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.

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 306)

ACIT-2(1), Ujjain vs. M/S Ruchi J Oil Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal ITANo

ITA 82/IND/2020[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Indore17 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 271ASection 40A(2)(b)Section 91D(1)Section 92BSection 92D(1)

…vs. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory (supra) and CIT vs. SSA’S Emerald Meadows (supra) rightly allowed the appeal of the assessee and set aside the order of penalty imposed by the authorities. (Page 83 to 88 of P.B.) iii) CIT vs Manu Engineering Works [1980] 122 ITR 306 (Gujarat) (Page 89 to 93 of P.B) iv) CIT vs Samson Perinchery [2017] 88 taxmann.com 413 (Bom.) (Page 94 to 96 of P.B) v) CIT vsSSA'S Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 taxman.com 241 (Kar.)(P.116 to 118 of P.B) vi) CIT vs. SSA'S Emerald Meadows[2016] 73 taxmann.com 248 (SC)(SLP dismissed). vii) Varad Mehta vs. DCIT (2019) 34 ITJ 125 (Indore Trib) Held “AO…

Shri Jai Hind Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD-5(4), Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 146/JPR/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.” 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)

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

…stainable—Tribunal having failed to take into consideration and deal with decision of the jurisdictional High Court, it committed an error in law— 6 ITA 146/JP/2021_ Shri Jain Hind Agarwal Vs ITO CIT vs. Manu Engineering Works (1979) 8 CTR (Guj) 141 : (1980) 122 ITR 306 (Guj) followed. It is also worthwhile to mention that subsequently the SLP was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SSAS Emerald Meadows in CC No. 11485 of 2016 order dated 05.08.2016 in which the same law was confirmed by approving the judgment of the Karnataka High Court. The Rajasthan High Court is also following the above…

Chandra Suresh Kothari, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur

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

ITA 126/NAG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri O.P. Kant, Am

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh P Shah (CA)For Respondent: Shri Pradeep Hedaoo (CIT-DR)

Section 132Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI O.P. KANT, AM ITA Nos. 125 & 126/NAG/2021 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Chandra Suresh Kothari, Vs. D.C.I.T., 1164, Kothari Enclave, Bhaji Central Circle-2(2), Mandi, Nikalas Mandir Road, 207, Aayakar Bhavan, Sarafa Bazar, Itwari, Nagpur. Telangkhedi Road, Civil Lines, Nagpur-440001. PAN No.: AGXPK 4011 C Appellant Respondent Assessee by: Shri Hitesh P Shah (CA) Revenue by : Shri Pradeep Hedaoo (CIT-DR) Date of Hearing: 27/10/2021 Date of Pronouncement: 20/12/2021 ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. Both these appea…

Chandra Suresh Kothari, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(2), Nagpur

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

ITA 125/NAG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri O.P. Kant, Am

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh P Shah (CA)For Respondent: Shri Pradeep Hedaoo (CIT-DR)

Section 132Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI O.P. KANT, AM ITA Nos. 125 & 126/NAG/2021 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Chandra Suresh Kothari, Vs. D.C.I.T., 1164, Kothari Enclave, Bhaji Central Circle-2(2), Mandi, Nikalas Mandir Road, 207, Aayakar Bhavan, Sarafa Bazar, Itwari, Nagpur. Telangkhedi Road, Civil Lines, Nagpur-440001. PAN No.: AGXPK 4011 C Appellant Respondent Assessee by: Shri Hitesh P Shah (CA) Revenue by : Shri Pradeep Hedaoo (CIT-DR) Date of Hearing: 27/10/2021 Date of Pronouncement: 20/12/2021 ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. Both these appea…

M/S Ickon Projects, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-7(2)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 770/BANG/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Chetan R. Addl.CIT-DR

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 27(1)(c)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…

S.D.Constructions, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-49(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 243/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Hon’Ble] [Through Virtual Court] I.T.A. No. 243/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 S. D. Constructions……...............................................................................................Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069. [Pan: Aawfs5599N] Vs. Acit, Circle-49(1), Kolkata..................................................................................Respondent Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 29, 2021 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 01, 2021 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 15, Kolkata Dated 30.07.2019 Whereby He Confirmed The Penalty Of Rs.4,58,376/- Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee, In The Present Case, Is A Firm & Is Engaged In The Business Of Construction Of Building. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Was Filed By The Assessee On 29.09.2015 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.38,97,950/-. In The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act, The Total Income Of The Assessee Was 2

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 43C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘(A)’, KOLKATA [BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT (KZ) & SHRI A. T. VARKEY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER] [Through Virtual Court] I.T.A. No. 243/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 S. D. Constructions……...............................................................................................Appellant C/o Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2nd Floor, Kolkata-700069. [PAN: AAWFS5599N] Vs. ACIT, Circle-49(1), Kolkata..................................................................................Respondent…

Vijay Kedia (HUF), Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1266/JPR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jul 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1266/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 M/S Vijay Kedia, Cuke A.C.I.T., 1307, Gopal Ji Ka Rasta, Johari Vs. Central Circle-1, Bazar, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aabhv 6449 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.R. Sharma (Ca)& Shri R.K. Bhatra (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 19/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/07/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 1, Jaipur Dated 02/09/2019 For The A.Y. 2008-09, Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Wrong, Unjust & Has Erred In Law In Not Accepting Plea Of The Appellant That The Notice Issued By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Is Wrong & Bad In Law Inasmuch As It Did Not Specify In Which Limb Of Sec. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 The Penalty Proceedings Has Been Initiated I.E. Whether For Concealment Of Income Or Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Income.

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA)&For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1266/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2008-09 M/s Vijay Kedia, cuke A.C.I.T., 1307, Gopal Ji Ka Rasta, Johari Vs. Central Circle-1, Bazar, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABHV 6449 M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri S.R. Sharma (CA)& Shri R.K. Bhatra (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Nexus Infracon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 4637/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT DR

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

…urt in the case of T Ashok Poi 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 has…

Late Sri Zia Usmani Through L/H and Wife Smt. Mehvish Usmani, Allahabad vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Allahabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 143/ALLD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad12 Apr 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

Section 142(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…enalty should also be imposed on the same ground. Where the basis of the initiation of penalty proceedings is not identical with the ground on which the penalty was imposed, the imposition of penalty is not valid’. 17. In CIT vs. Manu Engineering Works (1980) 122 ITR 306 (Guj) penalty was imposed by noting : `that the assessee had concealed its income and/or that it had furnished inaccurate particulars of such income’. Striking down the penalty, the Hon’ble High Court held that : `it was incumbent upon the IAC to come to a positive finding as to whether there was concealment of income by the assessee or whether a…