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 366,470 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

Nova Promoters and Finlease Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3173/DEL/2014[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2024AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Ms.Madhumita Roynova Promoters & Vs. Ito, Ward 13(3) Finlease Pvt. Ltd. Ito Building, I.P. Estate 7, Kapil Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi – 34

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anshul

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…essary that the department must go further and establish that there was deliberate concealment of particulars of income by the assessee. 4.13 The decisions in the cases of CIT v. Whiteford India Limited 38 taxmann.com 15 (Guj.), CIT v. Manu Engineering Works 122 ITR 306 (Guj.) and New Sorathia Engg Co. v. CIT 155 Taxman 513 (Guj.) relied on by the AR are also not applicable in the instant case because the AO in the assessment order has clearly mentioned that penalty proceedings have been initiated for concealment of income and I am also of considered view that penalty is leviable for concealment of income. 4.14…

Anil Kumar, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward 2(1)(1), Ward Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1516/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year 2014-15

For Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr.DR

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…is liable to struck down on this ground alone. 6. For such a view, I usefully refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of New 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 Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Gian Chand Batia vs. DCIT, 61 ITD 24 (All.). Therefore, where the AO is not sure about the nature of default and has confirmed the penalty on an altogether different ground than for which satisfaction under Section 271(1B) was formed, the penal action 3 under Section…

Mr. Shivakumar Mahadevaiah, Mysore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Mysore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 518/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari (Accountant Member), Shri Keshav Dubey (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sukesh Patil, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU “C” BENCH, BENGALURU Before Shri Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member and Shri Keshav Dubey, Judicial Member Mr. Shivakumar Mahadevaiah The Income Tax Officer-2(3) B-9, 9th Main Lalith Mahal Nagar Room No. 14, 1st Floor Mysore 570028 vs. Aayakar Bhavan PAN – ACZPM8866F 26/12, Residency Road Mysore 570010 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Sukesh Patil, CA Revenue by: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT Date of hearing: 07.05.2024 Date of pronouncement: 12.06.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M. This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order…

DCIT-14(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Michael Page International Recruitment P Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Appeal and CO filed by the Revenue and Assessee respectively, stands dismissed

ITA 2661/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Michael Page Income Tax -14(1)(1), International Room No.432, 4Th Floor, Recruitment Pvt. Ltd., 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. M.K. Road, 2 North Avenue Maker Mumbai - 400020 Maxity, Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051 Pan: Aagcm8425N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Hirali Desai, C.A. &For Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. D.R

Section 250Section 32Section 37Section 37(1)

…e upheld. 9. On the contrary the Ld. A.R. while relying on various judgments including T. Ashok Pai vs. CIT (supra) and CIT vs. Samson Perinchery (supra), HPCL Mittal Energy Ltd. vs. ACIT in ITA No.554 & 555/ASR/2014 and CIT vs. Manu Engineering Works (1980) 122 ITR 306 contended that concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income are two separate connotations and satisfaction of the AO qua only one of the breaches under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for initiation of penalty proceedings will not permit levy of penalty for other breach. Further, it is incumbent upon the AO to come to a p…

M/S. Korada Furniture Company Pvt Ltd., Hubli vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-1(1) &Tps, Hubli

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

ITA 47/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri.Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sandeep Kumar H.S., Addl.CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

…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, th…

Shri. Anand, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(4), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 999/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri R. Chandrashekar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., D.R

Section 131Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 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 ITA Nos.998 to 1002 & 1144/Bang/2023 Shri Anand, Bangalore Page 5 of 10 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 t…

Sri. Anand, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(4), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 998/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri R. Chandrashekar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., D.R

Section 131Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Shri. Anand, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(4), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1144/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri R. Chandrashekar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., D.R

Section 131Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Shri. Anand, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(4), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1002/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri R. Chandrashekar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., D.R

Section 131Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ars. The Apex court in the case of Ashok Pal reported in 295 ITR 41 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…

Shri. Anand, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(4), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1001/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri R. Chandrashekar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., D.R

Section 131Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Shri. Anand, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(4), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1000/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri R. Chandrashekar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., D.R

Section 131Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Yash Bhupeshbhai Tamakuwala, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(2)(5), Now Income Tax Officer - 1(2)(6), Surat

