Act. Again in Mansukhlal & Bros. v. CIT

73 ITR 546Supreme Court of India1969#21440 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 273B Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 158BC Section 158BFA Section 250

Judgments citing Act. Again in Mansukhlal & Bros. v. CIT

SUBHAS HANSARAJ NANDU,BHACHAU, KUTCH vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 9/RJT/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hybrid Hearing) Assessment Year: (2010-11) Subhas Hansaraj Nandu Vs. National Faceless Assessment Opp:Shambhu Maharaj Bungalow Centre, Delhi. Bhachau, Gujarat. Pan : Afrpn 0720 J (Assessee) (Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

…imum penalty is prescribed the authority competent to impose the penalty will be justified in refusing to impose a penalty when there is a mere technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Subhas Hansaraj Nandu Act. Again, in Mansukhlal & Bros v. CIT [73 ITR 546], the Hon`ble supreme Court had observed that the penalty is not uniform and its imposition depends upon the exercise of discretion by the taxing authorities and is imposed as a part of the machinery for assessment of tax liability. The words may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty in section 271(1) (c) leave a certain amount of di…

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4),MUMBAI., PRATISHTHA BHAVAN, MUMBAI. vs. ARUN SUBRAHMANYAM, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed”

ITA 2694/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (SR.DR)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 270A

…ty to show cause cannot be empty formalities in levy of penalty in excess of Rs. 20.000 which requires approval of higher authority. This also proves that the levy of penalty is not automatic but discretionary. (b) The Apex Court, in Mansukhlal v. C1T [(1969) 73 ITR 546 (SC)] held that penalty need not be imposed when there is a minor breach of law and having regard to the facts, ends of justice require that the assessee need not be penalized; The Apex Court, in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State ofOrissa [(1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC)], held that penalty cannot be levied for a mere technical / venial breach; (c) In view of t…

PAL GRAM HINDU SARVAJANIK TRUST,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 536/SRT/2018[2011-12 ]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Jul 2021

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.536/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Pal Gram Hindu Sarvajanik Trust, V The Income Tax Officer, At 7 Post : Pal, Tal. Choryasi, Exemption Ward, Surat. S. Dist – Surat – 395005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaatp 2544 G (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hiren Vepari - Ca Respondent By : Ms.Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 02/07/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29/07/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12 Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Surat [Ld.Cit(A)] Dated 30.05.2018, Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of 1The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], Dated 24.03.2017. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “[1] On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. [2] With The Assessing Officer Failing To Specify In The Assessment Order As To Whether The Proceedings Were Initiated For Concealing Income Or Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income, The Penalty Order Was Required To Be Knocked Down In View Of The Decision Of The Gujarat High Court In Case Of Sorathia Engineering Co. Ltd. (282-Itr-642). [3] The Assessee Craves Leave To Add, Alter Or Vary Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Vepari - CAFor Respondent: Ms.Anupama Singla – Sr.DR

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 142(1)Section 22Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.536/SRT/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Pal Gram Hindu Sarvajanik Trust, V The Income Tax Officer, At 7 Post : Pal, Tal. Choryasi, Exemption Ward, Surat. s. Dist – Surat – 395005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAATP 2544 G (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Hiren Vepari - CA Respondent by : Ms.Anupama Singla – Sr.DR सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 02/07/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 29/07/2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. S…

R.S. TRADELINK PVT.LTD.,SURAT vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-4,, SURAT

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

ITA 2130/AHD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2130/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S. R.S. Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Plot No.17, Magdalla Port Road, Of Income Tax, Circle-4, Surat. Magdalla, Surat-395007. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcr6607A (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah - CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra - CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…s and that even if a minimum penalty is prescribed the authority competent to impose the penalty will be justified in refusing to impose a penalty when there is a mere technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act. Again in Mansukhlal & Bros v. CIT [73 ITR 546] the Hon`ble supreme court had observed that the penalty is not uniform and its imposition depends upon the exercise of discretion by the taxing authorities and is imposed as a part of the machinery for assessment Assessment Year.2008-09 R S Tradelink Pvt. Ltd of tax liability. The words may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty in s…