← 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)

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 617/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

date on which reference was made by the DDIT(Inv.) to the AO was 18.03.2016. If limitation is counted in accordance with section 275(1)(c) then the penalties were required to be levied by 30th September 2016. In the case of the appellant the penalties have ITAs No.611 ... independent of assessment proceedings. The Hon’ble Court held that; “On such penalty proceedings, independent of the assessment proceedings, clause (c) of section 275(1) has been made applicable. In this category, the period of limitation for completing the penalty proceedings is linked with the initiation of the penalty proceedings

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 616/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

date on which reference was made by the DDIT(Inv.) to the AO was 18.03.2016. If limitation is counted in accordance with section 275(1)(c) then the penalties were required to be levied by 30th September 2016. In the case of the appellant the penalties have ITAs No.611 ... independent of assessment proceedings. The Hon’ble Court held that; “On such penalty proceedings, independent of the assessment proceedings, clause (c) of section 275(1) has been made applicable. In this category, the period of limitation for completing the penalty proceedings is linked with the initiation of the penalty proceedings

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 615/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

date on which reference was made by the DDIT(Inv.) to the AO was 18.03.2016. If limitation is counted in accordance with section 275(1)(c) then the penalties were required to be levied by 30th September 2016. In the case of the appellant the penalties have ITAs No.611 ... independent of assessment proceedings. The Hon’ble Court held that; “On such penalty proceedings, independent of the assessment proceedings, clause (c) of section 275(1) has been made applicable. In this category, the period of limitation for completing the penalty proceedings is linked with the initiation of the penalty proceedings

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 614/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

date on which reference was made by the DDIT(Inv.) to the AO was 18.03.2016. If limitation is counted in accordance with section 275(1)(c) then the penalties were required to be levied by 30th September 2016. In the case of the appellant the penalties have ITAs No.611 ... independent of assessment proceedings. The Hon’ble Court held that; “On such penalty proceedings, independent of the assessment proceedings, clause (c) of section 275(1) has been made applicable. In this category, the period of limitation for completing the penalty proceedings is linked with the initiation of the penalty proceedings

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 613/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

date on which reference was made by the DDIT(Inv.) to the AO was 18.03.2016. If limitation is counted in accordance with section 275(1)(c) then the penalties were required to be levied by 30th September 2016. In the case of the appellant the penalties have ITAs No.611 ... independent of assessment proceedings. The Hon’ble Court held that; “On such penalty proceedings, independent of the assessment proceedings, clause (c) of section 275(1) has been made applicable. In this category, the period of limitation for completing the penalty proceedings is linked with the initiation of the penalty proceedings

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 612/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

date on which reference was made by the DDIT(Inv.) to the AO was 18.03.2016. If limitation is counted in accordance with section 275(1)(c) then the penalties were required to be levied by 30th September 2016. In the case of the appellant the penalties have ITAs No.611 ... independent of assessment proceedings. The Hon’ble Court held that; “On such penalty proceedings, independent of the assessment proceedings, clause (c) of section 275(1) has been made applicable. In this category, the period of limitation for completing the penalty proceedings is linked with the initiation of the penalty proceedings

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 611/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

date on which reference was made by the DDIT(Inv.) to the AO was 18.03.2016. If limitation is counted in accordance with section 275(1)(c) then the penalties were required to be levied by 30th September 2016. In the case of the appellant the penalties have ITAs No.611 ... independent of assessment proceedings. The Hon’ble Court held that; “On such penalty proceedings, independent of the assessment proceedings, clause (c) of section 275(1) has been made applicable. In this category, the period of limitation for completing the penalty proceedings is linked with the initiation of the penalty proceedings

