276C 2. CIT v. Atul Mohan Binal

225 CTR 248Supreme Court of India2009#19945 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2023.

Judgments citing 276C 2. CIT v. Atul Mohan Binal

Shri Shivaji Dattatray Sonawane, Nashik vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Nashik

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 707/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryshivaji Dattatray Sonawane, Vs Ito, Ward-2(1), Sonawane Mala, Samangaon Nashik. Road, Sinnar Phata, Nashik Road, Nashik. Pan: Acaps 3868 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Naimish Sanjay Dixit Revenue By : Shri M.G. Jasnani, Dr Date Of Hearing : 14/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/09/2023 O R D E R Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Dated 05.04.2023 For A.Y.2016-17 As Per The Grounds Of Appeal On Record.

For Appellant: Shri Naimish Sanjay DixitFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani, DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income is essential before levying any penalty u/sec. 271(1)(c) as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the 3 Shivaji Dattatray Sonawane case of CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal [2009] 225 CTR 248 (SC). In the present case before us, it is evident that there is no satisfaction arrived at for levy of penalty by the AO. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court also in the case of CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 263 CTR 153 (Kar) has taken the view that there must be specify charge for levying the penalty. The Hon'ble Bombay High Co…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Phi Seeds (P) Ltd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 4366/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2018AY 2007-08
Section 10(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…urt held that Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is a civil liability for which willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting the civil liability as is the case in the matter of proceedings under section 276C 2. CIT Vs Atul Mohan Binal (2009) 225 CTR 248 (SC) Where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that penalty u/s 271 (1 )(c) is neither criminal nor quasi criminal but a civil liability, albeit a strict liability. Such liability being civil in nature, mens rea is not essential - Explanation appended to S. 271(1)(c) indicates element of strict liability on the assessee for concealment or for giving i…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Phi Seeds Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 6645/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2018AY 2006-07
Section 10(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…urt held that Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is a civil liability for which willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting the civil liability as is the case in the matter of proceedings under section 276C 2. CIT Vs Atul Mohan Binal (2009) 225 CTR 248 (SC) Where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that penalty u/s 271 (1 )(c) is neither criminal nor quasi criminal but a civil liability, albeit a strict liability. Such liability being civil in nature, mens rea is not essential - Explanation appended to S. 271(1)(c) indicates element of strict liability on the assessee for concealment or for giving i…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Phi Seeds Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 6622/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2018AY 2004-05
Section 10(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…urt held that Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is a civil liability for which willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting the civil liability as is the case in the matter of proceedings under section 276C 2. CIT Vs Atul Mohan Binal (2009) 225 CTR 248 (SC) Where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that penalty u/s 271 (1 )(c) is neither criminal nor quasi criminal but a civil liability, albeit a strict liability. Such liability being civil in nature, mens rea is not essential - Explanation appended to S. 271(1)(c) indicates element of strict liability on the assessee for concealment or for giving i…

276C 2. CIT v. Atul Mohan Binal (225 CTR 248) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax