CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning

359 ITR 564High Court2013#11568 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250 Section 142(1)Section 148 Section 143(1)Section 145(3)

Issues it is cited on

levy of penalty section 271(1)section 271(1)(c)section 27 section 271 section 143(2)person nfac section 250 section 14 section 143(3)total income

Judgments citing CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning

Zf Steering Gear (India) Limited, Pune vs. DCIT Central Circle 15, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in very terms

ITA 4807/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Vs M/S Zf Sterling Gear Dcit Central Circle-15, (India) Limited, New Delhi Gat 1242 1244 Vadhu Room No. 245, Dgit Budruk Takuka Shirur (Systems) Ara Koregaon Bhima, Pune, Centre, Ground Maharashtara Floor E-2 (Pan: Aaacz0549G) Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

…he upholding of the penalty imposed under section 271(1) (c ) of the Act which was accepted by the ITAT. It followed the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 35 taxmann.com 250/218 Taxman 423/218 Taxman 423/359 ITR 564 and observed that the notice issued by the AO would bad in law if it did not specify which limb of section 271(1) (c ) the penalty proceedings had been initiated under i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Karnataka High Court had followed the above judgment in the subsequ…

Sanjay Jain, Saharanpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Saharanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6650/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Vs Sanjay Jain, Ito, Ward-3(3)(1), 39, Mission Compound, Sahranpur-247001 Saharanpur-247001 Uttar Pradesh [Pan: Ackpj3369F) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 145(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Appayya Kaveerappa Kottarshetty, Belgaum vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1, Belagavi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 204/PAN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji29 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHIR PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (Judicial Member), SHRI GD PADMAHSHALI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri.Anil I Ramdurg. ARFor Respondent: Shri.DeshmukhSPrakash.Sr.DR

Section 270A

…he view that penalty cannot be automatic and every addition in the assessment proceedings cannot be gate way for levy of penalty and relay on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of the CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning factory, [2013] 359 ITR 564 (Kar). Similarly the penalty cannot be levied in case of adhoc addition. Whereas the assessee has made a claim under the bona fide belief in the A.Y.2014-15 in respect of capital gains as allowable under the law and due to noncompliance of conditions, the claim was denied and was taxed in A.Y.2017-18 and relied on the ratio of decision of Hon’ble…

Narangi Land Development Corporation, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-17(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2735/MUM/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaranarangi Land Ito-Ward –25(3)(1) Developmentcorporation, R.No.116, Kautilya बनाम/ 407B, Gokul Arcade “A”, Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Swamy Nityanand Marg, Bandra (East) Vile Parle (E), Mumbai – 400051. Mumbai-400057. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaan3465B (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh Desai.ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…he view that penalty cannot be automatic and every addition in the assessment proceedings cannot be gate way for levy of penalty and relay on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of the CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning factory, [2013] 359 ITR 564 (Kar). Similarly the penalty cannot be levied in case of adhoc disallowance and estimation i.e.75% of the total claim sustained by the CIT(A) in the absence of bills and vouchers. Whereas the assessee has made a claim under the bonafide belief that it is allowable under the law and we rely on the ratio of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court 8 ITA…

M/S. Shree Swaminarayan Enterprises, Thane vs. ITO- 2(4), Thane

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

ITA 462/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Smt Renu Jauhrim/S. Shree Swaminarayan Ito Ward 2(4), Enterprises, Room No. 25, B Wing, बनाम/ Plot No.30, Jeevandeep, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park Vs. Opp: Shivdham Complex, Road No 162,Wagle Suryodaya Housing Society, Industrial Estate Ambernath (E) Thane (W)-421301 Thane-421501. Maharashtra. Maharashtra. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abofs3402K (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri.Niraj Seth.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Krishna kumar.Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…penalty cannot be automatic and every addition/disallowance in the assessment proceedings cannot be gate way for levy of penalty and relay on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of the CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning factory, [2013] 359 ITR 564 (Kar). Further the assesse has made a claim under the bonafide belief that it is allowable under the law. We also rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petroleum Products Ltd., 322 ITR 158(SC) and the observations are read as under: 9 ITA.No.462/Mum/2024. M/s Shree Swaminarayan Enterprises., Mumbai “…

Ms Rajmal Lakhichand, Jalgaon vs. DCIT, Jalgaon

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

ITA 1206/PUN/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Sept 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1206/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ms. Rajmal Lakhichand, Vs. Dcit, Jalgaon. 169, Balaji Peth, Jalgaon- 425001. Pan : Aacfr8609L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak : Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.09.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “The Grounds Of Appeal Stated Below Are Without Prejudice To Each Other. 1) That The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.62,95,800 U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Said Penalty Be Cancelled. 2) Gross Profit Addition

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak

Section 142Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)(a)

…THAT the learned AO and CIT(A) has seriously erred in not following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows (2016) 242 Taxman 180 upholding decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory. (359 ITR 564) 5. GENERAL 5.1 The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any one or more of the grounds of appeals as may be required in the nature and circumstances of the case. 5.2 The appellant prays leave to adduce such further evidence to substantiate its case as the occasion may demand.” 3. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee is a f…

Mrs. Spureet Kaur Nagi, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC-20, Mumbai

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

ITA 5693/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalemrs. Spureet Kaur Nagi Vs. Acit Cc-20 602, B Wing Foreshore Rm No. 402, 4Th Floor Apartments, Juhu Tara Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road, Santacruz West, Road, Mumbai – Mumbai – 400049 400020. Pan/Gir No. : Acfpn9986M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar Menon, Dr Date Of Hearing 05.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 19.05.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -51 Mumbai, Passed U/S.271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Sole Ground Of Appeal:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Menon, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…as passed a elaborate order confirming the penalty, overlooking the facts and the nature of profession. We are of the view that penalty cannot be automatic and rely on the principles in the decision of the CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning factory, [2013] 359 ITR 564 (Kar) and accordingly, we direct the Assessing officer to delete the penalty and allow the grounds of appeal of the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 19.05.2021 (SHAMIM YAHYA) (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 19.05.2021 KRK, PS आदेश…

M/S. Nabors Drilling International Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT(International Taxation)-3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2234/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. Nabors Drilling Vs. Dcit (International International Ltd., Taxation) – 3(3)(1). C/O. Nangia & Co. Ca’S, 1630, 16Th Floor, Air India 1101, Tower-B, Peninsula Bldg., Nariman Point, Business Park, Ganpat Rao, Mumbai. Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400013. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcn7265N Appellant / Respondent .. Respondent / Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Agarwala, AR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44B

…accurate.We are of the view that penalty cannot be automatic and every addition in the assessment proceedings cannot be gate way for levy of penalty. We find Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of the CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning factory, [2013] 359 ITR 564 (Kar), dealt on the principles for levy of penalty as under: “In the case of CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory, Karnataka High Court has laid down the following Principles for levy of penalty Under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 :- (a) Penalty under Section 271(l)(c) is a civil liability. (b) Mens rea is not an essenti…

Til Investments P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 7(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4418/MUM/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaletil Investments P. Ltd., Ito 7(3)(3) बनाम/ 306, Jai Antarikash, Near Mumbai Vs. Thakar House, Makwana Road, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabct4024F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 73

…elaborate order confirming the penalty, overlooking the facts, nature and method of operations of the assessee business. We are of the view that penalty cannot be automatic and rely on the decision of the CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning factory, [2013] 359 ITR 564 (Kar), and the principles as under: “In the case of CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory, Karnataka High Court has laid down the following Principles for levy of penalty Under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 :- (a) Penalty under Section 271(l)(c) is a civil liability. (b) Mens rea is not an essential element for imposing p…