← 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)

Mass Awash Private Limited, Lucknow vs. Addi. CIT International Taxation, Noida

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 165/DEL/2021[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 156Section 195Section 201(1)Section 271C(1)(a)Section 275(1)(C)Section 275(1)(c)

facts and legal aspects of the case. 2. That penalty imposed is barred by time in terms of provisions of Section 275(1)(C). 3. That the penalty order is bad in law because penalty order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Noida is said ... penalty order and the order passed u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act. The contention of the appellant is that under Section 275(1)(c) of the Act, no order imposing penalty can be passed after expiry or financial year in which the proceedings in the course of which

Mass Awash Private Limited, Lucknow vs. Addi. CIT International Taxation, Noida

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 164/DEL/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 156Section 195Section 201(1)Section 271C(1)(a)Section 275(1)(C)Section 275(1)(c)

facts and legal aspects of the case. 2. That penalty imposed is barred by time in terms of provisions of Section 275(1)(C). 3. That the penalty order is bad in law because penalty order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Noida is said ... penalty order and the order passed u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act. The contention of the appellant is that under Section 275(1)(c) of the Act, no order imposing penalty can be passed after expiry or financial year in which the proceedings in the course of which

Jagdish Chandra Suwalka, Jaipur vs. JCIT, Range-7, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 376/JPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 44A

competent authority for imposition of penalty under section 271D or 271E. Therefore, the limitation for completion of penalty proceedings as provided under section 275(1)(c) has got to be computed from the date of issue of show-cause notice by the competent authority, which in the present case ... clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 275 cannot be attracted to such proceedings. If that were not so, clause (c) of section 275(1) would be redundant because otherwise, as a matter of fact every penalty proceeding is usually initiated when during some proceedings such default is noticed

Delhi State Taxi Operators Co-Operative Thrift Credit & Services Society Ltd, New Delhi vs. JCIT Range - 60, New Delhi

ITA 3108/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR
Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 275

271D and 271E of the Act on grounds, inter alia that these have been imposed after the expiry of limitation period provided under section 275(1)(c) of the Act. Vide write up dated 24.10.2018 submitted before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee gave brief facts on the functioning ... first penalty notice was issued on 04.05.2016 and the penalty order was passed on 24.04.2017 which is barred by limitation as provided under section 275(1)(c) of the Act. As per section 275(1)(c) no order of penalty can be passed after the expiry of the financial year

Delhi State Taxi Operators Co-Operative Thrift Credit & Services Society Ltd, New Delhi vs. JCIT Range - 60, New Delhi

ITA 3107/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR
Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 275

271D and 271E of the Act on grounds, inter alia that these have been imposed after the expiry of limitation period provided under section 275(1)(c) of the Act. Vide write up dated 24.10.2018 submitted before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee gave brief facts on the functioning ... first penalty notice was issued on 04.05.2016 and the penalty order was passed on 24.04.2017 which is barred by limitation as provided under section 275(1)(c) of the Act. As per section 275(1)(c) no order of penalty can be passed after the expiry of the financial year

Mmtc Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-17(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 491/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Amit Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ram Dhan, Meena, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 253Section 271(1)(c)Section 275Section 275(1)Section 275(1)(a)Section 35ASection 80GSection 92C

limitation period has to be reckoned from the proceedings concluded upto the first appellate order. In the scenario, the ld. counsel referred to Section 275(1)(a) of the Act and submitted that the limitation period with reference to the first appellate order ended on six months from ... question. The ld. counsel thus submitted that the impugned penalty order is not enforceable in law due to bar of limitation provided under Section 275(1)(a) of the Act. 4. Section 275 prescribes the period within which an order of penalty can be passed. There are three clauses

Vijay Spinning Mills Limited, Krishna District vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada

