← All Phrases

“Section 275(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 275Section 275(2)5 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 275(2) is CIT v. Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd. (261 ITR 275), cited in 204 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 275(2)

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.

Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) v. IKEA Trading Hong Kong Ltd.
333 ITR 565 · 2011 · High Court
34
citing judgments

The date of issuance of a Show Cause Notice (SCN) for penalty is the relevant starting point for calculating the limitation period for passing penalty orders.

JRD Tata Trust v. DCIT
122 Taxmann.com 275 · 2020 · ITAT
31
citing judgments

Shares held as corpus by a trust, which were a precondition for notification under Section 10(23C), cannot be deemed to forfeit exemption under Section 13(1)(d) and Section 13(2)(h).

275 (Mum Trib) (27) Narayan Tatu Rane v. ITO
173 ITD 130 · 2018 · ITAT
31
citing judgments

Revisionary power under Section 263 cannot be exercised arbitrarily; it has limits and does not apply to every inadequacy in the Assessing Officer's inquiry or verification.

CWT vs Allied Finance Pvt. Ltd. 289 ITR 318 (Del.) v. Berger Paints India Ltd. vs CIT
275 ITR 124 · 2005 · ITAT
30
citing judgments

The principle of judicial discipline requires consistency in following prior judicial pronouncements. This case is cited as authority for adhering to established legal principles.

PCIT v. Rishikesh Buildcon (P.) Ltd.
147 Taxmann.com 220 · 2023 · High Court
27
citing judgments

Appeals related to statutory limitation periods for penalty proceedings are decided by considering relevant High Court judgments.

275(Delhi); Pr. CIT v. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corpn Ltd.
143 Taxmann.com 135 · 2022 · High Court
25
citing judgments

Where an expense is incurred for the purpose of acquiring a capital asset, and that asset is subsequently sold, the expenditure must be considered as part of the cost of acquisition of that asset for the purpose of calculating capital gains. This is because the expense forms an integral part of the cost of acquiring the asset, not an expenditure of revenue nature.

1. CIT v. Raj Bans Singh
276 ITR 351 · 2005 · High Court
25
citing judgments

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed on additions made on an estimation basis. This applies when income is assessed based on estimated profit, especially if substantially reduced by higher authorities.

Judgments citing Section 275(2)

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-V, Lucknow vs. Patel PAN Products Ltd., Lucknow

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

ITA 736/LKW/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Gd Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit, Range-V M/S. Patel Pan Products V. Aayakar Bhawan, Ashok Marg, Ltd. Lucknow-226001. 37-38, Gaurabagh, Kursi Road, Lucknow-226002. Pan: Adypa2513M (Appellant) (Respondent) C. O. No. 09/Lkw/2019 (In Arising Out Of Ita. No. 736/Lkw/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Patel Pan Products Ltd. V. Acit, Range-V 37-38, Gaurabagh, Kursi Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Ashok Lucknow-226002. Marg, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Aaecp0472C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kappor, Ca Respondent By: Shri Manu Chaurasia, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10 07 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kappor, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manu Chaurasia, CIT(DR)
Section 132ASection 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 275(2)Section 43BSection 68

facts in deleting the addition of Rs.1,10,25,291/- u/s 43B of the IT Act without appreciating the fact that section 275(2) of IT Act deals with issues of limitation for imposing penalties while the addition has been made u/s 43B of the IT Act, 1961 on which ... explanation to section 275(2) is not applicable.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that a search & seizure operation u/s 132A of the Income Tax Act,1961 was carried out on the Harsingar Gutkha/Patel Group of cases. Simultaneously, a survey proceeding u/s 133A of the Act was also

Section 275(2) — 5 case laws | BharatTax