P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, AIR 1998 SC 2276; Sri Venkatesa Paper & Boards Ltd vs. DCIT, 98 ITD 200; Vinay Extraction (P) Ltd vs. Vijay Khanna [2004] 271 ITR 450 (Guj), Nihalkaran vs. CWT [1989] 175 ITR 14 etc. The ITA Nos.1034to1036 Ahd 13, ITSS 153to155 Ahd 14 & ITSS 36to39 of 16- Assessee- Raghubhai B. Vaghela AY : 2004-0, 2009-10 & 2010-11 - 5 – relevant finding of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Shree Balaji Woollen Mills (supra) is repro…

The ACIT, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Raghubhai B.Vaghela, Ahmedabad

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is also allowed

ITA 1034/AHD/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 May 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradsn It(Ss)A/Ita No. Ay Appellant Respondent 2004-05 Acit, Shri Raghubhai B. Vaghela, 1034/Ahd/2013 Central Circle 1 (4), 8, Riddhi Siddhi Bunglows, Ahmedabad Sanand, Ahmedabad-382210 Pan : Afgpv 8496 N 2009-10 Revenue Assessee 1035/Ahd/2013 2010-11 Revenue Assessee 1036/Ahd/2013 4 It(Ss)A No. 2004-05 Assessee Revenue 153/Ahd/2014 5 It(Ss)A No. 2009-10 Assessee Revenue 154/Ahd/2014 6 It(Ss)A No. 2010-11 Assessee Revenue 155/Ahd/2014 7 It(Ss)A No. 2004-05 Assessee Revenue 36/Ahd/2016 8 It(Ss)A No. 2005-06 Assessee Revenue 37/Ahd/2016 9 It(Ss)A No. 2009-10 Assessee Revenue 38/Ahd/2016 10 It(Ss)A No. 2010-11 Assessee Revenue 39/Ahd/2016 Revenue By : Ms. Vibha Bhalla, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Sakar Sharma, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/05/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/05/2017 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench :

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vibha Bhalla, CIT-DR

…ollen Mills vs. ACIT, vide order dated 26.11.2012 has rejected the condonation application of the assessee, by relying on various judgments in the cases of viz. P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, AIR 1998 SC 2276; Sri Venkatesa Paper & Boards Ltd vs. DCIT, 98 ITD 200; Vinay Extraction (P) Ltd vs. Vijay Khanna [2004] 271 ITR 450 (Guj), Nihalkaran vs. CWT [1989] 175 ITR 14 etc. The ITA Nos.1034to1036 Ahd 13, ITSS 153to155 Ahd 14 & ITSS 36to39 of 16- Assessee- Raghubhai B. Vaghela AY : 2004-0, 2009-10 & 2010-11 - 5 – relevant finding of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Shree Balaji Woollen Mills (supra) is repro…

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

…(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 rendered in the case of Hissaria Brothers Vs DCIT as reported in 73 TTJ 2 (Jodhpur) was disapproved but this very decision of Jodhpur Bench of the Tribunal was upheld by the Rajasthan High Court as per the judgement reported in…

N.G. Group, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 22(3)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2329/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosain: (A.Y : 2009-10)

For Appellant: Ritika AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar
Section 269TSection 271ESection 274

…ssed on 28.2.2014 when the benefit of Lodha’s ratio was not available. 7. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities and contended that the decision of ITAT Special Bench in the 6 M/s. N.G. Group case of Dewanchand Amrit Lal (98 ITD 200) is applicable, wherein it was held that limitation for passing order u/s. 271 is to be with reference to the date of notice issued by JCIT and not from the date of notice issued by the AO. Accordingly, penalty imposed was well in time. He further contended that repayment of deposit by bearer cheques are in violation of Sec. 269T, therefore, the A…