1. Industrial Development Bank of India Ltd. v. Dy.CIT

Q: How many judgments cite 1. Industrial Development Bank of India Ltd. v. Dy.CIT?

12 judgments on BharatTax cite 1. Industrial Development Bank of India Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (224 CTR 1), spanning 2016 to 2023.

224 CTR 1Supreme Court of India2009#8879 most cited

What is 1. Industrial Development Bank of India Ltd. v. Dy.CIT authority for?

The levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not automatic and requires satisfaction of the specified conditions, considering the assessee's state of mind. Mens rea is not to be proved by the revenue, but the conditions in the section, namely concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars, must be proven.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Also referred to as

Union of India v. Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills · 224 CTR 1 · section 271(1)(c) · penalty · mens rea · concealment · inaccurate particulars · state of mind · automatic penalty

Judgments citing 1. Industrial Development Bank of India Ltd. v. Dy.CIT

Vision Jewellers, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 530/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…extile Processors & Others [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC). Ld. AO has misread the judgment. Hon’ble Apex Court has not at all held that mens rea is not essential. 1.19. It is submitted that the Hon’bleApex court in Union of India v. Rajasthan Spg. &Wvg. Mills [2009] 224 CTR 1 (SC) and in CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC) observed that conditions in section 271(1)(c), namely, concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particular, must be proved to levy penalty, demonstrated its intention that one's 'state of mind' had to be taken into account to see if that person wanted to contravene law by c…

Shri Jai Hind Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD-5(4), Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 146/JPR/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.” 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

…23 ITA 146/JP/2021_ Shri Jain Hind Agarwal Vs ITO part of assessee. This decision was understood to mean that levy of penalty is automatic. The above decision has been explained by the SC in subsequent decision in the case of UOI-v- Rajasthan Spg & Wyg Mills 224 CTR 1 SC wherein it is explained that levy of penalty is not automatic. If the conditions specified in the section are satisfied then alone, penalty is leviable. Facts of each case would determine whether such conditions are satisfied or not. In the case of ACIT-v- VIP Industries 122 TTJ 289 (Mum), the effect of above decision was considered by the tribu…

Siva Industries and Holdings Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

ITA 1973/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Chennai21 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Section 250(6)

…nditure does not constitute furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 5.1.4 It has further relied upon the following judgements: 1. Industrial Development Bank of India Ltd. vs. Dy.CIT (2010) 42 SOT 325(Mum) 2. Union of India vs. Rajasthan Spg & Mills (224 CTR 1) 3. Ushdev International Ltd.(2011) 129 lTD 167 (Mum) The appellant has never proved the business necessity of paying consultation fee and Escrow fee which would otherwise be paid not by it but by its subsidiary. The AO has given enough opportunity to the appellant to give evidence. The action of AO in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on consultancy c…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Siva Ventures Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

ITA 1421/CHNY/2016[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2020AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Section 250(6)

DCIT, Chennai vs. Siva Ventures Limited, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

ITA 663/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Section 250(6)

DCIT, Chennai vs. Siva Ventures Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

ITA 1075/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Section 250(6)

Vyanjan Hotel P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO - 2(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7445/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Ramit Kochar, Hon'Blem/S Vyanjan Hotels Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax Officer – 2(3)(4) Unit No.4, Peninsula Chambers Room No. 555 Peninsula Corporate Park Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road G.K. Marg, Lower Parel (W) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aabcv7944C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora Shri Nikhil Tiwari Department By : Shri Ajay Kumar Ojha

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Ojha

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

…the context of the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. After analyzing its own decisions in the case of Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT (291 ITR 519), Union of India v. Dharmendra Textiles (306 ITR 277), Union of India v. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills (224 CTR 1) and CIT v. Atul Mohan Jindal (317 ITR 1), the Hon'ble Court stated as under:- "The basic reasons why decision in Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint CIT was overruled by this Court in Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors, was that according to this court the effect and difference between section 271(1)(c) and section 276C of the Act was lost sight…

Vikram Singh, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 143/JPR/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Jha (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…rocessors & Others [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC). Ld. CIT(A) has misread the judgment. Hon’ble Apex Court has not at all held that mens rea is not essential. 12. It is submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills [2009] 224 CTR 1 (SC) and in CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC) observed that conditions in section 271(1)(c), namely, concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particular, must be proved to levy penalty, demonstrated its ITA No.143/JP/2016_ 12 Shri Vikram Singh Vs. DCIT, Circle-3, Jaipur intention that one’s ‘state of mind’ had to be…

Essjay Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 18 & 19, Mumbai

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

ITA 7110/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7110/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04) M/S Essjay Enterprises, The Asstt.Commissioner Of बनाम/ 509, Panchratna Opera Income Tax – Central V. House, Circle – 18 & 19, Mama Parmandand Marg, Mumbai. Mumbai – 400 004. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafe 0563 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “E” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7110/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04) M/s Essjay Enterprises, The Asstt.Commissioner of बनाम/ 509, Panchratna Opera Income Tax – Central v. House, Circle – 18 & 19, Mama Parmandand Marg, Mumbai. Mumbai – 400 004. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN : AAAFE 0563 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee by Shri S.C. Tiwari & Ms. Rutuja Pawar Revenue by : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal,DR सुनवाई क" तार"…

Harrington House, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 89/CHNY/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 89,90 & 91/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-2008

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…by the department and that this cannot be a ground for initiating penal action. 4.3. The appellant placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) CIT Vs Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (SC). (ii) CIT Vs Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. 224 CTR 1 (SC) (iii) Dilip N Shroff Vs JCIT 291 ITR 519(SC) (iv) CIT Vs VIP Industries 122 TTJ 289 (Mum) (v) CIT Vs Kamby Software 122 TTJ 721 (Mum) (vi) CIT Vs Siddarth Enterprises 184 Taxmann 460 (P&H)’’. ITA Nos.89, 90 & 91/Mds/2016. :- 7 -: The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) considered submissions, judicial decisions and findings of the Ass…

Mitsui Prime Advanced Composites India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 550/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Shri C.M. Garg, Jm Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Kanchan Kaushal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT, DR

Section 271(1)(c)

…there is no discretion with the authority competent to impose penalty to levy penalty below the prescribed limit. It is pertinent to mention that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its later decision in Union of India vs. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills (2009) 224 CTR 1 (SC) has explained its earlier decision in Dharmendra Textile Processors and Ors (supra) by laying down that the earlier decision cannot be said to hold that penalty u/s 11AC of Central Excise Act would apply to every case. It has been mentioned that the decision in Dharmendra Textile Processors (supra) must be understood to mean that though the…

Shri Kedar Nath Dhoot, Kolkata vs. DCIT, C.C.-Xxvii, Kolkata

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1125/KOL/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Das, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 132(1)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)

…ere liability and therefore was no necessity to prove that there was any intention to conceal particulars of income. He pointed out that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a later decision rendered in the case of Union of India vs Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills 224 CTR 1 (SC) has explained the principle laid down in the case of Dharmendra Textiles (supra) and have held that penalty can be imposed only when the conditions mentioned in the 4 ITA Nos.1125-1127/Kol/2010 Shri Kedar Nath Dhoot. A.Yrs.2002-03,2005-06&2006-07 section are satisfied i.e. there must be concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate partic…