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

ITA 181/VIZ/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.181/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14) Vijay Spinning Mills Ltd., Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of 5-111-10, Vsm Quarters Income Tax Ganguru, Penamaluru Mandal Circle-1(1) Krishna Dist. Vijayawada [Pan : Aaacv7518B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 07.03.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Dt. Of Pronouncement : 21.04.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1044219637(1) Dated 28.07.2022 Arising Out Of The Orders Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “Act”) Dated 26.03.2022 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2013-14. 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(a)

weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. 5. The order of the Ld.AO is passed after the limitation of time under section 275(1)(a) of the Act and therefore, barred by limitation. 6. The Ld.AO has erred by levying penalty on the additions arising out of difference

Shri Abhinav Patidar, Bhopal vs. The ACIT-2(1), Bhopal

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 195/IND/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Kumar Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275(1)

invoking provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act and levying penalty of Rs. 6,69,100 in contravention of provisions of section 275(1) of the Act and ignoring the fact that quantum appeal of the appellant is pending for adjudication before the National Faceless Assessment Center, Delhi

Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Co. P.Ltd, Gurugram vs. JCIT, Range-74, New Delhi

Accordingly, the stay application is dismissed as

ITA 3018/DEL/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3018/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 बनाम Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Jcit Vs. Co. P. Ltd., Range-74, Unit No. 303-304, 3Rd Floor, New Delhi. Baani Address One, Golf Course Road, Sector-56, Gurgaon, Haryana. Pan No. Aaach3005M अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & Stay Appl. No.413/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 बनाम Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Jcit Co. P. Ltd., Vs. Range-74, Unit No. 303-304, 3Rd Floor, New Delhi. Baani Address One, Golf Course Road, Sector-56, Gurgaon, Haryana. Pan No. Aaach3005M अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 201Section 250(6)Section 271CSection 275(1)(c)Section 40

penalty order passed by the Ld. AO is barred by limitation in terms of the second limb of the section 275(1)(c) of the Act since the penalty order has been passed after six months from the end of the month in which the penalty proceedings were initiated ... 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

Ramakrishna Murali, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 975/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

For Appellant: Shri Raghavendra Chakravarthy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271D

which action for imposition of penalty is initiated, whichever period expires later.]” 6.1 The instant case falls in the third category of section 275(1)(c) of the Act and the first part of this section 275(1)(c) of the Act have no application and it was only ... clearly within the time prescribed u/s 275(1)(c) of the Act and the penalty order is valid. Further, from reading of section 275(1) of the Act states that “no order of imposing a penalty under this chapter shall be passed and there is no mention about the “service

Gayathri Devi Vyas, D.Srinivas Vyas Manohar Vyas Vijay Shri Legal Heirs of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2698/CHNY/2018[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)

restored by the ITAT, Chennai, the penalty proceedings got revived. The Assessing Officer considering the time limit available as per the provisions of section 275(1)(a) of the Act, the assessee was given another opportunity of hearing under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c ) of the Act with ... under: “The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the order of the AO is barred by limitation in light of Proviso to section 275(1)(a) of the Act”. 18. The Assessing Officer has noted in detail and decided the issue of limitation for initiating penalty, which is reproduced

Gayathri Devi Vyas, D.Srinivas Vyas Manohar Vyas Vijay Shri Legal Heirs of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2697/CHNY/2018[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)

restored by the ITAT, Chennai, the penalty proceedings got revived. The Assessing Officer considering the time limit available as per the provisions of section 275(1)(a) of the Act, the assessee was given another opportunity of hearing under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c ) of the Act with ... under: “The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the order of the AO is barred by limitation in light of Proviso to section 275(1)(a) of the Act”. 18. The Assessing Officer has noted in detail and decided the issue of limitation for initiating penalty, which is reproduced

Gayathri Devi Vyas, D.Srinivas Vyas Manohar Vyas Vijay Shri Legal Heirs of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2696/CHNY/2018[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)

restored by the ITAT, Chennai, the penalty proceedings got revived. The Assessing Officer considering the time limit available as per the provisions of section 275(1)(a) of the Act, the assessee was given another opportunity of hearing under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c ) of the Act with ... under: “The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the order of the AO is barred by limitation in light of Proviso to section 275(1)(a) of the Act”. 18. The Assessing Officer has noted in detail and decided the issue of limitation for initiating penalty, which is reproduced

