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)

Kunal Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-7, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 8161/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 153ASection 271Section 271A

…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 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 appro…

Akshay Gupta, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-7, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 8102/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 153ASection 271Section 271A

…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 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 appro…

Akshay Gupta, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-7, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 8101/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 153ASection 271Section 271A

…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 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 appro…

Akshay Gupta, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-7, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 8100/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 153ASection 271Section 271A

…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 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 appro…

R.S. Tradelink Pvt.Ltd., Surat vs. The ACIT., Circle-4, Surat

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

ITA 2130/AHD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2130/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S. R.S. Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Plot No.17, Magdalla Port Road, Of Income Tax, Circle-4, Surat. Magdalla, Surat-395007. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcr6607A (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah - CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra - CIT (DR)

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

…Ashok Pai - 292 ITR 11 (SC) held. that “concealment of income” and “furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income” carry different connotations. The Assessment Year.2008-09 R S Tradelink Pvt. Ltd Hon`ble Gujarat High Court in case of Manu Engineering Works -122 ITR 306 (Guj.) held. that the penalty order has to be clear as to limb for which it is levied and the position being unclear penalty is not sustainable. Further, on the identical facts, Hon`ble Gujarat High Court in case of Nayan C. Shah vs. ITO [Tax Appeal No. 543 of 2012 (Guj- HC)] held. as follows: "11. Another notable aspect of the matter is that wh…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 6 (3)(1), Bengaluru vs. Sri C. Aswathanarayana, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals are dismissed while the cross objections are partly allowed

ITA 1702/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Tshering Ongda, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1700 to 1702/Bang/2018 Assessment Years :2005-06 to 2007-08 The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs. Shri. C. Aswathanarayana, Circle – 6(3)(1), S/o. Chikkappaiah, Bengaluru. No.639. Sulebele Main Road, Devenahalli – 562 110. PAN : ADZPC 9837 F C.O. Nos.38 to 40/Bang/2019 (in ITA Nos.1700 to 1702/Bang/2018 Assessment Years :2005-06 to 2007-08 Shri. C. Aswathanarayana, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, S/o. Chikkappaiah, Circle – 6(3)(1), No.639.…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 6 (3)(1), Bengaluru vs. Sri C. Aswathanarayana, Devenahalli

In the result, the appeals are dismissed while the cross objections are partly allowed

ITA 1701/BANG/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Tshering Ongda, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1700 to 1702/Bang/2018 Assessment Years :2005-06 to 2007-08 The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs. Shri. C. Aswathanarayana, Circle – 6(3)(1), S/o. Chikkappaiah, Bengaluru. No.639. Sulebele Main Road, Devenahalli – 562 110. PAN : ADZPC 9837 F C.O. Nos.38 to 40/Bang/2019 (in ITA Nos.1700 to 1702/Bang/2018 Assessment Years :2005-06 to 2007-08 Shri. C. Aswathanarayana, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, S/o. Chikkappaiah, Circle – 6(3)(1), No.639.…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 6 (3) (1), Bengaluru vs. Sri C. Aswathnarayana, Devenahalli

In the result, the appeals are dismissed while the cross objections are partly allowed

ITA 1700/BANG/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Tshering Ongda, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1700 to 1702/Bang/2018 Assessment Years :2005-06 to 2007-08 The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs. Shri. C. Aswathanarayana, Circle – 6(3)(1), S/o. Chikkappaiah, Bengaluru. No.639. Sulebele Main Road, Devenahalli – 562 110. PAN : ADZPC 9837 F C.O. Nos.38 to 40/Bang/2019 (in ITA Nos.1700 to 1702/Bang/2018 Assessment Years :2005-06 to 2007-08 Shri. C. Aswathanarayana, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, S/o. Chikkappaiah, Circle – 6(3)(1), No.639.…

Texmaco Rail & Engineering Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-6(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2288/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble(Kz) & Shri S.S. Godara, Hon’Ble] [Through Virtual Court] I.T.A. No. 2288/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Texmaco Rail & Engineering Ltd.................................…………………………...................Appellant Belgharia, Kolkata – 700 056. [Pan: Aabct 2592 E] Vs Dcit, Circle – 6(1), Kolkata...................…………………………………………………………Respondent P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata. Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 07, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 09, 2020 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 2, Kolkata Dated 06.09.2019 Whereby He Confirmed The Penalty Of Rs. 2,32,318/- Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee In The Present Case Is An Individual Who Is Engaged In The Business Of Execution Of Work Contracts For Railway & Others. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Was Filed By The Assessee On 27.09.2012 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 10,99,43,540/-. In The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act, The Total Income Of The Assessee Was Determined By The Ao At Rs. 12,08,04,960/- After Making Inter Alia An Addition Of Rs. 7,16,043/- On 2 Texmaco Rail & Engineering Ltd.

Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘(A)’, KOLKATA [BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT (KZ) & SHRI S.S. GODARA, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER] [Through Virtual Court] I.T.A. No. 2288/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Texmaco Rail & Engineering Ltd.................................…………………………...................Appellant Belgharia, Kolkata – 700 056. [PAN: AABCT 2592 E] Vs DCIT, Circle – 6(1), Kolkata...................…………………………………………………………Respondent P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata. Appearances by: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate appearing on behalf of the Assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, JCIT, DR…

M/S. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Ltu), Circle- 1, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 216/BANG/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Nov 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaranassessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 92C

…Court in the case of Ashok Pai reported in 292 ITR 11 at page 19 has held that Page 6 of 10 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…

Mahendra B Chowhan, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1596/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodia

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69

…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…

Mahendra B Chowhan, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1595/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodia

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69

…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…

Mahendra B Chowhan, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1594/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodia

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69

…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…

Mahendra B Chowhan, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1593/BANG/2019[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2020AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodia

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69

…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…

Mahendra B Chowhan, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1592/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodia

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69

…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…

Mahendra B Chowhan, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1591/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodia

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69

…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…

Mahendra B Chowhan, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1590/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodia

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69

…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…

Shri Vijay Champak Patel, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(4), Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 281/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.281/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Vijay Champak Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pachhlu Faliyu, Near Water Ward-6(4), Surat Tank, Bharthana, Vesu, Surat

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah - CAFor Respondent: Shri O P Meena – Sr. DR

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54ESection 54F

…note that Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of T Ashok Pai - 292 ITR 11 (SC) held that “concealment of income” and “furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income” carry different connotations. The Hon`ble Gujarat High Court in case of Manu Engineering Works -122 ITR 306 (Guj.) held that the penalty order has to be clear as to limb for which it is levied and the position being unclear penalty is not sustainable. Further, on the identical facts, Hon`ble Gujarat High Court in case of Nayan C. Shah vs. ITO [Tax Appeal No. 543 of 2012 (Guj- HC)] held. as follows: "11. Another notable aspect of the matter is that whil…

Balaji Telefilms Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(3)(Cr)4, Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7650/MUM/2016[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Snehal R. Shah- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Bharti Singh & Ms.Kavita

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…lars. The apex court in the case of Ashok Pai[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 Taxman 156, has held that levy of penalty ITA Nos. 5580,7645-7650/Mum/2016 M/s Balaji Telefilms Limited Assessment Years: 2007-08 to 2012-13, 2014-15 has to be clear as to the limb for which it is levied and the position being unclear penalty is not sustainable. Th…

Balaji Telefilms Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(3) Cen RG 4, Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 5580/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Snehal R. Shah- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Bharti Singh & Ms.Kavita

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…lars. The apex court in the case of Ashok Pai[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 Taxman 156, has held that levy of penalty ITA Nos. 5580,7645-7650/Mum/2016 M/s Balaji Telefilms Limited Assessment Years: 2007-08 to 2012-13, 2014-15 has to be clear as to the limb for which it is levied and the position being unclear penalty is not sustainable. Th…

CIT v. Manu Engg

What is CIT v. Manu Engg authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Manu Engg

Kunal Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-7, New Delhi

Akshay Gupta, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-7, New Delhi

Akshay Gupta, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-7, New Delhi

Akshay Gupta, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-7, New Delhi

R.S. Tradelink Pvt.Ltd., Surat vs. The ACIT., Circle-4, Surat

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 6 (3)(1), Bengaluru vs. Sri C. Aswathanarayana, Bengaluru

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 6 (3)(1), Bengaluru vs. Sri C. Aswathanarayana, Devenahalli

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 6 (3) (1), Bengaluru vs. Sri C. Aswathnarayana, Devenahalli

Texmaco Rail & Engineering Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-6(1), Kolkata

M/S. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Ltu), Circle- 1, Bangalore

Mahendra B Chowhan, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(2), Bangalore

Mahendra B Chowhan, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(2), Bangalore

Mahendra B Chowhan, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(2), Bangalore

Mahendra B Chowhan, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(2), Bangalore

Mahendra B Chowhan, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(2), Bangalore

Mahendra B Chowhan, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(2), Bangalore

Mahendra B Chowhan, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(2), Bangalore

Shri Vijay Champak Patel, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(4), Surat

Balaji Telefilms Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(3)(Cr)4, Mumbai

Balaji Telefilms Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(3) Cen RG 4, Mumbai