CIT v. Dharamchand L. Shah

204 ITR 462High Court1993#3350 most cited

What is CIT v. Dharamchand L. Shah authority for?

The imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be automatically justified merely because additions were made to income, even if accepted by the assessee, without further evidence of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.

35

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2001 to 2023.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Dharamchand L. Shah · section 271(1)(c) · penalty · addition · concealment of income · inaccurate particulars · deemed addition · explanation · satisfaction of ITO · Bombay High Court

Also reported as

6 DTR 64

Issues it is cited on

levy of penaltysection 271(1)section 271section 271(1)(c)section 27section 143section 14section 143(3)businessinterest

Judgments citing CIT v. Dharamchand L. Shah

Sh. Chander Pal Aggarwal, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2461/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantchander Pal Aggarwal Vs Ito 3611, Raja Park, Shakur Basti, Ward 25(2) Rani Bagh, Delhi. New Delhi. Adnpa1455D

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275(1)(a)Section 68

…Assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings are separate and distinct. Findings in Assessment proceedings don’t operate as res judicata in penalty proceedings. For this proposition reliance is placed on the decision in CIT vs. Dharamchand L. Shah (1993) 204 ITR 462 (Bom). In Vijay Power Generators Ltd vs. ITO (2008)6 DTR 64 (Del) it was held that “It is well settled that though they constitute good evidence do not constitute conclusive evidence in penalty proceedings.” During penalty ITA No. 2461/D/15 Page 5 of 11 Chander Pal Aggarwal proceedings, there has to be reappraisal of the very same material on…

Smt. Aarti Jain, Meerut vs. ITO, Meerut

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5281/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Section 133(6)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…e. Assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings are separate and distinct. Findings in Assessment proceedings don’t operate as res judicata in penalty proceedings. For this proposition reliance is placed on the decision in CIT vs. Dharamchand L. Shah (1993) 204 ITR 462 (Bom). In Vijay Power Generators Ltd vs. ITO (2008)6 DTR 64 (Del) it was held that “It is well settled that though they constitute good evidence do not constitute conclusive evidence in penalty proceedings.” During penalty proceedings, there has to be reappraisal of the very same material on the basis of which the addition was made and if furt…

Smt. Aarti Jain, Meerut vs. ITO, Meerut

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5280/DEL/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Section 133(6)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…e. Assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings are separate and distinct. Findings in Assessment proceedings don’t operate as res judicata in penalty proceedings. For this proposition reliance is placed on the decision in CIT vs. Dharamchand L. Shah (1993) 204 ITR 462 (Bom). In Vijay Power Generators Ltd vs. ITO (2008)6 DTR 64 (Del) it was held that “It is well settled that though they constitute good evidence do not constitute conclusive evidence in penalty proceedings.” During penalty proceedings, there has to be reappraisal of the very same material on the basis of which the addition was made and if furt…

Hewitt Associates (India) Pvt. Ltd.., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 989/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

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

…proposition that Assessment proceedings are not conclusive. and distinct. Findings in Assessment proceedings don’t operate as res judicata in penalty proceedings. For this proposition reliance is placed on the decision in CIT vs. Dharamchand L. Shah (1993) 204 ITR 462 (Bom). In Vijay Power Generators Ltd vs. ITO (2008)6 DTR 64 (Del) it was held that “It is well settled that though they constitute good evidence do not constitute conclusive evidence in penalty proceedings.” During penalty proceedings, there has to be reappraisal of the very same material on the basis of which the addition was made and if fur…

ITO 14(1)3, Mumbai vs. Ashokkumar M Parikh, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4986/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 55(2)(a)

…d penalty proceedings are two separate and distinct proceedings. The fact that certain additions were made in the assessment proceedings would not automatically justify the Revenue to impose penalty under section 271(1)( c) (CIT v. Dharamchand L. Shah, (1993) 204 ITR 462,468 (Bom)]. As per the ld. A.R., imposition of penalty is discretionary - Penalty will not also be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. Whether penalty should be imposed for failure to perform a Sh.Bharatkumar Maneklal Parikh & 12 Sh.Ashokkumar Maneklal Parikh statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exerci…

ITO 14(1)3, Mumbai vs. Bharatkumar M Parikh, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4985/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 55(2)(a)

…d penalty proceedings are two separate and distinct proceedings. The fact that certain additions were made in the assessment proceedings would not automatically justify the Revenue to impose penalty under section 271(1)( c) (CIT v. Dharamchand L. Shah, (1993) 204 ITR 462,468 (Bom)]. As per the ld. A.R., imposition of penalty is discretionary - Penalty will not also be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. Whether penalty should be imposed for failure to perform a Sh.Bharatkumar Maneklal Parikh & 12 Sh.Ashokkumar Maneklal Parikh statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exerci…

Ashokkumar Maneklal Parikh, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(1)(3)

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3709/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 55(2)(a)

…d penalty proceedings are two separate and distinct proceedings. The fact that certain additions were made in the assessment proceedings would not automatically justify the Revenue to impose penalty under section 271(1)( c) (CIT v. Dharamchand L. Shah, (1993) 204 ITR 462,468 (Bom)]. As per the ld. A.R., imposition of penalty is discretionary - Penalty will not also be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. Whether penalty should be imposed for failure to perform a Sh.Bharatkumar Maneklal Parikh & 12 Sh.Ashokkumar Maneklal Parikh statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exerci…

Bhartkumar Maneklal Parikh, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(1)(3)

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3708/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 55(2)(a)

…d penalty proceedings are two separate and distinct proceedings. The fact that certain additions were made in the assessment proceedings would not automatically justify the Revenue to impose penalty under section 271(1)( c) (CIT v. Dharamchand L. Shah, (1993) 204 ITR 462,468 (Bom)]. As per the ld. A.R., imposition of penalty is discretionary - Penalty will not also be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. Whether penalty should be imposed for failure to perform a Sh.Bharatkumar Maneklal Parikh & 12 Sh.Ashokkumar Maneklal Parikh statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exerci…

Ashokkumar Maneklal Parikh, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 179/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 55(2)(a)

…d penalty proceedings are two separate and distinct proceedings. The fact that certain additions were made in the assessment proceedings would not automatically justify the Revenue to impose penalty under section 271(1)( c) (CIT v. Dharamchand L. Shah, (1993) 204 ITR 462,468 (Bom)]. As per the ld. A.R., imposition of penalty is discretionary - Penalty will not also be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. Whether penalty should be imposed for failure to perform a Sh.Bharatkumar Maneklal Parikh & 12 Sh.Ashokkumar Maneklal Parikh statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exerci…

Bharatkumar Maneklal Parikh, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1250/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 55(2)(a)

…d penalty proceedings are two separate and distinct proceedings. The fact that certain additions were made in the assessment proceedings would not automatically justify the Revenue to impose penalty under section 271(1)( c) (CIT v. Dharamchand L. Shah, (1993) 204 ITR 462,468 (Bom)]. As per the ld. A.R., imposition of penalty is discretionary - Penalty will not also be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. Whether penalty should be imposed for failure to perform a Sh.Bharatkumar Maneklal Parikh & 12 Sh.Ashokkumar Maneklal Parikh statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exerci…

Smt. Wilima Wadhwa, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5901/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am Ita No. 5899/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. T. Vasantan, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…xman 21 (Del.) " ACIT Vs Shiv Nadar (2007) 15 SOT 57 (Del) ITA Nos. 5899 to 5901/Del/2014 8 Wilima Wadhwa " Banaras Taxterium Varanasi Vs CIT (1988) 169 ITR 782 (All) " CIT Vs University Printers (1991) 188 ITR 206 (All) " CIT Vs Dharamchand L. Shah (1993) 204 ITR 462, 468-69 (Bom) " Dresser Rand India (P.) Ltd. Vs DCIT (2013) 37 Taxmann.com 328 (Mum-Trib.) " DCIT Vs Eagle Iron & Metal Industries Ltd. (2012) 20 Taxmann.com 355 (Mum.) 11. It was further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) without appreciating the facts in right prospective and without considering the explanation given by the assessee confirmed the pe…

Smt. Wilima Wadhwa, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5900/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am Ita No. 5899/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. T. Vasantan, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…xman 21 (Del.) " ACIT Vs Shiv Nadar (2007) 15 SOT 57 (Del) ITA Nos. 5899 to 5901/Del/2014 8 Wilima Wadhwa " Banaras Taxterium Varanasi Vs CIT (1988) 169 ITR 782 (All) " CIT Vs University Printers (1991) 188 ITR 206 (All) " CIT Vs Dharamchand L. Shah (1993) 204 ITR 462, 468-69 (Bom) " Dresser Rand India (P.) Ltd. Vs DCIT (2013) 37 Taxmann.com 328 (Mum-Trib.) " DCIT Vs Eagle Iron & Metal Industries Ltd. (2012) 20 Taxmann.com 355 (Mum.) 11. It was further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) without appreciating the facts in right prospective and without considering the explanation given by the assessee confirmed the pe…

Smt. Wilima Wadhwa, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5899/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am Ita No. 5899/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. T. Vasantan, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…xman 21 (Del.) " ACIT Vs Shiv Nadar (2007) 15 SOT 57 (Del) ITA Nos. 5899 to 5901/Del/2014 8 Wilima Wadhwa " Banaras Taxterium Varanasi Vs CIT (1988) 169 ITR 782 (All) " CIT Vs University Printers (1991) 188 ITR 206 (All) " CIT Vs Dharamchand L. Shah (1993) 204 ITR 462, 468-69 (Bom) " Dresser Rand India (P.) Ltd. Vs DCIT (2013) 37 Taxmann.com 328 (Mum-Trib.) " DCIT Vs Eagle Iron & Metal Industries Ltd. (2012) 20 Taxmann.com 355 (Mum.) 11. It was further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) without appreciating the facts in right prospective and without considering the explanation given by the assessee confirmed the pe…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Bpl Sanyo Finance Ltd

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is

ITA/652/2006HC Karnataka11 Sept 2013

Bench: The Tribunal Was Arising From The Order Dated 4Th June 2004 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Bangalore (For Short “The

Section 115JSection 133Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…(1) (c) of the Act had not referred to explanation-I (B) to Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act. The Supreme Court after dealing with the judgments of the High Court at Mumbai in CIT vs. P.M.Shah [1993] 203 ITR 792 and CIT vs. Dharamchand L Shah [1993] 204 ITR 462 (Bom.) in concluding paragraph observed thus : “…………….in the absence of invoking the Explanation specifically, the burden would remain on the Revenue to bring the assessee’s case within the mischief of the main provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act.” We find it difficult to accept as correct the two judgments aforementioned. The…

M/S. K.P. Madhusudhanan vs. Commnr. of Income Tax, Cochin, Kerala

C.A. No.-006465-006465 - 2000Supreme Court21 Aug 2001
For Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4 CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 6465 of 2000 PETITIONER: M/S. K.P. MADHUSUDHANAN Vs. RESPONDENT: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/08/2001 BENCH: S.P. Bharucha, Y..K. Sabharwal & Brijesh Kumar JUDGMENT: Bharucha, J. The High Court answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue the following questions : 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact, in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act? 2. Whether, on the facts and…