How many judgments cite CIT v. Manu Engg?

505 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Manu Engg (122 ITR 306), spanning 2012 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Manu Engg come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 271(1)(c), Section 274, Section 143(3), Section 250, Section 68, Section 132.

CIT v. Manu Engg

122 ITR 306High Court1980#133 most cited

What is CIT v. Manu Engg authority for?

When levying a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), the Assessing Officer must clearly specify whether it is for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. An ambiguous notice or order using "and/or" for these limbs, or a standard proforma without striking irrelevant clauses, indicates non-application of mind and renders the penalty unsustainable.

505

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Manu Engg · Manu Engineering · Section 271(1)(c) · Section 274 · levy of penalty · penalty notice · concealment of income · furnishing inaccurate particulars of income · ambiguous penalty order · non-application of mind · penalty unsustainable

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274 Section 143(3)Section 250 Section 68 Section 132 Section 153A Section 154

Issues it is cited on

section 271(l)section 271(l)(c)furnishing inaccurate particulars of income penalty under section 271(1)(c)furnishing inaccurate particulars section 274 non-application of mind concealment of income penalty u/s 271(1)(c)levy of penalty section 271(1)section 271

Judgments citing CIT v. Manu Engg

Apoorv Industrial Corporation, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 43(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 573/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A.T. Varkey

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

…ars. The Apex Court in the case of Ashok Pai reported in 292 ITR 11 at page 19 has held that concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income carry different connotations. The Gujarat High Court in the case of MANU ENGINEERING reported in 122 ITR 306 and the Delhi High Court in the case of VIRGO MARKETING reported in 171 Taxman 156, has held that levy of penalty has to be clear as to the limb for which it is levied and the position being unclear penalty is not sustainable. Therefore, when the Assessing Officer proposes to invoke the first limb being concealment, then the notice has to be appr…

Simran K Sayyed, Gadag vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Gadag

In the result, assessee’s appeal for Asst

ITA 1949/BANG/2017[21012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2019

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2012-13 Ms. Simran. K. Sayyed, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Near Bhisma Tank, Ward - 1, Gadag – 582 101. Gadag. Pan : Bwgps 4895 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Mrinalini, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Vikas K. Suryawamshi, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 19.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.01.2019

For Appellant: Ms. Mrinalini, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Vikas K. Suryawamshi, Addl. CIT

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2012-13 Ms. Simran. K. Sayyed, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Near Bhisma Tank, Ward - 1, Gadag – 582 101. Gadag. PAN : BWGPS 4895 G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Ms. Mrinalini, Advocate Revenue by : Smt. Vikas K. Suryawamshi, Addl. CIT Date of hearing : 19.12.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 04.01.2019 O R D E R Per Shri Jason P Boaz, A.M. : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A), Hubli dated 15.06.2017, upholding the levy of pe…

M/S Mann & Hummel Filter Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 798/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)(Bengaluru)

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

…urt in the case of T. Ashok Pai v. CIT [2007] 292 ITR 11/161 Taxman 340 at page 19 has held that concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income carry different connotations. The Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Manu Engg. [1980] 122 ITR 306 and the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Virgo Marketing (P.) Ltd. [2008] 171 Taxman 156, has held that levy of penalty has to be clear as to the limb for which it is levied and the position being unclear penalty is not sustainable. Therefore, when the Assessing Officer proposes to invoke the first limb being concealment, then the notice ha…

Sh. Maninder Singh Prop. M/S Dashmesh Bricks, Bathinda vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Bathinda

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 440/ASR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A No.440/Asr/2017 Assessment Year:2011-12

For Appellant: Written SubmissionsFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R)

Section 268ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…ected u/s. 292B of the Act. In fact, on this precise issue, i.e., the legal impact of the non-specification of the limb of sec.271(1)(c) in the notice u/s. 274, there are several decisions by the Hon’ble High Courts, as in CIT v. Manu Engineering Works [1980] 122 ITR 306 (Guj); CIT vs. Mithila Motors (P.) Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 751 (Pat); CIT v. Chandulal [1985] 152 ITR 238 (AP); CIT vs. Kaushalya & Ors. [1994] 216 ITR 660 (Bom), holding it to be of little consequence, also clarifying the import of the notice u/s. 274. Again, it may be noted that these decisions are either under the 1922 Act or prior to the insertio…

