CIT v. Dodsal Ltd.

312 ITR 112High Court2009#12649 most cited
8

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 270ASection 148Section 133ASection 144BSection 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 133BFA(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 270a(1)section 270a(2)penalty under section 270aunder-reporting of incomesection 270section 158bsection 158section 274section 270anotice under section 148section 27section 15

Judgments citing CIT v. Dodsal Ltd.

KRISHNA PRABHA SUNDARAPANDY,KANCHIPURAM vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-6(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2304/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2304/Chny/2025 िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2022-23

For Appellant: Mr. S. Jayakumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Babitha, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270A

…able. Krishna Prabha Sundarapandy :- 4 -: 18. We find that the appeal has to succeed on the ground that the phraseology as used in Section 270 of the Act makes it discretionary/directory for the Assessing Officer to impose the penalty. In CIT vs Dodsal Ltd., 312 ITR 112 (Bombay), which was a case arising out of block assessment in a search case, the Bombay High Court has held that the use of word ‘may’ in Section 158BFA(2) [which is similarly worded to Section 270A(1)] confers discretion on the Assessing Officer to direct payment of penalty. Albeit such a discretion is not arbitrary and has to be guided by well-…

ARCHANA ACHYUT SAIL,MUMBAI vs. NFAC, NFAC

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 5278/MUM/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2025

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Sumit MantriFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Chandra Sinha
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

…der Section 270A of the Act was leviable. 18. We find that the appeal has to succeed on the ground that the phraseology as used in Section 270 of the Act makes it discretionary/directory for the Assessing Officer to impose the penalty. In CIT vs Dodsal Ltd., 312 ITR 112 (Bombay), which was a case arising out of block assessment in a search case, the Bombay High Court has held that the use of word ‘may’ in Section 158BFA(2) [which is similarly worded to Section 270A(1)] confers discretion on the Assessing Officer to direct payment of penalty. Albeit such a discretion is not arbitrary and has to be guided by well-…

ARCHANA ACHYUT SAIL,MUMBAI vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 5277/MUM/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2025

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Sumit MantriFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Chandra Sinha
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

…der Section 270A of the Act was leviable. 18. We find that the appeal has to succeed on the ground that the phraseology as used in Section 270 of the Act makes it discretionary/directory for the Assessing Officer to impose the penalty. In CIT vs Dodsal Ltd., 312 ITR 112 (Bombay), which was a case arising out of block assessment in a search case, the Bombay High Court has held that the use of word ‘may’ in Section 158BFA(2) [which is similarly worded to Section 270A(1)] confers discretion on the Assessing Officer to direct payment of penalty. Albeit such a discretion is not arbitrary and has to be guided by well-…

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4),MUMBAI., PRATISHTHA BHAVAN, MUMBAI. vs. ARUN SUBRAHMANYAM, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA

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

ITA 2694/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (SR.DR)
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 270A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA 2694/Mum/2023 (Assessment year: 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner of vs Arun Subrahmanyam Income Tax, Central Circle- 103, Pushp Kunj, A Road 2(4), Mumbai, Prathishtha Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Bhavan, Room No.802, 8th Floor, Old CGO AnnexeBldg, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 PAN : ABDPS8680G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal Respondent by : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (SR.DR) Date of hearing : 01/05/2024 Date of pronouncement : 06/ 05/2024 O R D E R PER…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. MAHENDER KUMAR AGARWAL, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 370/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271A

…red by the assessee voluntarily to purchase piece, does not fall in any of the categories mentioned therein. Page 4 of 10 10. Learned AR placed reliance on the decisions of PCIT vs. Shri Ramdass Motor Transport 238 ITR 177, PCIT vs. M/s Sri Ramakrishna Vihar 312 ITR 112, Padam Chand Pungliya vs. ACIT (2020) 113 Taxmann.com 446 (Jaipur-Trib), CIT vs. S.Khader Khan Sons (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Madras), and CIT vs. Harjeev Agarwal (2016) 70 taxmann.com 95 (Delhi). 11. We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. It is a fact that at the time of search, a paper was found wherein a…

SHRI OM PRAKASH MODI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 196/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 196/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2014-15 Shri Om Prakash Modi, Cuke D.C.I.T., Vs. B-49, Keshav Path, Suraj Nagar Central Circle-2, (West), Civil Lines, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Acfpm 8683 C Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Varinder Mehta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/03/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/03/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur Dated 01/01/2018 For The A.Y. 2014-15, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Penalty U/S 271Aab Imposed At Rs. 3,75,00,000/-, Arbitrarily, Thus The Order So Passed Deserves To Be Quashed. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A)Has Erred In Ignoring The Fact That The Appellant Has Duly Disclosed In The Statements U/S 132(4) & The Mode & Manner Was Also Explained, Further Due Tax Was Also Paid, Therefore, The Penalty Of Rs. 3,75,00,000/- So Levied Deserves To Be Deleted. 2.1 That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Penalty Imposed On Additional Income Of Rs. 12,50,00,000/- Duly Offered

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 132(4)Section 271ASection 274

…e treated as undisclosed income of the first assessment year in the block period. Thus, no substantial question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal upholding the order of the CIT(A) deleting the levy of penalty under s. 158BFA(2). CIT Vs. Dodsal Ltd. 312 ITR 112 (Bom.) (HC)(case law compilation page 69-70) Terminology of s. 158BFA(2) makes it clear that there is a discretion in the AO to direct payment of penalty. It is only if the authority decides to impose penalty then it would not be less than the tax leviable but shall not exceed three times the tax so leviable. Merely because the expression used is…

M/S. NATIONAL TEMPO HOUSE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1215/PUN/2016[BP: 1987-88 to 1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jan 2019

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1215/Pun/2016 Block Period : 1987-88 To 1997-98

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: S/Shri Avadhesh Kumar and Pankaj Garg
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 140ASection 158B

…of penalty under section 158BFA(2) of the Act was discretionary, then the authorities below had the authority to drop penalty proceedings. In this regard, first reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Dodsal Ltd. (2009) 312 ITR 112 (Bom). He then, placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in CIT Vs. Dr. Giriraj Agarwal Giri (2012) 346 ITR 152 (Raj), which was case of block assessment, wherein the addition was made on the basis of estimation and the Hon’ble High Court held that in such cases, no penalty is to be imposed under section 158BFA(2) of…

NAGNATH HANMANTAPPA JALKOTE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1297/PUN/2015[BP]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Oct 2018

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 158B

…d penalty proceedings are two independent and distinct proceedings. Every addition made in assessment proceedings does not necessarily lead to levy of penalty. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dodsal Ltd. reported as 312 ITR 112 has held that levy of penalty u/s. 158BFA(2) is directory and not mandatory. Merely for the reason assessee’s explanation with respect to loose papers was rejected in assessment proceedings cannot ipso facto be a basis for levy of penalty u/s. 158BFA(2) of the Act. The Revenue has not been able to conclusively prove that loose sheet belong to the…

CIT v. Dodsal Ltd. (312 ITR 112) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax