← All Phrases

“Section 275(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 275Section 275(1)152 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 275(1) is CIT v. Eli Lily & Co. (312 ITR 225), cited in 221 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 275(1)

CIT v. Eli Lily & Co.
312 ITR 225 · 2009 · Supreme Court
221
citing judgments

Section 195 of the Income Tax Act, which mandates tax withholding on payments to non-residents, applies only to sums that are otherwise chargeable to tax under the Act. Tax withholding provisions are not charging provisions.

CIT v. Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd.
261 ITR 275 · 2003 · Supreme Court
204
citing judgments

A liability recognized in accordance with the Accounting Standards prescribed by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) is an allowable expense for income tax purposes.

CIT v. Hissaria Bros.
291 ITR 244 · 2007 · High Court
132
citing judgments

Penalty proceedings for defaults under Sections 269SS and 269T are independent of assessment proceedings; therefore, the limitation period under Section 275(1)(c) for imposing such penalties is not contingent on the completion of appellate quantum proceedings.

Pr. CIT v. Golden Peace Hotels and Resorts (P) Ltd.
124 Taxmann.com 249 · 2021 · Supreme Court
105
citing judgments

A penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) is not sustainable if the notice issued under Section 274 fails to specifically mention whether the charge relates to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessing Officer must specify the exact charge for the penalty to be valid.

Sanjay Sawhney v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax
116 Taxmann.com 701 · 2020 · High Court
87
citing judgments

Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules allows a respondent to defend a favourable order of the CIT(A) by raising grounds decided against them, even without filing an appeal or cross-objection. Such issues can be raised orally and for the first time before the Tribunal.

Principal Commissioner of Income-tax\n(Central)-2 v. Mahesh Wood Products (P.) Ltd.
394 ITR 312 · 2017 · High Court
86
citing judgments

The date of initiation of penalty proceedings for the purpose of Section 275(1)(c) is when the Assessing Officer records a satisfaction or recommends penalty, not the later date when the Joint/Additional Commissioner of Income Tax issues the penalty notice.

CIT v. Hissaria Brothers
386 ITR 719 · 2016 · Supreme Court
68
citing judgments

The relevant date for determining the limitation period under Section 275(1)(c) for passing penalty orders under Sections 271D and 271E is the date of passing the assessment order.

CIT v. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills Ambala City
64 Taxmann.com 75 · 2015 · Supreme Court
49
citing judgments

For initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271D or 271E, the Assessing Officer must record satisfaction in the assessment order; non-recording of such satisfaction is fatal to the penalty.

Judgments citing Section 275(1)

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Gokul Kripa Colonizers & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 1169/JPR/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

action for imposition of penalty is initiated, whichever period expires later. In this case the limitation period is governed by clause (c) of Section 275(1). As per this section, the penalty order is to be passed before the end of the FY. in which the proceeding in the course ... Additional CIT issuing notice under Section 271-E of the Act. The Additional CIT ought to have been conscious of the limitation under Section 275 (1) (c). i.e., that no order of penalty could have been passed under Section 271-E after the expiry of the financial year in which

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Gokul Kripa Colonizers & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 1168/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

action for imposition of penalty is initiated, whichever period expires later. In this case the limitation period is governed by clause (c) of Section 275(1). As per this section, the penalty order is to be passed before the end of the FY. in which the proceeding in the course ... action for imposition of penalty is initiated, whichever period expires later. In this case the limitation period is governed by clause (c) of Section 275(1). As per this section, the penalty order is to be passed before the end of the FY. in which the proceeding in the course

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Gokul Kripa Colonizers & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

ITA 1167/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

action for imposition of penalty is initiated, whichever period expires later. In this case the limitation period is governed by clause (c) of Section 275(1). As per this section, the penalty order is to be passed before the end of the FY. in which the proceeding in the course ... Additional CIT issuing notice under Section 271-E of the Act. The Additional CIT ought to have been conscious of the limitation under Section 275 (1) (c). i.e., that no order of penalty could have been passed under Section 271-E after the expiry of the financial year in which

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Gokul Kripa Colonizers & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 1166/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

action for imposition of penalty is initiated, whichever period expires later. In this case the limitation period is governed by clause (c) of Section 275(1). As per this section, the penalty order is to be passed before the end of the FY. in which the proceeding in the course ... action for imposition of penalty is initiated, whichever period expires later. In this case the limitation period is governed by clause (c) of Section 275(1). As per this section, the penalty order is to be passed before the end of the FY. in which the proceeding in the course