Model Fuels Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 3(3), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 382/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2010-11 Model Fuels Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O Rsvpc & Company, Ward-3(3), P-7, / 41A, A.J.C.Bose Road, V/S. Chowringhee Square, Suite No.613, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Kolkata-700 017 Kolkata-69 [Pan No.Aabcm 8951 E] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Lokesh Mishra, Ar अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri S.Haldar, Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 19-12-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 26-12-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Kolkata’S Order Dated 29.01.2018 Passed In Case No.Itba/Appeal_1/2017-18/1007753670(1), Involving Proceedings 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File(S) Perused. 2. The Assessee’S Sole Substantive Grievance Raised In The Instant Appeal Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities Action Imposing The Penalty In Issue Of ₹3,13,571/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. It Emerges From The Relevant Penalty Notice Dated 28.03.2013 That The Assessing Officer Did Not Specify As To Whether The Assessee Is Accused Of Concealment Of Particulars Of Any Taxable Income Or It Had

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “D” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “D” KOLKATA Before Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member and Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2010-11 Model Fuels Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/o RSVPC & Company, Ward-3(3), P-7, / 41A, A.J.C.Bose Road, V/s. Chowringhee Square, Suite No.613, 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Kolkata-700 017 Kolkata-69 [PAN No.AABCM 8951 E] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Lokesh Mishra, AR अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri S.Haldar, Sr-DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 19-12-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of…

Vaibhav Global Limited, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5, Jaipur

In the result, the penalty is directed to be deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 731/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta (C.A.) &For Respondent: Smt. Roli Agarwal (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 730 & 731/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 cuke Vaibhav Global Ltd. The ACIT, Vs. (Earlier known as Vaibhav Gems Ltd.) Circle-5, K-6-B Fateh Tiba, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACV 4679 F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Vijay Mehta (C.A…

Vaibhav Global Limited, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5, Jaipur

In the result, the penalty is directed to be deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 730/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta (C.A.) &For Respondent: Smt. Roli Agarwal (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

The Dy. CIT, Circle-1(3), Baroda vs. M/S. Fine Line Circuit Company, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1920/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sanket Bakshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr. D.R

Section 10BSection 10B(2)Section 10B(3)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Judicial Member And Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member Assessment Year 2010-11 The DCIT, Fine Line Circuit Circle-1(3), Company, Baroda Vs Plot No. E-8, GIDC, (Appellant) Manjusar, Savli, Vadodara-391770 PAN: AAAFF6253A (Respondent) Revenue by: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr. D.R. Assessee by: Shri Sanket Bakshi, A.R. Date of hearing : 28-11-2018 Date of pronouncement : 30-11-2018 आदेश/ORDER PER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This revenue’s appeal for A.Y. 2010-11, arises from order of the CIT(A)-5, Vadodara dated 25-04-201…

M/S. Skylark Fiscal Sevices Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 7(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2259/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 41(1)

Satpal Saini, Noida vs. ITO, Ward- 3(3), Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3743/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Bleita No. 3743/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Satpal Saini, Vs Income Tax Officer, C-1, Sector-53, Ward-3(3), Noida-201301 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Bdrps9119R Assessee By : Sh. Vivek Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Surender Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2018 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.03.2018 Of Ld. Cit(A)-1, Noida.

For Appellant: Sh. Vivek Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Surender Meena, Sr. DR

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

…ars are two mutually exclusive situations. The position of law in this is well settled and reference in this regard may be made to judgments of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of New Sorathia Engg Co. vs. CIT in 282 ITR 642, CIT vs. Manu Engg. Works in 122 ITR 306 and CIT vs. Lakhdhir Lalji in 85 ITR 77. 14. This view has been again reiterated also by Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Smt. Baisetty Revathi (supra). Thus viewed from any angle we find that levy of penalty in this case is not justified and the impugned penalty order is illegal. 14 Satpal Saini Therefore, we have no…

M/S S R Construction Company, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeal for Asst

ITA 2111/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Nov 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Srinidhi Das, Addl. CIT (D.R)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292B