Manisha Vikrant Shah, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 12(1) Pune, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1148/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri C.V. DespandeFor Respondent: Shri Pawan Bharati
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 27Section 271DSection 275(1)(c)

lower authorities have gravely erred in levying penalty under section 271D since the penalty has been levied beyond the period mention in Section 275(1)(c) and hence the penalty is time barred. 5. The appellant would like to leave, add, alter, amend, modify, delete, above grounds of appeal before ... plea of assessee that the penalty is barred by limitation. The period of limitation has to be computed as per the provisions of section 275(1)(c) of the Act. The facts in this regard are not in dispute. The relevant assessment in the course of which action for imposition

Srinivasan Jauaprakasam, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(6), Salem

ITA 1186/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman,F.C.A ""For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 250Section 269SSection 271DSection 274Section 275(1)(c)

additional grounds:- “1. That the impugned penalty order dated 21.03.2022 passed by the Ld.AO, NFAC is clearly barred by limitation in terms of section 275(1)(c) of the Act and therefore the same deserves to be quashed. 2. In raising the above additional ground the appellant relies ... violation of provisions of section 269SS of the Act was issued on 04.01.2021. The ld.AR stated that as per the provisions of section 275(1)(c) of the Act, penalty order should have been passed within six months from the end of the month in which penalty proceedings were initiated

ITO, Ward- 76(1), New Delhi vs. Turner General Entertainment Networks India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6597/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey & Sh. M. Balaganeshito Vs. Turner General Ward – 76(1) Entertainment Networks New Delhi India Pvt. Ltd., 5Th Floor, Radisson Commercial Plaza, National Highway-8, Mahipalpur – 26, Pan No. Aaccn 3434 E New Delhi- 110 037 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Manuj Sabharwal, Adv. Ms. Shalini, Adv. Shri Sudip Loth, Adv. Revenue By Shri Daya Inder Singh Sidhu, Cit- D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2024 Order Per M. Balaganesh: 1. This Appeal In Ita No.6597/Del/2017 For A.Y. 2011-12 Arises Out Of The Order By Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 41, New Delhi In Appeal No. 289/16-17 Dated 16.08.2017 (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld Cit(A) In Short) Against The Penalty Order U/S 271C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred 2

Section 143(3)Section 271CSection 275(1)(c)

whether the penalty order passed u/s 271C of the Act by the ld. JCIT on 25.02.2016 would be barred by limitation as per section 275(1)(c) of the Act. For the sake of convenience, the relevant dates are reproduced herein below:- Completion of assessment ... JCIT (TDS) - 04.08.2015 Date of Passing of Penalty Order u/s 271C of - 25.2.2016 the Act by JCIT (TDS) 4. As per provisions of section 275(1)(c) of the Act, we find that there are two distinct periods of limitation for passing of penalty order is provided and one that

DCIT, Centralcircle-2(2), Chennai vs. Subramaniam Thanu, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

ITA 788/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

For Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 271E

supra). The date on which the AO recommended the initiation of penalty proceedings was taken to be the relevant date as far as Section 275(1)(c) was concerned. There was no explanation for the delay of nearly five years in the ACIT acting on the said recommendation. The Court ... held that the starting point would be the 'initiation' of penalty proceedings. Given the scheme of Section 275(1)(c) it would be the date on which the AO wrote a letter to the 4CIT recommending the issuance of the SCN. While it is true that the ACIT

DCIT, Centralcircle-2(2), Chennai vs. Subramaniam Thanu, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

ITA 787/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

For Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 271E

supra). The date on which the AO recommended the initiation of penalty proceedings was taken to be the relevant date as far as Section 275(1)(c) was concerned. There was no explanation for the delay of nearly five years in the ACIT acting on the said recommendation. The Court ... held that the starting point would be the 'initiation' of penalty proceedings. Given the scheme of Section 275(1)(c) it would be the date on which the AO wrote a letter to the 4CIT recommending the issuance of the SCN. While it is true that the ACIT

DCIT, Centralcircle-2(2), Chennai vs. Subramaniam Thanu, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

