← 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)

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

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

ITA 1217/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

Sameer Noorullah Khan, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 518/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Sameer Noorullah Khan Cit (A)-32 K Raheja Prime Kautilya Bhavan, Office No.9, 9 Th Floor, 9Th Floor, Behind Times Square Bldg, Room No.945, Bkc, Vs. Sag Baug Road, Marol Naka, Bandra (E) Andheri (East) Mumbai-400 50 Mumbai-400 059 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Alrpk 5260 A Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ar Revenue By : Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.08.2022

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand
Section 138Section 143(3)Section 250Section 269SSection 271DSection 273BSection 68

barred by limitations. According to him, such order should have been passed on or before 30th June 2018 . he referred to provision of section 275 (1) © of the act and submitted that limitation would begin to run from date on which the Assessing Officer recommended for issuance of show cause ... with section 269SS of the Act is initiated for accepting the loans of ₹18 lacs in cash. 012. According to the provisions of Section 275(1)(c) of the Act, no order for imposing the penalty shall be passed after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. Kesarinandan Township P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the captioned appeals preferred by revenue stands dismissed and the CO of the assessee also stands dismissed

ITA 2581/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Chhotarary (Special Counsel)
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

271D/271E of the Act was illegal and bad in law as it was passed beyond theperiod of limitation provided in clause(c) of section 275(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.” 2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset submits that in all these cases the Addl ... imposition of penalty is initiated as specified in clause(c) C.O. 275 & 276/Mum/2018 A.Y. 2010-11 & 2012-13 Kesarinanadan Township. of section 275(1) of the Act and therefore, the orders passed u/s. 271D/271E of the Act are barred by limitation. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that on identical

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. Kesarinandan Township P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the captioned appeals preferred by revenue stands dismissed and the CO of the assessee also stands dismissed

ITA 2580/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Chhotarary (Special Counsel)
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

271D/271E of the Act was illegal and bad in law as it was passed beyond theperiod of limitation provided in clause(c) of section 275(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.” 2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset submits that in all these cases the Addl ... imposition of penalty is initiated as specified in clause(c) C.O. 275 & 276/Mum/2018 A.Y. 2010-11 & 2012-13 Kesarinanadan Township. of section 275(1) of the Act and therefore, the orders passed u/s. 271D/271E of the Act are barred by limitation. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that on identical

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. Sumangla Developers P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the captioned appeals preferred by revenue stands dismissed and the CO of the assessee also stands dismissed

ITA 1483/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Chhotarary (Special Counsel)
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

271D/271E of the Act was illegal and bad in law as it was passed beyond theperiod of limitation provided in clause(c) of section 275(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.” 2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset submits that in all these cases the Addl ... imposition of penalty is initiated as specified in clause(c) C.O. 275 & 276/Mum/2018 A.Y. 2010-11 & 2012-13 Kesarinanadan Township. of section 275(1) of the Act and therefore, the orders passed u/s. 271D/271E of the Act are barred by limitation. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that on identical

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. Sumangla Developers P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the captioned appeals preferred by revenue stands dismissed and the CO of the assessee also stands dismissed

ITA 1482/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Chhotarary (Special Counsel)
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

271D/271E of the Act was illegal and bad in law as it was passed beyond theperiod of limitation provided in clause(c) of section 275(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.” 2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset submits that in all these cases the Addl ... imposition of penalty is initiated as specified in clause(c) C.O. 275 & 276/Mum/2018 A.Y. 2010-11 & 2012-13 Kesarinanadan Township. of section 275(1) of the Act and therefore, the orders passed u/s. 271D/271E of the Act are barred by limitation. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that on identical