…ars. The Apex Court in the case of Ashok Pai reported in 292 ITR 11 at page 19 has held that concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income carry different connotations. The Gujarat High Court in the case of M4NU ENGINEERING reported in 122 ITR 306 and the Delhi High Court in the case of VIRGO IvL4RKETING reported in 171 Taxman 156, has held that penalty has to be clear as to the limb for which it is levied and theaction being unclear penalty is not sustainable. Therefore, when the Assessing Officer proposes to invoke the first limb being concealment, then the notice has to be appropriately…

Ritesh P. Burad, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2, Thane

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3446/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Shri Ritesh P. Burad Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of 17B, Prena Building Income Tax, Circle-2 Swagatam Housing Complex Thane Jesal Park, Bhayander(E), Thane Pan/Gir No.Adgpb7399N (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 131Section 133ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…e case of Ashok Pai reported in [2007] 292 ITR 11 (SC) at page 19 has held that concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income carry different connotations. The Gujarat High Court in the case of Manu Engineering Works reported in [1980] 122 ITR 306 (GUJ) and the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Virgo Marketing P Ltd reported in [2008 171 Taxman 156 has held that levy of penalty has to be clear as to the limb for which it is levied and the position being unclear penalty is not sustainable. Therefore, when the Assessing Officer proposes to invoke the first limb being concealment then th…

Shri Hasmukhbhai Bachubhai Radadia, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2742/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2742/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Hashmukhbhai Bachubhai Vs. Dcit, Radadia, Circle – 3(3), 492, Avadh, Opp. Amul Ice- Ahmedabad. Cream Parlour, Lad Society Road, Vastrapur, Ahmedabad. (Pan No. Aaqpr 7176 N) , , अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri U. S. Bhati & Abhimanyu Bhati, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02.08.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2018 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Appellate Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Ahmedabad [“Cit(A)” In Short] Dated 22.09.2016 Relevant To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1.0 The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Penalty Order. 2.0 The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Concluding That Mistake Committed By The Appellant Was Intentional. He Has Further Erred In Not Considering The Explanation Of The Appellant Duly Supported By The Affidavits To The Effect That The Advocate

For Appellant: Shri U. S. Bhati & AbhimanyuFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R

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

…, basically saying that in the notice either of the two should have been struck out i.e. furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. The appellant relied on the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court judgment in the case of CIT vs. .Manu Engineering Works 122 ITR 306 (Guj.) with the further comments that the same has been applied in some other cases including the case of Vikramkumar Sardarmal Shah Vs. ITO by the ITAT, Ahmedabad on 17.02.2016. I have gone through the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manu Engineering Works 122 ITR 306 (Guj ) and find that the judgment is relating to…

Shri Kaushikaben A. Patel, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Aurangabad

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 3331/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar] Assessment Year : 2009-10 Kaushikaben A Patel ......…………......Appellant 8, Lavkush Society, Nr. Vyas Wadi, Nava Wadaj, Ahmedabad – 380 013 [Pan : Ainpp 3805 B] Vs. Income Tax Officer .......................Respondent Ward 2 (2)(2), Ahmedabad

Section 271(1)(c)

…er to the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of New SMC-ITA No. 3331/Ahd/2015 Kaushikaben A Patel Vs. ITO AY : 2009-10 Page 3 of 3 Sorathia Engineering Company vs. CIT (2006) 282 ITR 642 (Guj.) and CIT vs. Manu Engineering Works (1980) 122 ITR 306 (Guj.). Similar view has been taken by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Gian Chand Batia vs. DCIT 61 ITD 24(All.). Therefore, wher e concurrent I.T.authorities are not sure about nature of default, the penal action under s.271(1)(c) of the Act is not sustainable in law. 9. Consequently, the penalty order of the AO dated 25/11/2013 is set a…

Prakash Chandra Kapoor, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC -42, Mumbai

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

ITA 873/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Abi Rama

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ars. The Apex Court in the case of Ashok Pai reported in 292 ITR 11 at page 19 has held that concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income carry different connotations, The Gujarat High Court in the case of MANU ENGINEERING reported in 122 ITR 306 and the Delhi High Court in the case of VIRGO MARKETING reported in 171 Taxman 156, has held that levy of penalty has to be clear as to the limb for which it is levied and the position being unclear penalty is not sustainable. Thom, when the Assessing Officer proposes to invoke the first limb being concealment, then the notice has to be appropria…

