What is the leading case on Section 273 of the Income Tax Act?

120 ITR 001, (SC) 7. B.N. Sharma Vs. CIT, 226 ITR 442, (SC) 8. Engineering Impex (P) Ltd. v. DD Sharma (195 ITR 1) is the decision most relied on for Section 273, cited in 20 judgments.

Which cases are most cited on Section 273?

120 ITR 001, (SC) 7. B.N. Sharma Vs. CIT, 226 ITR 442, (SC) 8. Engineering Impex (P) Ltd. v. DD Sharma (195 ITR 1) — 20 citing judgments; Bank Ltd. v. ITO (424 ITR 422) — 17 citing judgments; Bachul Lal Kapoor: 60 ITR 74 (SC) and Laxmipat Singhania v. CIT (156 ITR 693) — 15 citing judgments; 12. In N.A. Malbary and Bros. v. Commissioner of Income- Tax, Bombay North (51 ITR 295) — 7 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 273?

BharatTax indexes 34 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 273 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 273 of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 273 is 120 ITR 001, (SC) 7. B.N. Sharma Vs. CIT, 226 ITR 442, (SC) 8. Engineering Impex (P) Ltd. v. DD Sharma (195 ITR 1), cited in 20 of the 34 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 273

120 ITR 001, (SC) 7. B.N. Sharma Vs. CIT, 226 ITR 442, (SC) 8. Engineering Impex (P) Ltd. v. DD Sharma

195 ITR 1 · 1992 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Bank Ltd. v. ITO

424 ITR 422 · 2020 · High Court

citing judgments

The mere fact that an audit was conducted under the Co-operative Societies Act does not exempt an assessee from complying with the mandatory requirements of furnishing the audit report in the prescribed form under section 44AB of the Income Tax Act. Failure to do so can lead to the levy of penalty under section 271B.

Bachul Lal Kapoor: 60 ITR 74 (SC) and Laxmipat Singhania v. CIT

156 ITR 693 · 1985 · High Court

citing judgments

12. In N.A. Malbary and Bros. v. Commissioner of Income- Tax, Bombay North

51 ITR 295 · 1964 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Judgments on Section 273

Kakumanu Naveen Kumar, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 469/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.469 & 470/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Kakumanu Naveen Kumar V. Ito – Ward – 2(1) Central Revenue Building Flat No. 201, Venkata Raghava Residency Radio Colony, Beside Med Plus Medical Shop M.G. Road, Vijayawada Vijayawada – 520008 Andhra Pradesh - 520002 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Cmspk2757G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 253Section 273

Attinkara Electronics, Chengannur vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 564/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhattinkara Electronics The Income Tax Officer 1 Attinkara Building Ward - 1 & Tps, Thiruvalla Vs. M.C. Road, Chengannur 689121 [Pan: Aaifa1283D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anumon Antony, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271BSection 273

Shardul Singh, Jhunjhunu vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Jhunjhunu, Income Tax Officer Jhunjhunu

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the penalty levied is hereby dropped with no orders to cost

ITA 1061/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: passing the order u/s 271 (1) (c) 4 The AO imposed penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) without any ESTABLISHING Submission of A. Inaccurate facts/Statements B. without Establishing CONCEALMENT OF INCOME as all mentioned by him was fetched by Submission of the Assessee and without doing any Act to take correct decision to impose penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) 5. The AO not considered the Submitted Decisions of relavant courts furnished by the Assessee in his favour.” 2.1 The brief facts of the case are that asse

For Appellant: Shri Sumer Singh Shekhawat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary,JCIT-DR

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 80D

Thadela Pakeeru, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 148/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.148/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2017-18) Thadela Pakeeru, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-2(1), Pan: Abtpt0911D Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Smt. A. Aruna, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 16/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 25/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Smt. A. Aruna, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 269SSection 271DSection 273Section 274

Suriender Jain, New Delhi vs. Prcit-13, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3038/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3036 To 3038/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12 बनाम Suriender Jain, Pr. Cit-13, 133-2-F, Pocket-12, Sector-24, Vs. Room No.901, 9Th Floor, E-2 Block, Rohini, New Delhi. Pan No.Acypj9387K Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Minto Road, New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 273Section 44A

Suriender Jain, New Delhi vs. Prcit-13, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3037/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 273Section 44A

Suriender Jain, New Delhi vs. Prcit-13, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3036/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2024AY 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 273Section 44A

Dhanraj Mills P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT (OSD)-II Cen RG-7, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3830/MUM/2009[1987-88]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2017AY 1987-88

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 271(1)(c)Section 273Section 68

Nadeem Abdul Sattar Lakdwala, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 36, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 773/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.773/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Mr. Nadeem Abdul Sattar Asstt. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Lakdawala, Income Tax- Central V. B-201, Leo Apartment, Circle 36, 24 Th Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Kohinoor Chs, Mumbai. Khar (W), Mumbai – 400 052. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaapl4893N .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sachhidanand Dubey

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271(1)(l)