How many judgments cite CIT v. Lakhdhir Lalji?

35 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Lakhdhir Lalji (85 ITR 77), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Lakhdhir Lalji come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 271(1)(c), Section 148, Section 11, Section 12, Section 12AA, Section 142(1).

CIT v. Lakhdhir Lalji

85 ITR 77High Court1972#3398 most cited

What is CIT v. Lakhdhir Lalji authority for?

When an appellate authority alters or modifies the original basis for initiating penalty proceedings, the authority that initiated the penalty proceedings loses jurisdiction to continue those proceedings based on the appellate authority's findings.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Lakhdhir Lalji · section 271(1)(c) · penalty proceedings · altered basis · appellate authority · jurisdiction

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 148 Section 11 Section 12 Section 12AA Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)

Issues it is cited on

furnishing inaccurate particulars of income penalty under section 271(1)(c)furnishing inaccurate particulars concealment of income levy of penalty section 271(1)section 271 income-tax officer section 271(1)(c)section 27 company section 14

Judgments citing CIT v. Lakhdhir Lalji

B.J. Hotels P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 29, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 360/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 24Section 271(1)(c)Section 28

…ies and came to the conclusion that there should be application of mind on the part of assessing officer. For the sake of convenience, we extract below the relevant observations made by Hon’ble Bombay High Court. “11. The case of CIT v. Lakhdhir Lalji [1972] 85 ITR 77 (Guj) is the other decision upon which the Tribunal has placed reliance. In that case a notice under section 274 was issued on the footing of concealment of income by suppression of sales whereas the penalty was levied on the footing that there was furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income since the stock at the closing of the year was underva…

Accurate Transformers Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2204/DEL/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goyal , CA &For Respondent: Sh. S. R. Senapati, Sr. DR

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

…ticulars of income and (2) furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. If proceeding are initiated on charge of concealment then penalty cannot be levied on the charge of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and vice versa [CIT Vs Lakhdhir Lalji 85 ITR 77 (403)]. Thus there must be a clear finding about the charge of penalty. It is incumbent upon the AO to state whether penalty was being levied for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In the absence of such findings, the order would be bad in law (Manu Engg. Works 122 ITR 306 (Guj); New Sarathia Engg. Co. (282 IT…

Accurate Transformers Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2203/DEL/2016[2003-04 (F.Y. 2002-03)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2018

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goyal , CA &For Respondent: Sh. S. R. Senapati, Sr. DR

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

Accurate Transformers Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2202/DEL/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goyal , CA &For Respondent: Sh. S. R. Senapati, Sr. DR

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

Accurate Transformers Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2201/DEL/2016[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goyal , CA &For Respondent: Sh. S. R. Senapati, Sr. DR

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

M/S Aditya Chemicals Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5006/DEL/2013[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2017AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[Assessment Year: 1997-98] Aditya Chemicals Ltd Vs. The I.T.O C/O Rra Tax India Company Ward-1(2) D -28, South Extn. Part - 1 New Delhi. New Delhi Pan : Aaaca 2835 J [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.11.2017 Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Tanena, Adv Shri Acrhit Rehan, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jain, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Tanena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, Sr. DR

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

…re definiteness as to the charge is must and in view of the following judicial decisions: New Sorathia Engg Co. vs. CIT in 282 ITR 642 (Guj) (CLC Page no. 112-114) CIT vs. Manu Engg. Works in 122 ITR 306 (Guj) (CLC Page no. 115-119) CIT vs. Lakhdhir Lalji in 85 ITR 77 (Gujarat) Commissioner of Wealth Tax and Income Tax vs. T. Girija Ammal in 282 ITR 614 (Chennai) Navinbhai M. Patel vs. ITO in 27 1TD 411(Ahmedabad) IV) Our Submission with respect to M/s. Maharaj Garage & Company vs. CIT in Income Tax Reference No.21 of 2008: The above said judgment is not applicable on the facts of our case in view of following…

Putul Jash, Burdwan vs. ACIT, Cir-1, Burdwan

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

ITA 1164/KOL/2015[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Aug 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1164/Kol/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07 Putul Jash Vs. Asssitant C.I.T, Cir – 1, Burdwan Vill. Chakundi, P.O. Nabastha, Aayakarbhawan, Kachari P.S. Memari, Burdwan – 713 407. Road, Court Compound, Burdwan – 713 101. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Afdpj3622D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Respondent By :Shri S. M. Das, Acit (Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08/08/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2006-07, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Asansol In Appeal No.202/Cit(A)/Asl/Cir-1/Bwn/13-14 Dated 17.10.2014, Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Herein After Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 30.04.2013. 2. The Said Appeal Filed By The Assessee In Ita No.1164/K/15 For A.Y.2006-07, Is Barred By Limitation By 267 Days. The Assessee Has Moved A Petition Requesting The Bench To Condone The Delay. We Heard The Party On This Preliminary Issue. The Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted Before Us That Assessee Provided His

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. M. Das, ACIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 27lSection 68

…ed to above, it is submitted that the penalty levied of Rs. 11,10,000/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on the basis of defective notice be directed to be annulled.The ld Counsel pointed out that the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the cases of CIT vs. LakhdhirLalji, 85 ITR 77 (Guj.) and New SorathiaEngg. Co. vs. ClT, 282 lTR 642 (Guj.) has held that in order to impose penalty-, the charge of "concealment of particulars of income" or "furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income" must be specific because if the proceedings have been initiated on the charge of "concealment of income" then penalty cannot be levied on the…