Amit Capital & Securities P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3443/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2006-07 Amit Capital & Securities Income Tax Officer Private Limited, Range-2(1)(1), बनाम/ 47A, 3Rd Floor, Plot No.308, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Hanuman Building, Perin M. K. Road, Nariman Street, Fort, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400001 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaaca4219Q "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Govind Jhaveri Shri Satishchandra Rajore-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 04/10/2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 09/10/2018

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…pex court in the case of Ashok Pai reported (2007) 292 ITR 11 (SC) at page 19 has held that concealnment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income carry different connotations. The Gujarat High Court in the case of Manu Engineering reported in 122 ITR 306 and the Delhi High Court in the case of Virgo Marketing P.Ltd., reported in 171 Taxman 156, has held that levy of penalty has to be clear as to the limb for which it is levied and the position being unclear penalty is not sustainable. Therefore, when the Assessing Officer proposes to invoke the first limb being concealment, then the notice has to…

DCIT CC 3(4) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Laxmichand D. Rohira, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are hereby dismissed and cross-objections filed by the assessee are hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 1178/MUM/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.1178 To 1184/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2007-08) Dy. Cit Cc-3(4) Central बिधम/ Shri Lakhmichand D. Rohira, 2301, Dheeraj Heigh Range-3 Vs. Gaurav, New Link Rd, Room No. 1915, 19Th Floor, Andheri (W), Mumbai- Air India Bldg, Nariman 400053. Point, Mumbai-400021. Co. Nos. 250 To 256/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita. Nos.1183, 1178, 1179, 1180, 1181 1182 & 1184/M/2016) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07& 2007-08) बिधम/ Shri Lakhmichand D. Dy. Cit Cc-3(4) Central Rohira, 2301, Dheeraj Heigh Range-3 Vs. Gaurav, New Link Rd, Room No. 1915, 19Th Floor, Andheri (W), Mumbai- Air India Bldg, Nariman 400053. Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adnpr6420M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05.09.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24.09.2018

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya (AR)For Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (DR)

Section 132

…x court in the case of Ashok Pai reported in [2007] 292 ITR 11 (SC) at page 19 has held that concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income carry different connotations. The Gujarat High Court in the case of Manu Engineering reported in 122 ITR 306 and the Delhi High Court in the case of Virgo Marketing P. Ltd., reported in 171 Taxmn 156, has held that levy of penalty has to be clear as to the limb for which it is levied and the position being unclear penalty is not sustainable. Therefore, when the Assessing Officer proposes ITA. Nos. 1178 to 1184/Mum/2016 CO. Nos. 250 to256/Mum/2017 A.Ys…

Abhishek Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 56/AHD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Shah, A.R

…so. For such a view, we may usefully refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of New Sorathia Engineering Co. (supra) as well as another decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manu Engineering Works (1980) 122 ITR 306 (Guj). Thus, in totality, penal action under s.271(1)(c) of the Act is not sustainable in law.” In the light of the aforesaid decision, the penalty under s.271(1)(c) of the Act is not sustainable where the edifice of ‘satisfaction’ has undergone fundamental change. Thus, in parity, the penalty is required to be cancelled on this ground alone. We…

M/S Industrial Filters & Fabrics Pvt.Ltd., Indore vs. The JCIT, R-5 (Present AO: DCIT 2(1), Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

ITA 961/IND/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…fficer. The apex court in the case of Ashok Pai reported [2007 292 ITR 11 (SC) has held that concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income carry different connotations. The Gujarat High Court in the case of Manu Engineering reported in 122 ITR 306 Manu Engineering reported in 122 ITR 306 and the Delhi\High Court in the Manu Engineering reported in 122 ITR 306 Manu Engineering reported in 122 ITR 306 case of Virgo Marketing P. Ltd.,171Taxmn 156 Virgo Marketing P. Ltd.,171Taxmn 156 Virgo Marketing P. Ltd.,171Taxmn 156, has held that levy of penalty Virgo Marketing P. Ltd.,171Taxmn 156 has to…

M/S Industrial Filters & Fabrics Private Limited, Indore vs. The ACIT 2(1), Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

ITA 753/IND/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68