Chairman, SEBI v. Shriram Mutual Fund and Anr.

5 SCC 361Reported decision2006#8114 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2025.

Judgments citing Chairman, SEBI v. Shriram Mutual Fund and Anr.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RENU AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 502/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Mantri, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…of the investors at large. There can be no dispute that compliance of regulations is mandatory and it is duty of SEBI to enforce compliance of these regulations. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Chairman, SEBI v. Shriram Mutual Fund {[2006] 5 SCC 361} held that\n“In our view, the penalty is attracted as soon as contravention of the statutory obligations as contemplated by the Act is established and, therefore, the intention of the parties committing such violation becomes immaterial.\nHence, we are of the view that once the contravention is established, then the penalty has to follow and only t…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 KOLKATA vs. RAM AWATAR DHOOT

The appeal is partly allowed and the substantial questions of

ITAT/21/2025HC Calcutta07 Mar 2025

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Dated : 7Th March, 2025. Appearance:

Section 10(38)Section 2Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…was open to the Assessing Officer not to impose penalty. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had taken note of the statutory provisions namely, Section 271(1)(c) and Section 276-C referred to the decisions in Chairman, SEBI vs. Shriram Mutual Fund & Another, (2006) 5 SCC 361, Director of Enforcement vs. MCTM Corporation (P) Ltd. (1996) 2 SCC 471, Gujarat Travancore Agency vs. CIT, (1989) 3 SCC 52 and held that the explanations appended to Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act entirely indicates the element of strict liability on the assessee for concealment or for giving inaccurate particulars while filing return…

ILLIES ENGINEERING INDIA PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 109/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Michael Jerald, DR

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

…ntically worded and in a given case it is open to the Assessing Officer not to impose any penalty. The Division Bench made reference to rule 96ZQ and rule 96ZO of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and to a decision in Chairman, SEBI v. Shriram Mutual Fund [2006] 5 SCC 361 and was of the view that the basic scheme for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) and section 11AC and rule 96ZQ(5) is common. According to the Division Bench, the correct position, in law, has been laid down in Chairman, SEBI's case (supra). Therefore the Division Bench referred the controversy involved to a Larger Bench, doubting the co…

ORBIT CORPORATION LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for all three assessment years i

ITA 7036/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 7034, 7035 & 7036/MUM/2017 (A.Ys: 2010-11, 2008-09 & 2009-10) M/s Orbit Corporation Ltd., v. Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax The View, 165 Central Circle – 47 Dr. Annie Besant Road Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai Worli, Mumbai – 400 012 PAN: AAACO3920A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Department by : Shri Awangshi Gimson Date of Hearing : 28.11.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 19.02.2020 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. These appeals are filed b…

ORBIT CORPORATION LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for all three assessment years i

ITA 7035/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 80I

ORBIT CORPORATION LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for all three assessment years i

ITA 7034/MUM/2017[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2020AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 80I

RAMESHKUMAR D.RAWAL,MUMBAI vs. ITO 14(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, for statistical purpose, appeal filed by the appellant is treated is dismissed

ITA 1651/MUM/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Shri Rameshkumar D. Rawal Ito 14(1)(2), Mumbai 11, 3Rd Floor, Ovalwadi, Vithalwadi, Vs. Mumbai-400002 Pan No.Aabpr3423R .. Appellant Respondent .. None Assessee By Revenue By .. B.S Bist, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing .. 08-11-2016 .. Date Of Pronouncement 08-11-2016 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 276

…t there is a conflict of opinions between the judgments of the Division Bench of this court in the Case of Dilip N. Shroff on the one hand and on the other hand we have another judgment of this court in the case of Chairman, SEBI v. Shriram Mutual Fund [2006] 5 SCC 361. Secondly, it may be pointed out that the object behind the enactment of section 271(1) (c) read with the Explanations quoted above indicates that the said section has been enacted to provide for a remedy for loss of revenue. The 3 penalty under the said section is a civil liability. Willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting…

ADIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ROLLS ROYCE SINGAPORE PTE LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 862/DEL/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. V.R. Sonbhadra, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh Gaurav Gupta, Advocate &

Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…y the defaulter with any guilty intention or not. For this proposition the AO had relied on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors and others, 306 ITR 227 (SC) and SEBI v. Shriram Mutual Fund (2006) 5 SCC 361. It was also submitted that the impugned addition on FTS stood confirmed up to the stage of Tribunal and was not challenged before the Hon’ble High Court by the assessee, hence, imposition of penalty is liable to be sustained. 6. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that During the relevant assessment year, the Assessee wa…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GULBARGA vs. M/S MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/2564/2005HC Karnataka13 Dec 2012

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

Section 260Section 260A

…an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability as is the case in the matter of prosecution under Section 276C of the Income-Tax Act.” ……..Dilip N. Shroff’s case (2007) 8 Scale 304 (SC) was not correctly decided but Chairman, SEBI’s case (2006) 5 SCC 361 has analysed the legal position in the correct perspectives. The reference is answered.” 40. In the Dharmendra’s case the apex Court was dealing with the penalty provisions contained in the Central Excise Act, 1944, Sec. 11AC. They have referred to penalty provision in the Income Tax Act 271(1)(c). After referring to various judgments…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M. S. BINDRA & SONS P. LTD

ITA/1479/2010HC Delhi28 Sept 2010

Section 260ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 272(1)(c)Section 276C

…#9 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 1479/2010 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Advocate versus M. S. BINDRA & SONS P. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: None. % Date of Decision: 28th September, 2010 CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MANOR HOTELS PVT. LTD

ITA/1477/2010HC Delhi28 Sept 2010

Section 260ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 272(1)(c)Section 276C

…#7 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 1477/2010 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Advocate versus MANOR HOTELS PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Shashi M. Kapila, Advocate with Mr. Pranav Bhaskar, Mr. Siddharth Kapila and Mr. Pravesh Sharma, Advocates. % Date of Decision: 28th September, 2010 CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MEDSAVE HEALTHCARE LIMITED

ITA/1460/2010HC Delhi27 Sept 2010

Section 260ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 272(1)(c)Section 276C

…#3 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 1460/2010 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Sonia Mathur, Advocate versus MEDSAVE HEALTHCARE LIMITED ..... Respondent Through: None % Date of Decision: 27th September, 2010 CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? MANMOHAN, J…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KRISHNA MARUTI LTD

Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine

ITA - 1067 / 2010HC Delhi10 Aug 2010

Bench: The Cit(A) Who, By Virtue Of Its Order Dated 20.02.2008, Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee. Eventually The Matter Travelled To The Tribunal Which, Vide Its Order Dated 26.06.2009, Relying On The Order Of The Cit(A), Dismissed The Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Before It.

Section 11ASection 260A(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 272(1)(c)Section 276CSection 80

…auses also the similar indication has been given. - 20. Above being the position, the plea that the Rules 96ZQ and 96ZO have a concept of discretion inbuilt cannot be sustained. Dilip Shroff's case (supra) was not correctly decided but SEBI's case, (2006) 5 SCC 361 has analysed the legal position in the correct perspectives. The reference is answered" From the above, we fail to see how the decision in Dharamendra Textile can be said to hold that Section IIAC would apply to every case of non-payment or short payment of duty regardless of the conditions expressly mentioned in the section for its application. T…

CIT vs. SHASHI INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD

Accordingly the same stands dismissed in limine

ITA - 1081 / 2010HC Delhi06 Aug 2010

Section 260ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 272(1)(c)Section 276CSection 80H

…IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . ITA 1081/2010 . . CIT ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Suruchii Aggarwal, Advocate. . versus . . SHASHI INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD ..... Respondent Through: None. . . CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN . . O R D E R 06.08.2010 The present appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity ?Act?) is directed against the order dated 29th January, 2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ?G?, New Delhi (in short ?ITAT?) whereby the tr…