ITA 786/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

For Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 271E

supra). The date on which the AO recommended the initiation of penalty proceedings was taken to be the relevant date as far as Section 275(1)(c) was concerned. There was no explanation for the delay of nearly five years in the ACIT acting on the said recommendation. The Court ... held that the starting point would be the 'initiation' of penalty proceedings. Given the scheme of Section 275(1)(c) it would be the date on which the AO wrote a letter to the 4CIT recommending the issuance of the SCN. While it is true that the ACIT

DCIT, Centralcircle-2(2), Chennai vs. Subramaniam Thanu, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

ITA 785/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

For Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 271E

supra). The date on which the AO recommended the initiation of penalty proceedings was taken to be the relevant date as far as Section 275(1)(c) was concerned. There was no explanation for the delay of nearly five years in the ACIT acting on the said recommendation. The Court ... held that the starting point would be the 'initiation' of penalty proceedings. Given the scheme of Section 275(1)(c) it would be the date on which the AO wrote a letter to the 4CIT recommending the issuance of the SCN. While it is true that the ACIT

Kamal Enterprises and New Life Hospital, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-9(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 17/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR
Section 24Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

learned Assessing Officer became functus officio and he has no jurisdiction to pass the second penalty order beyond the period prescribed under section 275(1) of the Act. Page 4 of 7 9. Lastly, it is an established principle of law that law does not bar or prohibit an assessee

Paramount Villas Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, Range-76, New Delhi

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

ITA 3446/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshparamount Villas Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Jcit, 208, Second Floor, Sikkha Range-76, Mansion Lsc, Savita New Delhi Vihar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aagcm6447E

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 272(2)(g)Section 272A(2)(g)Section 275(1)

whether the penalty order passed on 27.5.2016 by the ld. JCIT would be barred by limitation within the meaning of provisions of section 275(1)(c ) of the Act. 7. Now the dispute to be resolved is that whether the limitation would have to be reckoned from 2.6.2015 (being ... JCIT on 29/11/2017 is within the time prescribed under the statute. For this purpose, it would be relevant to reproduce the provisions of section 275(1) of the Act:- 275. 15[(1)] No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be passed— Paramount Villas

Summit Online Trade Solutions Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Cetral Circle 1 (3), Chennai

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 648/CHNY/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Feb 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar,(JCIT) –Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘सी’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी मनोज कुमार

Sh. Ashok Kumar Porwal, Jhalawar vs. JCIT, Range-1, Kota

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 572/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 269SSection 271D

271D is independent of assessment proceedings and thus the limitation for levy of penalty u/s 271D would be governed by clause (c) of section 275(1). This clause provides that no order imposing the penalty shall be passed after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings ... penalty u/s 27ID is independent of assessment proceedings. We were of the considered view that assessee is bared by limitation and governed by section 275(1)(C) and it cannot be linked with 27ID because section 271 D is independent section where 1st limb of section in not applicable

Sunil Dandriyal, Dehradun vs. JCIT, Central Range, Meerut

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

ITA 8070/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 246Section 246ASection 253Section 263Section 264Section 269SSection 271DSection 275(1)

JCIT on 29/11/2017 is within the time prescribed under the statute. For this purpose, it would be relevant to reproduce the provisions of section 275(1) of the Act:- 275. 15[(1)] No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be passed— 16[(a) in a case where ... penalty is initiated expired on 30/09/2017. Accordingly, the penalty order framed on 29/11/2017 would become barred by limitation as per provisions of section 275(1)(c) of the Act. 5. Our aforesaid view is further fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT

Sunil Dandrayal, Dehradun vs. JCIT, Central Range, Meerut

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

ITA 8069/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 246Section 246ASection 253Section 263Section 264Section 269SSection 271DSection 275(1)

JCIT on 29/11/2017 is within the time prescribed under the statute. For this purpose, it would be relevant to reproduce the provisions of section 275(1) of the Act:- 275. 15[(1)] No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be passed— 16[(a) in a case where ... penalty is initiated expired on 30/09/2017. Accordingly, the penalty order framed on 29/11/2017 would become barred by limitation as per provisions of section 275(1)(c) of the Act. 5. Our aforesaid view is further fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT