← All Phrases

“satisfaction for initiation of penalty”

PenaltySection 271Section 27180 judgments

The decision most relied on for satisfaction for initiation of penalty is MAK Data (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (38 Taxmann.com 448), cited in 186 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on satisfaction for initiation of penalty

MAK Data (P.) Ltd. v. CIT
38 Taxmann.com 448 · 2013 · Supreme Court
186
citing judgments

A voluntary disclosure of income does not automatically exempt an assessee from penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). The Assessing Officer must satisfy himself about initiating penalty proceedings during the assessment, but is not required to record this satisfaction in a specific written manner.

CIT v. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills
379 ITR 521 · 2015 · Supreme Court
110
citing judgments

The assessing officer must record explicit satisfaction in the assessment order for initiating penalty proceedings under sections like 271D, 271E, 269SS, 269T, or 269ST; a mere recommendation or information to another authority is insufficient to validate the penalty.

CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd.
246 ITR 568 · 2000 · High Court
103
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer must record clear satisfaction in the assessment order that the assessee concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars, for initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). Without such recorded satisfaction, the penalty proceedings lack jurisdiction and are unsustainable in law.

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.

Ms. Madhushree Gupta v. Union of India
317 ITR 107 · 2009 · High Court
75
citing judgments

The Delhi High Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 271(1B) of the Income-tax Act. For initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c), the Assessing Officer's satisfaction is deemed recorded if the assessment or reassessment order includes a direction for such initiation.

CIT v. S.V. Angidi Chettiar
44 ITR 739 · 1962 · Supreme Court
52
citing judgments

The power to impose a penalty under Section 28 (now 271(1)(c)) depends on the Assessing Officer's satisfaction about the existence of the specified conditions. This satisfaction must be recorded in the course of the assessment proceedings and before their conclusion.

Akhil Bhartiya Prathamik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust v. ADIT
5 DTR 429 · High Court
50
citing judgments

To levy a penalty under section 271(1)(b), the Assessing Officer (AO) must record satisfaction in the assessment order. Mere initiation of penalty proceedings without such recorded satisfaction does not confer jurisdiction on the AO to levy the penalty.

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 satisfaction for initiation of penalty

ACIT-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Bennett Coleman & Company Limited, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 1520/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No.1387/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd. The Times Of India Building, Dr. Dadabhai Naoroji Road Fort, Mumbai-400 001 [Pan: Aaacb4373Q] Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्य्थी / (Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1520/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit-1(1)(1), Mumbai Vs Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd. The Times Of India Building, Dr. Dadabhai Naoroji Road Fort, Mumbai-400 001 [Pan: Aaacb4373Q] Assessee By : Shri P.J. Pardiwala A/W. Shri Madhur Agrawal, Shri Jas Sanghavi, Shri Yash Prakash & Shri Vikas Poojary Revenue By : Shri S. Srinivasu Cit Dr A/W. Shri Ashok Ambastha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2024 2 आदेश/Order आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ι.Τ.Α. No.1387/Mum/2023 & 1520/Mum/2023 Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. Per Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w. Shri MadhurFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu CIT DR a/w. Shri Ashok
Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 14ASection 14A(2)Section 153

case and in law, the learned CIT (A) has erred in upholding the findings of the Ld. AO recording purported satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings against the Appellant? 4. The assessee has challenged the validity of the assessment order dated 28/09/2021 claiming that it was not passed within

Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre., Delhi

ITA 1387/MUM/2023[2018--2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2024

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No.1387/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd. The Times Of India Building, Dr. Dadabhai Naoroji Road Fort, Mumbai-400 001 [Pan: Aaacb4373Q] Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्य्थी / (Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1520/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit-1(1)(1), Mumbai Vs Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd. The Times Of India Building, Dr. Dadabhai Naoroji Road Fort, Mumbai-400 001 [Pan: Aaacb4373Q] Assessee By : Shri P.J. Pardiwala A/W. Shri Madhur Agrawal, Shri Jas Sanghavi, Shri Yash Prakash & Shri Vikas Poojary Revenue By : Shri S. Srinivasu Cit Dr A/W. Shri Ashok Ambastha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2024 2 आदेश/Order आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ι.Τ.Α. No.1387/Mum/2023 & 1520/Mum/2023 Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. Per Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w. Shri MadhurFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu CIT DR a/w. Shri Ashok
Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 14ASection 14A(2)Section 153

case and in law, the learned CIT (A) has erred in upholding the findings of the Ld. AO recording purported satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings against the Appellant? 4. The assessee has challenged the validity of the assessment order dated 28/09/2021 claiming that it was not passed within

Skill Promoters Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all the 3

ITA 116/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.114 To 116/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2019-2020) Skill Promoters (P) Ltd Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 2(3) Pan:Aawcs1257Q Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Moha Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Th Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/07/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Moha Rao, CaFor Respondent: : Smt. TH Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263Section 269SSection 271D

order passed by the Assessing Officer has brought out clear facts to the effect that the Assessing Officer has failed to record satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271D of the I.T. Act, 1961 even though he has noticed violation u/s 269SS of the I.T. Act, 1961 and thus ... before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was in pursuant to set aside assessment proceedings, whether the Assessing Officer is required to record satisfaction regarding initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271E of the I.T. Act, 1961. Under those facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where the Assessing Officer passed

Skill Promoters Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all the 3

ITA 115/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.114 To 116/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2019-2020) Skill Promoters (P) Ltd Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 2(3) Pan:Aawcs1257Q Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Moha Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Th Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/07/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Moha Rao, CaFor Respondent: : Smt. TH Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263Section 269SSection 271D

order passed by the Assessing Officer has brought out clear facts to the effect that the Assessing Officer has failed to record satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271D of the I.T. Act, 1961 even though he has noticed violation u/s 269SS of the I.T. Act, 1961 and thus ... before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was in pursuant to set aside assessment proceedings, whether the Assessing Officer is required to record satisfaction regarding initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271E of the I.T. Act, 1961. Under those facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where the Assessing Officer passed

Skill Promoters Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all the 3

ITA 114/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.114 To 116/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2019-2020) Skill Promoters (P) Ltd Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 2(3) Pan:Aawcs1257Q Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Moha Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Th Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/07/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Moha Rao, CaFor Respondent: : Smt. TH Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263Section 269SSection 271D

order passed by the Assessing Officer has brought out clear facts to the effect that the Assessing Officer has failed to record satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271D of the I.T. Act, 1961 even though he has noticed violation u/s 269SS of the I.T. Act, 1961 and thus ... before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was in pursuant to set aside assessment proceedings, whether the Assessing Officer is required to record satisfaction regarding initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271E of the I.T. Act, 1961. Under those facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where the Assessing Officer passed