Panther Fincap & Management Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 40, Mumbai

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

ITA 7570/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2017AY 2008-09

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

Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…ies and came to the conclusion that there should be application of mind on the part of assessing officer. For the sake of convenience, we extract below the relevant observations made by Hon’ble Bombay High Court. “11. The case of CIT v. Lakhdhir Lalji [1972] 85 ITR 77(Guj) is the other decision upon which the Tribunal has placed reliance. In that case a notice under section 274 was issued on the footing of concealment of income by suppression of sales whereas the penalty was levied on the footing that there was furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income since the stock at the closing of the year was underval…

Megayields, Mumbai vs. DCIT 17(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 2581/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S. Meghayields D C I T – 17(2) C/O. Prafullkumar Kenia 217, Piramal Chambers 698/1, Kanti Villa Vs. 2Nd Floor, Lalbaug Dr. Dinshaw Master Road Mumbai 400013 Dadar, Mumbai 400014 Pan – Aahfm8449G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Dhirandra M. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 43(5)Section 73

…ties and came to the conclusion that there should be application of mind on the part of assessing officer. For the sake of convenience, we extract below the relevant observations made by Hon’ble Bombay High Court. “11. The case of CIT v. Lakhdhir Lalji [1972] 85 ITR 77 (Guj) is the other decision upon which the Tribunal has placed reliance. In that case a notice under section 274 was issued on the footing of concealment of income by suppression of sales whereas the penalty was levied on the footing that there was furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income since the stock at the closing of the year was underva…

Triumph Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir-40, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3189/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

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

Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

…ling the income. Under identical set of facts, the co-ordinate bench deleted the penalty in the case of Dharni Developers (supra) by following the below mentioned decisions:- (a) K.M. Bhatia (Quarry) Vs. CIT (193 ITR 379)(Guj) (b) CIT Vs. Lakhdir Lalji (1972)(85 ITR 77)(Guj) (c) CIT Vs. Manjunath Cotton and Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565)(Kar). The co-ordinate bench has followed the decision of Manjunath Cotton and Ginning Factory (supra) to cancel the penalty levied in the case of Samson Perinchery (supra) on identical set of facts, i.e., the penalty was initiated under one limb of sec. 271(1)(c), but finally pen…

Prince Consultancy P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 13(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 6068/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Ramlal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin S. ChhagFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 45ESection 54E

…ties and came to the conclusion that there should be application of mind on the part of assessing officer. For the sake of convenience, we extract below the relevant observations made by Hon’ble Bombay High Court. “11. The case of CIT v. Lakhdhir Lalji [1972] 85 ITR 77 (Guj) is the other decision upon which the Tribunal has placed reliance. 11 M/s. Prince Consultancy P. Ltd. In that case a notice under section 274 was issued on the footing of concealment of income by suppression of sales whereas the penalty was levied on the footing that there was furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income since the stock at…

Dr Sarita Milind Davare, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 40, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2187/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Ramlal Negi (Jm) I.T.A. No. 2187/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year 2009-10)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…hould be application of mind on the part of assessing officer. For the sake of convenience, we extract below the relevant observations made by Hon’ble Bombay High Court. 5 2187&1789/M/14 Dr. Sarita Milind Davare “11. The case of CIT v. Lakhdhir Lalji [1972] 85 ITR 77 (Guj) is the other decision upon which the Tribunal has placed reliance. In that case a notice under section 274 was issued on the footing of concealment of income by suppression of sales whereas the penalty was levied on the footing that there was furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income since the stock at the closing of the year was underva…

M/S Flow & Fluid Control Centre, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-34(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1051/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.R. Singh, JCIT

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

…ty levied on the assessee for another charge. This will be clear from paragraph 16 of its judgement, which reads thus :- “Next decision upon which reliance was placed wag a Bench decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Lakhdhir Lalji [1972] 85 ITR 77. There the ITO added a sum of Rs. 58,000 which he held that the assessee had realised by the sale of 1,383 bags of garlic and concealed, and issued a notice to the assessee under s. 274 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for levying penalty for concealment of income. As the amount of penalty leviable would have been more than Rs. 1,000, he referred the case to…

Shalini Karan Kumar, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 34, Mumbai

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

ITA 5457/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh (Jm) & Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 271(1)(c)

…he case of Dharni Developers (supra), wherein the contention of the assessee was accepted by following the decisions rendered in the following cases:- 3 Mrs. Shalini Karan Kumar (a) K.Bhatia Vs. CIT (1992)(193 ITR 379)(Guj) (b) CIT Vs. Lakhdhir Lalji (1972)(85 ITR 77)(Guj) (c) Samson Perinchery Vs. Asst. CIT (ITA No.5625/Mum/2013 (d) CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565)(Kar) 7. In view of the above, we are of the view that there is merit in the contentions of the assessee on the legal issue urged by him. Accordingly, consistent with the view taken in the above said cases, we hold that the…

Ami Builders P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 5(1), Mumbai

ITA 803/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri R.S.SinghviFor Respondent: Dr. Pramod Nikalje (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 371(1)

…on or disallowance without arriving at a prima facie satisfaction with respect to infraction by the assessee of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 of the Act." 15. Similarly the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs Lakhdhir Lalji (1972) 85 ITR 77 held as under: "That the penalty proceedings had been commenced against the assessee on a particular footing, viz., concealment of particulars of income, but the final conclusion for levying the penalty was based on a different footing altogether, viz., on the footing of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Under the circumstances, it could…