Gayathri Devi Vyas, D.Srinivas Vyas Manohar Vyas Vijay Shri Legal Heirs of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2695/CHNY/2018[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)

restored by the ITAT, Chennai, the penalty proceedings got revived. The Assessing Officer considering the time limit available as per the provisions of section 275(1)(a) of the Act, the assessee was given another opportunity of hearing under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c ) of the Act with ... under: “The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the order of the AO is barred by limitation in light of Proviso to section 275(1)(a) of the Act”. 18. The Assessing Officer has noted in detail and decided the issue of limitation for initiating penalty, which is reproduced

Gayathri Devi Vyas, D.Srinivas Vyas Manohar Vyas Vijay Shri Legal Heirs of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2694/CHNY/2018[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)

restored by the ITAT, Chennai, the penalty proceedings got revived. The Assessing Officer considering the time limit available as per the provisions of section 275(1)(a) of the Act, the assessee was given another opportunity of hearing under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c ) of the Act with ... under: “The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the order of the AO is barred by limitation in light of Proviso to section 275(1)(a) of the Act”. 18. The Assessing Officer has noted in detail and decided the issue of limitation for initiating penalty, which is reproduced

Gayathri Devi Vyas, D.Srinivas Vyas Manohar Vyas Vijay Shri Legal Heirs of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2693/CHNY/2018[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)

restored by the ITAT, Chennai, the penalty proceedings got revived. The Assessing Officer considering the time limit available as per the provisions of section 275(1)(a) of the Act, the assessee was given another opportunity of hearing under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c ) of the Act with ... under: “The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the order of the AO is barred by limitation in light of Proviso to section 275(1)(a) of the Act”. 18. The Assessing Officer has noted in detail and decided the issue of limitation for initiating penalty, which is reproduced

D.Srinivas Vyas, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2692/CHNY/2018[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)

restored by the ITAT, Chennai, the penalty proceedings got revived. The Assessing Officer considering the time limit available as per the provisions of section 275(1)(a) of the Act, the assessee was given another opportunity of hearing under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c ) of the Act with ... under: “The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the order of the AO is barred by limitation in light of Proviso to section 275(1)(a) of the Act”. 18. The Assessing Officer has noted in detail and decided the issue of limitation for initiating penalty, which is reproduced

D.Srinivas Vyas, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2691/CHNY/2018[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)

restored by the ITAT, Chennai, the penalty proceedings got revived. The Assessing Officer considering the time limit available as per the provisions of section 275(1)(a) of the Act, the assessee was given another opportunity of hearing under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c ) of the Act with ... under: “The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the order of the AO is barred by limitation in light of Proviso to section 275(1)(a) of the Act”. 18. The Assessing Officer has noted in detail and decided the issue of limitation for initiating penalty, which is reproduced

Rajesh Suresh Vernekar, Davangere vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5), Davangere

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed and copy of the order should be placed in all the respective files

ITA 991/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Shantha Veeranna Abbigeri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. R. Narayana, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 271FSection 274Section 274FSection 275(1)(c)

also submitted that the assessee filed return of income voluntarily and order passed by the AO is beyond the limit prescribed as per section 275(1)(c) of the Act. He also ITA Nos.991 to 994/Bang/2022 Page 4 of 7 submitted that while the return was processed under section

Triumph Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. Additional CIT Cen Cir 6, Mumbai

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

ITA 1218/MUM/2018[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2000-01

Bench: Sri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Sri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dr. P Daniel, DR
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271DSection 271E

penalty dated 30th July 2004 are bad in law in as much as the same is passed beyond the time limit prescribed under section 275(1)(c) of the Act. The learned Authorized Representative submitted that this additional ground of appeal goes to the root of the matter legal ... section 271E of the Act was issued on 15thDecember 2003 and penalty is imposed on 30thJuly 2004. He referred to the provisions of section 275(1)(c) of the Act and submitted that imposition of penalty was taken on 5th ITA Nos.1217 & 1218/Mum/2018 Triumph Securities ltd; Assessment Year