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 580/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.580/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) Yash Bhupeshbhai Tamakuwala, Vs. The Ito, 1/208, Kharadi Sheri, Nanpura, Ward- 1(2)(6), Surat – 395001. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ajypt3602P (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

…ing in the penalty order or the order of CIT(A) whether there was concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, penalty was not sustainable. The Hon'ble High Court also relied on earlier decision of CIT Vs Manu Engineering Works (1980) 122 ITR 306 (Guj). Thus, in view of the aforesaid factual and legal discussion when there is no specific finding in the penalty order I do not find any justification in upholding the levy of penalty as has been held by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in New Sorathia Engineering Co. Vs CIT (Supra). 9. Further I find that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in…

DCIT-Circle-1(1), Hubli, C.R. Building, Navanagar Hubli vs. Shri Chandrashekhar Kommi, Hubli

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 753/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R

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

…ITA No.753/Bang/2023 Shri Chandrashekhar Kommi, Hobli IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Chandrashekhar Kommi Plot No.59F, Shakti Colony 2nd Stage DCIT Vishweshwar Nagar Vs. Circle-1(1) Hubli-580 032 Hubli Karnataka PAN NO : AMKPK5722D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, A.R. Revenue by : Shri V. Parithivel, D.R. Date of Hearing : 12.12.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 21.12.2023 O R D E R PER MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The instant appeal filed by…

Simplex Tmc Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 736/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., D.R

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 274

…ITA No.736/Bang/2023 Simplex TMC Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 Simplex TMC Pvt. Ltd. No.116-C/1 KHB Colony 5th Block, Koramangala DCIT Vs. Bangalore 560 034 Circle-1(1) Bangalore PAN NO : AADCS5669M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Subramanian S., D.R. Date of Hearing : 30.11.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 01.12.2023 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by assessee is directed…

Vision Jewellers, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 530/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…lars. 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 Gujrat 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 Taxmann 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 app…

Yoonus Kadavath Peedikayil, Kannur vs. ITO Ward 1 & Tps, Kannur

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 913/COCH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasyoonus Kadavath Peedikayil The Income Tax Officer M/S. Modern Enterprises Ward – 1 & Tps Kakkad Road Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Kannur 670005 Kannothumchal [Pan:Ccwpk6415P] Chovva P.O., Kannur 670006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Shri Manomohan Das, Judicial Member Yoonus Kadavath Peedikayil The Income Tax Officer M/s. Modern Enterprises Ward – 1 & TPS Kakkad Road vs. Aayakar Bhavan Kannur 670005 Kannothumchal [PAN:CCWPK6415P] Chovva P.O., Kannur 670006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri R. Krishnan, CA Respondent by: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 03.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 25.09.2023 O R D E R Per: Sanjay Arora, AM This is an Appeal by the Assessee agitating the confirmation of penalty levied u…

M/S. Vinayaka Enterprises, Srisi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle 2(1), Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 322/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R

Section 132Section 139Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)

…lars. The Apex Court in the case of Ashok Pal reported in 292 flR 11 at page 19 has held that concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income carry different connotations. The Gujrat High Court in the case of MANU ENGINEERING reported in 122 ITR 306 and the Delhi High Court in the case o VIRGO MARKETING 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 to invoke the first limb being concealment, then the notice has to be approp…

M/S. Vinayaka Enterprises, Srisi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle 2(1), Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 321/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R

Section 132Section 139Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)

Hansit Merchants Pvt.Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(2)., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 266/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…orted in 292 ITR 6 AY: 2014-15 Hansit Merchants Private Limited 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…

Ruchit Dineshbhai Doshi, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward - 2(2)(1), Surat

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 216/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Ruchit Dineshbhai Doshi, I.T.O., C-10, 5/6, Somakanji Estate-2, Opp- Ward-2(2)(1), Vs. Sanidev Mandir, Magdalla Bo, Surat. Surat-395007 (Gujarat) Pan No. Afxpd 4008 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

…rder of CIT(A) whether there was concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, penalty was not sustainable. The Hon'ble High Court also relied on earlier decision of CIT Vs Manu 7 Ruchit Dineshbhai Doshi Vs ITO Engineering Works (1980) 122 ITR 306 (Guj). Thus, in view of the aforesaid factual and legal discussion when there is no specific finding in the penalty order I do not find any justification in upholding the levy of penalty as has been held by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in New Sorathia Engineering Co. Vs CIT (Supra). 9. Further I find that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in…