How many judgments cite CIT v. Dhillon Rice Mills?

30 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Dhillon Rice Mills (256 ITR 447), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Dhillon Rice Mills come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 271(1)(c), Section 133(6), Section 143(3), Section 145, Section 145(3), Section 148.

CIT v. Dhillon Rice Mills

256 ITR 447High Court2002#3886 most cited

What is CIT v. Dhillon Rice Mills authority for?

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when additions to income are made on the basis of estimation, rather than on concrete evidence of concealment. Deletion of such a penalty is upheld.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,459 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Dhillon Rice Mills · penalty u/s 271(1)(c) · deletion of penalty · additions on estimate · no concrete evidence of concealment · estimated yield · estimated price · Punjab & Haryana High Court

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145 Section 145(3)Section 148 Section 250 Section 274

Issues it is cited on

section 28(1)books or books of account section 2(12a)penalty under section 271b deletion of penalty section 44aa section 18 section 271b section 44a section 271a penalty u/s 271(1)(c)furnishing inaccurate particulars

Judgments citing CIT v. Dhillon Rice Mills

Shahnaz Khanam, Jhalawar vs. Income Tax Officer, Jhalawar

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

ITA 38/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 May 2018AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Suhani Mamodia (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai (DCIT)

Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

…ibunal in deleting penalty u/s 271(1)(c) which was imposed on the basis of addition made by the AO on estimated profit. Similar view has been taken in a series of judgments including the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT vs. Dhillon Rice Mills (2002) 256 ITR 447 (P&H). In this case also, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court approved the view taken by the Tribunal in deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) which was based on an estimate of income made by the AO. In view of the foregoing decisions, it is clear that the penalty so confirmed in the instant case cannot be sustained because it was imposed by the…

ACIT, Muzaffarnagar vs. M/S the Ganga Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Muzaffarnagar

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6174/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt. Beena A Pillaia.Y. 2009-10

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SMT. BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER A.Y. 2009-10 ACIT, Circle 2 Vs. The Ganga Kisan Sahkari Chini Muzaffarnagar Mills Ltd. Village & PO Morna Muzaffarnagar PAN: AAAJT 0456 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr.D.R Respondent by None Date of Hearing 15th November, 2017 Date of Pronouncement 22nd November, 2017 ORDER PER BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present penalty appeal has been preferred by revenue against order dated 20/08/15 passed by Ld. CIT (A), Muzaffarnagar for ass…

Radha Govind Lashkari, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, it cannot be said to be case of concealment of income and the penalty to this extent stand deleted

ITA 141/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 May 2017AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S. R. Sharma (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri O.P. Bhateja (Addl.CIT)

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 153ASection 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…brought or record with reference to any specific seized material from assessee and so Ld. A.O. has not established any charge for which penalty under section 271(1)(c) could be levied on assessee. In CIT Vs. ACIT Circle-2,Jaipur Vs. Dhiloon Rice Mills (2002) 256 ITR 447 (Punj) it was held that where additions were made on estimate basis and department failed to prove concealment of income penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied. In CIT Vs. SAS Pharmaceuticals (2011) 335 ITR 259 (Del) held that where addition on surmises, conjectures and possibilities on estimate there could be no penalty under section 2…

ACIT, Cir-40, Kolkata vs. M/S Deepak Construction Co., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 179/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: : Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

…herein. It was held that when the addition had been made on the basis of estimate and not on account of any concrete evidence of concealment, then the penalty was not leviable. The similar view was also taken by this Court in CIT vs. Dhillon Rice Mills (2002) 256 ITR 447 (P&H), where the addition was made by the AO by estimating the yield of super phak as well as of chhilka and also the price of chhilka, that addition was reduced by the CIT(A). However, the penalty levied by the AO was deleted by the CIT(A). The order of CIT(A) was confirmed by the Tribunal and the appeal filed by the Revenue against the said ord…

Sri Harjit Singh Sall, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-50(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 576/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

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

Sonali A. Shah, Mumbai vs. I.T.O 14(3) (3), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5720/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2007-08 Mrs. Sonali A. Shah, I.T.O. – 14(3), Raj Parashar, Earnest House, 3Rd Floor, Nariman Point, Flat No.301-2-3, Vs. Mumbai – 21 95/F, Indranarayan Road, Santacruz (W), Mumbai – 400 054 Pan: Agdps 6844D (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Aditya R. Ajgaonkar, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Rajneesh K. Arvind, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 09.08.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.11.2016 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Aditya R. Ajgaonkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajneesh K. Arvind, D.R

Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 144Section 145Section 271(1)(c)

…therein. It was held that when the addition had been made on the basis of estimate and not on account of any concrete evidence of concealment, then the penalty was not leviable. The similar view was also taken by this Court in CIT v. Dhillon Rice Mills [2002] 256 ITR 447 3, where the addition was made by the Assessing Officer by estimating the yield of super phak as well as of chhilka and also the price of chhilka, that addition was reduced by the CIT(A). However, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer was deleted by the CIT(A). The order of CIT(A) was 10 Mrs. Sonali A. Shah confirmed by the ITAT and the app…

Sh. Ajay Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 1259/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Ms Suchitra Kamble, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…)(c) can be levied when income is determined on estimate basis. Similar view has been taken by several other High Courts including the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana HIgh Court in Harigopal Singh vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P&H) and CIT vs. Dhillon Rice Mills (2002) 256 ITR 447 (P&H). As the penalty on account of low household withdrawals is simply on the basis of an estimate made by the AO, which has been partly reduced, we are satisfied that no penalty can be levied on the basis of such an estimate of ITA No.1259 & 1260/Del/2014 household expenses. Ergo, we delete the penalties for both the years. As we have deleted t…

Sh. Ajay Gupta, Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 4144/DEL/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Ms Suchitra Kamble, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

Nirmal Kumar Jain, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 6696/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Repudaman Thakur, CA

Section 133(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

…bunal in deleting penalty u/s 271(1)(c) which was imposed on the basis of addition made by the AO on estimated profit. Similar view has been taken in a series of judgments including the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT vs. Dhillon Rice Mills (2002) 256 ITR 447 (P&H). In this case also, the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court approved the view taken by the Tribunal in deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) which was based on an estimate of income made by the AO. In view of the foregoing decisions, it is clear that the penalty so confirmed in the instant case cannot be sustained because it was imposed by…

Sh. Nirmal Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 6645/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Repudaman Thakur, CA

Section 133(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A