Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Anwar Ali 76 ITR 696 (SC),Durga Kamal Rice Mills v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 271(1)(c), Section 10B, Section 139, Section 144, Section 147, Section 148.

Anwar Ali 76 ITR 696 (SC),Durga Kamal Rice Mills v. CIT

Q: How many judgments cite Anwar Ali 76 ITR 696 (SC),Durga Kamal Rice Mills v. CIT?

24 judgments on BharatTax cite Anwar Ali 76 ITR 696 (SC),Durga Kamal Rice Mills v. CIT (232 ITR 673), spanning 2018 to 2025.

232 ITR 673High Court1998#4824 most cited

What is Anwar Ali 76 ITR 696 (SC),Durga Kamal Rice Mills v. CIT authority for?

Assessment and penalty proceedings are separate and distinct. The Assessing Officer must bring material independent of the assessment to support findings of concealment or inaccurate particulars, as penalty proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Anwar Ali 76 ITR 696 SC · Durga Kamal Rice Mills v CIT · assessment and penalty proceedings · separate and distinct · concealment of income · inaccurate particulars · burden of proof · quasi-criminal nature

Also reported as

148 CTR 367

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 10B Section 139 Section 144 Section 147 Section 148 Section 154 Section 263

Issues it is cited on

section 80d section 133(a)section 80e section 115jc bona fide mistake section 271aaa deletion of penalty tax collected at source surrender of income house property income royalty income summons under section 131

Judgments citing Anwar Ali 76 ITR 696 (SC),Durga Kamal Rice Mills v. CIT

Harish Jain, Jaipur vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

ITA 215/JPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: ShriMahendraGargieya (Adv.)&For Respondent: ShriJames Kurian (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…the assessment proceedings and there is no identity between the two. For a penalty AO must bring more material to establish positive concealment. Kindly refer Anwar Ali 76 ITR 696 (SC),Durga Kamal Rice Mills vs. CIT 265 ITR 25 (Cal.), CIT vs. Ishtiaq Hussain 232 ITR 673/148 CTR 367 (APP), T. Ashok Pai (2007) 292 ITR 11 (SC) and CIT &Anr. v. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 (Karn). 5.2 The proceedings in respect of assessment and penalty are different and distinct notwithstanding the precondition that later has to be initiated in the course of former proceedings. Though expression 'assessment' is…

Harish Jain, Kota vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

ITA 214/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: ShriMahendraGargieya (Adv.)&For Respondent: ShriJames Kurian (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 263

M/S. Intercontinental Hotels Group India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2188/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 139(4)Section 195Section 271Section 40

…Co. [1980] (123 ITR 457 (Supreme Court) b) CIT vs. Chetan Dass Lachhman Dass (1995)214 1TR 726 (Delhi HC) c) CIT vs JK Synthetics Ltd (1996)219 ITR 267 (Delhi HC) d) CIT vs Dharmachand L. Shah (1993)204 ITR 462 (Bombay HC) 11 e) CIT vs Ishtiaq Hussain (1998) 232 ITR 673 (Allahabad HC) IV) Disallowance under section 40(a)(i) cannot be a reason to impose penalty under section 271(l)(C)of the Act. Case laws relied upon by the assessee in this regard are as under: a) CIT v. AT & T Communication Services India (P.) Ltd [2012] 18 taxmann.com 144 (Delhi High Court) held that Tribunal was justified in deleting levy of…

Beta Maschinenfabrik (P) Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- 1, Noida

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 87/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Sh. R.R.Maurya, Adv. and Sh. Rajesh Arora, C.AFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 132Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “SMC”: DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA. No. 87/Del/2018 Assessment Year 2009-10 Beta Maschinenfabrik (P) Ltd., DCIT, Circle-1 B-16, Sector 81 Noida Phase II vs. Noida – 201301 U.P. PAN: AACCB4485H (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Sh. R.R.Maurya, Adv. and Sh. Rajesh Arora, C.A. Shri S.L.Anuragi, Sr. D.R. For Revenue : Date of Hearing : 11.06.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 19.06.2018 ORDER This appeal by assessee has been directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-I, Noida dated 25.09.2017 for the A.Y. 2009-10, challenging the levy of pena…