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Gokul Kripa Colonizers & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 1165/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

action for imposition of penalty is initiated, whichever period expires later. In this case the limitation period is governed by clause (c) of Section 275(1). As per this section, the penalty order is to be passed before the end of the FY. in which the proceeding in the course ... Additional CIT issuing notice under Section 271-E of the Act. The Additional CIT ought to have been conscious of the limitation under Section 275 (1) (c). i.e., that no order of penalty could have been passed under Section 271-E after the expiry of the financial year in which

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Gokul Kripa Colonizers & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 1164/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

action for imposition of penalty is initiated, whichever period expires later. In this case the limitation period is governed by clause (c) of Section 275(1). As per this section, the penalty order is to be passed before the end of the FY. in which the proceeding in the course ... action for imposition of penalty is initiated, whichever period expires later. In this case the limitation period is governed by clause (c) of Section 275(1). As per this section, the penalty order is to be passed before the end of the FY. in which the proceeding in the course

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Gokul Kripa Colonizers & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 1162/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

action for imposition of penalty is initiated, whichever period expires later. In this case the limitation period is governed by clause (c) of Section 275(1). As per this section, the penalty order is to be passed before the end of the FY. in which the proceeding in the course ... action for imposition of penalty is initiated, whichever period expires later. In this case the limitation period is governed by clause (c) of Section 275(1). As per this section, the penalty order is to be passed before the end of the FY. in which the proceeding in the course

Commerzbank Ag, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3426/MUM/2025[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2025AY 2002-03
Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(a)

pure question of law as to whether the penalty order dated 27.10.2023 is hopelessly barred by limitation in terms of section 275(1)(a) of the Act. 2. The relevant facts lie within a narrow compass and are largely undisputed. The assessment under section 143(3) was completed ... order. 3. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee specifically contended that the penalty order was barred by limitation as prescribed under section 275(1)(a). The assessee relied upon Form No. 36 filed by the department itself in the quantum appeal, wherein the department had categorically mentioned that

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Sh. Ashwani Gupta, Jaipur

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1061/JPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Revenue Has Assailed The Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 In

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271D

action for imposition of penalty is initiated, whichever period expires later. In this case the limitation period is governed by clause (c) of Section 275(1). As per this section, the penalty order is to be passed before the end of the F.Y. in which the proceeding in the cause ... Additional CIT issuing notice under Section 271-E of the Act. The Additional CIT ought to have been conscious of the limitation under Section 275 (1) (c), i.e., that no order of penalty could have been passed under Section 271-E after the expiry of the financial year in which

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Ashwani Gupta, Jaipur

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1060/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Revenue Has Assailed The Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 In

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271D

action for imposition of penalty is initiated, whichever period expires later. In this case the limitation period is governed by clause (c) of Section 275(1). As per this section, the penalty order is to be passed before the end of the F.Y. in which the proceeding in the cause ... Additional CIT issuing notice under Section 271-E of the Act. The Additional CIT ought to have been conscious of the limitation under Section 275 (1) (c), i.e., that no order of penalty could have been passed under Section 271-E after the expiry of the financial year in which

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Sh. Ashwani Gupta, Jaipur

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1059/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Revenue Has Assailed The Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 In

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271D

action for imposition of penalty is initiated, whichever period expires later. In this case the limitation period is governed by clause (c) of Section 275(1). As per this section, the penalty order is to be passed before the end of the F.Y. in which the proceeding in the cause ... Additional CIT issuing notice under Section 271-E of the Act. The Additional CIT ought to have been conscious of the limitation under Section 275 (1) (c), i.e., that no order of penalty could have been passed under Section 271-E after the expiry of the financial year in which

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Sh. Ashwani Gupta, Jaipur

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1058/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Revenue Has Assailed The Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 In

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271D

action for imposition of penalty is initiated, whichever period expires later. In this case the limitation period is governed by clause (c) of Section 275(1). As per this section, the penalty order is to be passed before the end of the F.Y. in which the proceeding in the cause ... Additional CIT issuing notice under Section 271-E of the Act. The Additional CIT ought to have been conscious of the limitation under Section 275 (1) (c), i.e., that no order of penalty could have been passed under Section 271-E after the expiry of the financial year in which

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Sh. Ashwani Gupta, Jaipur

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1057/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Revenue Has Assailed The Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 In

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271D

action for imposition of penalty is initiated, whichever period expires later. In this case the limitation period is governed by clause (c) of Section 275(1). As per this section, the penalty order is to be passed before the end of the F.Y. in which the proceeding in the cause ... Additional CIT issuing notice under Section 271-E of the Act. The Additional CIT ought to have been conscious of the limitation under Section 275 (1) (c), i.e., that no order of penalty could have been passed under Section 271-E after the expiry of the financial year in which

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Jayapriya Company, Chennai

ITA 1899/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Oct 2025AY 2021-22
Section 132Section 269SSection 271D

Addl.CIT, levying penalty on 31.08.2023 submitted that the time limit for levying penalty u/s 271D of the Act is governed by Section 275(1)(c) of the Act, which reads as under:- “275(1) No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be passed ... initiated, whichever is later. According to the Ld. AR, it is not in dispute that, the date for the first limb (a) of Section 275(1)(c)works out to 31-03-2023 and that, the dispute relates to the second limb (b) viz., when does the six month period

Promila Singhal, New Delhi vs. ACIT Range 2(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5841/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 5841/Del/2024 (A.Y 2015-16) Promila Singhal, Vs Acit C/O.D-22, Second Floor, South Range (1)1 Extension, 1, Room No. 210, Income New Delhi Tax Office, Cgo Complex, Pan: Acqps3116D 1, Purani Hapur/Chungi, Ghaziabad Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Ashwani Taneja, Adv, Sh. Divyansh Dubey, Adv, Sh. Shivam Kukreja, Adv & Sh. Shantanu Jain, Adv Revenue By Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/08/2025

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271ESection 275(1)

1 Promila Singhal Vs. ACIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI [ DELHI BENCH : “A” NEW DELHI] BEFORE SHRI YOGESH

M/S Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 310/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR 5. Without prejudice to above the penalty order passed by AO is barred by limitation. This is because section 275(1)(a) which provides the time period within which the penalty can be imposed reads as under:- “275. (1) No order imposing a penalty under this ... further noted that once the Hon’ble ITAT passes the order the limitation period has to be determined with reference to section 275(1)(a) and not with the reference to the proviso to section 275(1)(a). Hence the penalty order should have been passed before 31.10.2018 and therefore

M/S Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated

ITA 309/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR 5. Without prejudice to above the penalty order passed by AO is barred by limitation. This is because section 275(1)(a) which provides the time period within which the penalty can be imposed reads as under:- “275. (1) No order imposing a penalty under this ... further noted that once the Hon'ble ITAT passes the order the limitation period has to be determined with reference to section 275(1)(a) and not with the reference to the proviso to section 275(1)(a). Hence the penalty order should have been passed before 31.10.2018 and therefore

DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Kolkata vs. Kailash Kumar Tibrewal, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is Allowed

ITA 627/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Altaf Hussain, DR
Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 275Section 275(1)(c)

expired on 31.03.2022. The present order imposing penalty was passed on 25.04.2022 which is clearly beyond the statutory time limit as prescribed in section 275(1)(c) of the Act and hence liable to be quashed. In addition to the above, The assessee also stated that Ld. AO had issued ... correct that the present order imposing penalty was passed on 25.04.2022 which is clearly beyond the statutory time limit as prescribed in section 275(1)(c) of the Act. In this regard, it is state that in the case of the assessee penalty order u/s. 271(1

DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Kolkata vs. Kailash Kumar Tibrewal, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is Allowed

ITA 626/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Altaf Hussain, DR
Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 275Section 275(1)(c)

expired on 31.03.2022. The present order imposing penalty was passed on 25.04.2022 which is clearly beyond the statutory time limit as prescribed in section 275(1)(c) of the Act and hence liable to be quashed. In addition to the above, The assessee also stated that Ld. AO had issued ... correct that the present order imposing penalty was passed on 25.04.2022 which is clearly beyond the statutory time limit as prescribed in section 275(1)(c) of the Act. In this regard, it is state that in the case of the assessee penalty order u/s. 271(1

3I Infotech Digital Bps Limited Formerly Known As 3I Infotech Bpo Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, 25(1), Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5196/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 271CSection 275(1)(c)

that the reference in the present case has been made by ACIT, Circle 76(1) on 10.10.2016 and as per the provision of section 275(1)(c), no order imposing of penalty under the provisions of the Act shall be passed beyond the six months from ... that the reference in the present case has been made by ACIT, Circle 76(1) on 10.10.2016 and as per the provision of section 275(1)(c), no order imposing of penalty under the provisions of the Act shall be passed beyond the six months from