CIT v. Dalmia Dyechem Industries Ltd.

377 ITR 133High Court2015#17865 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 115JB Section 143(3)Section 250 Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(vii)

Judgments citing CIT v. Dalmia Dyechem Industries Ltd.

DCIT-2(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5521/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2016-17 Dcit, Circle-2(1)(1), Central Bank Of India, Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, Mumbai Main Office, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400020. Greater Bombay, Mumbai-400023. Pan : Aaacc2498P (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Nitesh Joshi For Revenue : Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 10-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-11-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr.DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “C” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2016-17 DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Central Bank of India, Room No. 561, 5th Floor, Mumbai Main Office, Aayakar Bhavan, vs. M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400020. Greater Bombay, Mumbai-400023. PAN : AAACC2498P (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Nitesh Joshi For Revenue : Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 10-11-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 12-11-2025 O R D E R PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M : This is an appeal filed by the Reven…

DCIT CC7 (2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. ANIK INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2267/MUM/2021[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Cc-7(2) Vs. M/S Anik Industries Ltd Room No. 655, 3Rd Floor, 610, Tulsiani Aayakar Bhavan, Chamber, Nariman Point Mk Road, Mumbai – 400021. Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm2696K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt Shailja Rai.Dr Respondent By : Shri.Bhupendra Shah.Ar Date Of Hearing 26.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Smt Shailja Rai.DRFor Respondent: Shri.Bhupendra Shah.AR

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT, CC-7(2) Vs. M/s Anik Industries Ltd Room No. 655, 3rd Floor, 610, Tulsiani Aayakar Bhavan, Chamber, Nariman Point MK Road, Mumbai – 400021. Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACM2696K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Smt Shailja Rai.DR Respondent by : Shri.Bhupendra Shah.AR Date of Hearing 26.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement 28.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM: The revenue has filed the appeal against the order passed by…

BAFNA JANGADA CONSTRUCTIONS,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

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

ITA 452/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 273BSection 80I

…able, in such cases, it cannot be said that the assessee has concealed any income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income for evasion of tax penalty. He further submitted that on identical facts in the case of Dalmia Dyechem Industries Ltd., reported in 377 ITR 133, Hon’ble Bombay High Court framed a question of law : “in a case involving the initiation of penalty on this fact demonstrates the debatable nature of the issue in the quantum appeal and therefore, no penalty can be levied”. He further submitted that when the quantum appeal is pending for disposal before the Tribunal or Commissioner of Income…

DCIT - (LTU) - 1 , MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue and Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6267/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Yadav &For Respondent: Shri H.N. Singh (CIT-DR)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

…e even on this account the penalty order is bad in law. Further the decision in the case of Zoom relied upon by the AO is not applicable to the facts of the present appeal. The Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Dalmia Dyechem Industries Ltd. reported in 377 ITR 133 has also negatived the contention of the Revenue that merely because less number of cases are selected for scrutiny and had it not been for scrutiny assessment the addition would have gone unnoticed. It is further submitted that the case of the Petitioner is assessed u/s 143(3) every year on its being an assessee falling under LTU. The case laws…

ITO 2(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. DHANRAJGIR BUSINESS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5585/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Sandeep Gosain (Jm)

Section 271(1)(c)

…roperties 377 ITR 417 (T&.A.P.). Further, when such issue 4 M/s. Dhanrajgir Business Pvt. Ltd. has been set aside by the Hon'ble ITAT, the matter is covered by the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dalmia Diachem Industries (2010) 377 ITR 133(Bom.) In this case, it has been held that if a matter has been set aside to the Assessing Officer then the interpretation placed by the Assessee of a provision of law could not be considered as dishonest, malafide hence, it could not considered concealment of tax. Therefore, no penalty could be levied. Thus, in the light of the above factual as…