ITO - 1(1)(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Film Waves Combines P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 170/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 170/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito-1(1)(3) बिधम/ M/S. Film Waves Combines Room No.531A, 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 7Th Floor, Mehta Mahal, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Opera House, Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400020. 400004. & Cross Objection No.10/Mum/2022 आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 170/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Film Waves Combines बिधम/ Ito-1(1)(3) Room No.531A, 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 7Th Floor, Mehta Mahal, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Opera House, Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400020. 400004. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacf2525Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) Assessee By: Shri P.P. Bhandari सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeal As Well As Cross-Objection Against The Order Dated 24.09.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai [Hereinafter C.O. No.10/Mum/2022 A.Y.2010-11 Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010-11 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri P.P. BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 273BSection 274

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 ... amount to repayment of loan or deposits within the meaning of section 269SS or section 269T, and on the ground that limitation under section 275(1)(c) applies to such proceedings, we hold in favour of the respondent.” 6. Subsequently, the matter came into the consideration of Hon’ble Supreme

Looms India Patner, Mumbai vs. ITO 18 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7188/MUM/2019[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2022AY 2003-04
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(a)Section 3

preliminary ground that the penalty order dated 30.08.2012 passed by the ld. AO is barred by limitation as per the proviso to section 275(1)(a) of the Act. The ld. AR argued that the order of ld. CIT(A) was passed on 19.01.2010 in the original quantum proceedings ... penalty order passed by the ld. AO on 30.08.2012 is barred by limitation as per the time limit prescribed in proviso to section 275(1)(a) of the Act. Per Contra, the ld. DR vehemently argued that the assessee’s case would fall within the ambit of section 275(1

Nkc Projects (P) Ltd., Gurgaon vs. JCIT, Range-76, New Delhi

ITA 803/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manu Chaurasiya, Senior DR
Section 2Section 200(3)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 272Section 272A(2)(K)Section 272A(2)(k)

date of letter sent by AO recommending initiation of the penalty proceedings by returning following findings :- “Held, dismissing the appeals, that under section 275(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the starting point of "initiation" of penalty proceedings, would be the date on which the Assessing Officer wrote ... date of the letter sent by the Assessing Officer recommending "initiation" of the penalty proceedings. In the assessee's case, the limitation under section 275(1)(c) began to run on July 23, 2012 and the last date for passing the penalty orders was January 31, 2013. Therefore, the penalty

Green Valley Infracity Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. ITO, Ward- 1(4), Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5978/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jun 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi(Through Video Conferencing) Green Valley Infracity Pvt. Vs. Ito Ltd., C/O. Nitesh Singh, Ward-1(4), C-190, Sector-49, Noida Noida-201301 Pan : Aafcp 8389 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sunil Kumar Tyagi, C.A. Revenue By --None-- Date Of Hearing: 03/06/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/06/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275(1)(c)Section 68Section 69Section 69C

erred in law and facts by sustaining the penalty imposed on the appellant vide order dated 29TH April 2019 passed by invoking section 275(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961 3 (“the Act”) for Assessment year 2012-13 without appreciating the facts that the appeal against the penalty

P.K.Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd., Meerut vs. Pr.CIT, Meerut

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6039/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 6039/Del/2017 (A.Y 2008-09) (Through Physical Hearing) P. K. Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pr. Cit C/O. Rra Tax India, D-28, Meerut, South Extension, Part-1, New Uttar Pradesh Delhi Aadcp4270D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

dated 04.09.2017 • (Del) The Ld. AR further submitted that impugned penalty order passed is barred by limitation in view of the provision of section 275(1)(b) as the penalty order could be passed within 6 months from the end of the month in which revision order was passed ... provided in section 275(1)(b) and as provided in CBDT circular no. 7 of 2003 dated 05.09.2003. The Ld. AR submitted that impugned penalty order has been passed on 25.07.2017 whereas the order of the Tribunal bearing ITA No. 2055/Del/2013 was passed on 18.11.2016 & served

Fci Asia Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. DCIT, Circle- 1(3)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

ITA 6436/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sampoorn Anand Seth, Senior DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(c)

have erred in law and facts, by passing the time barred penalty order under section 275(1)(c) of the Act wherein the interest income was never a subject matter of the quantum appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).” 2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy