How many judgments cite CIT v. Mitsui & Company Ltd.?

55 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Mitsui & Company Ltd. (272 ITR 545), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Mitsui & Company Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 194C, Section 201(1A), Section 271C, Section 273B, Section 10(20), Section 10(46).

CIT v. Mitsui & Company Ltd.

272 ITR 545High Court2005#2083 most cited

What is CIT v. Mitsui & Company Ltd. authority for?

Penalty under Section 271C for failure to deduct tax at source is not leviable unless contumacious conduct on the part of the assessee is established. Where such conduct is not proven, the High Court upholds the deletion of the penalty.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Mitsui & Company Ltd. · 272 ITR 545 · Section 271C penalty · deletion of penalty · failure to deduct tax at source · contumacious conduct · reasonable cause · Section 273B · Delhi High Court · no substantial question of law

Sections most often in play

Section 194C Section 201(1A)Section 271C Section 273B Section 10(20)Section 10(46)Section 11 Section 12

Issues it is cited on

compensatory interest section 206a section 206aa section 10(46)section 10(20)section 271c section 197a section 194c section 201(1a)interest under section 201(1a)section 273b section 197

Judgments citing CIT v. Mitsui & Company Ltd.

The ITO (TDS), Rajahmundry vs. M/S. Om Sai Ram, Enterprises, Mandapeta

In the result, appeal of the revenue and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 152/VIZ/2016[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Mar 2019AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.152/Viz/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) Income Tax Officer (Tds) Vs. M/S Om Sai Ram Enterprises Tds Ward-1 Ravulapalem Rajahmundry [Pan : Aaao2649G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.70/Viz/2018 Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.152/Viz/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S Om Sai Ram Enterprises Vs. Income Tax Officer (Tds) Ravulapalem Tds Ward-1 Rajahmundry [Pan : Aaao2649G] रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr निर्धाऩरती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 31.01.2019 20.03.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR

Section 133ASection 194CSection 194C(1)Section 201(1)Section 271C

…onduct on the part of the assessee. We find that on similar facts Hon'ble Delhi High Court have deleted levy of penalty u/s 271-C in the cae of M/s. Itochu Corporation, reported in 268 ITR 172 (Del) and in the case of CIT Vs. Mitsui & Company Ltd. reported in 272 ITR 545. Respectfully following the aforesaid judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the decision of the ITAT, Delhi in the case of Television Eighteen India Ltd., we allow the assessee's appeal and cancel the penalty as levied u/s 271-C.” 3. Being aggrieved, the Revenue took up the matter before the High Court of Delhi against the order of the Income…

M/S. Virgin Mobile India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT (TDS), New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3431/DEL/2015[2009-10 (F.Y. 2008-09)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishivirgin Mobile India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Jcit(Tds), C/O. Tata Teleservices Ltd, Range-51, Room No. 406, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, 2A, Old Ishwar Nagar, Mathura Road, New Delhi District Centre, Laxmi Pan: Aadcr5798J Nagar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Ashita Farsanja, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 197(1)Section 201Section 246ASection 271CSection 274Section 275Section 40a

…that there was contumacious conduct on the part of the assessee. We find that on similar facts Hon'ble Delhi High Court have deleted levy of penalty u/s 271-C in the case of Itochu Corporation 268 ITR 172 (Del) and in the case of CIT v. Mitsui & Company Ltd. 272 ITR 545. Respectfully following the aforesaid judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the decision of the ITAT, Delhi in the case of Television Eighteen India Ltd., we allow the assessee's appeal and cancel the penalty as levied u/s 271-C." 3. Being aggrieved, the Revenue took up the matter before the High Court of Delhi against the order of the Income…

Mr. Lalit Modi, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5424/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shuklaasstt. Year 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi,CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 271CSection 44A

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, HON’BLE PRESIDENT AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Asstt. Year 2012-13 Shri Lalit Modi JCIT, C/o Sekhri & Associates, Central Range-4, Flats No. 104-105, 28 Feroze New Delhi. Gandhi Road, Lajpat Nagar-III Vs. New Delhi – 110024. PAN AALPM7800R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri R.S. Singhvi,CA Shri Satyajeet Goel, CA Department by : Shri Amit Jain, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 20/06/2018 Date of 14/ 09/2018 pronouncement O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA: The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against impugned…

Addl. CIT (TDS), Ghaziabad vs. The Principal Officer, Noida

In the result all the appeals filed by the assessee in case of both the assessee for all the three AYs are allowed and appeal filed by the revenue for both the assessee for all the three AYs are di...

ITA 4840/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Smt Sulekha Verma, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Garg, Adv

Section 133ASection 194ISection 201Section 271CSection 273B

…t on the part of the assessee. We find that on similar facts the Honourable Delhi High Court have deleted levy of penalty u/s 271C in case of CIT vs Itouchu Corp reported in (2004) 268 ITR 172 (Delhi) and in case of CIT vs Mitsui and Co Ltd reported in (2005) 272 ITR 545 (Delhi). Respectfully following the aforesaid judgments of the Honourable Delhi High Court and the decision of the income tax appellate Tribunal Delhi, in the case of television 18 India Ltd, we allow the assessees appeal and cancel the penalty levied u/s 271C.” 10. Based on these facts the Honourable Delhi High Court as well as the Honourable Su…

Addl. CIT (TDS), Ghaziabad vs. The Principal Officer, Noida

ITA 4837/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Smt Sulekha Verma, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Garg, Adv

Section 133ASection 194ISection 201Section 271CSection 273B

Japyee Sports International Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT (TDS), Noida

ITA 4291/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Smt Sulekha Verma, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Garg, Adv

Section 133ASection 194ISection 201Section 271CSection 273B

Th 130 M/S Bharathiyar Pwcs Ltd., Namakkal vs. ITO, Salem

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 255/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.255/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Th 130 M/S Bharathiyar Pwcs Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, No.86A, East Colony, Komarapalayam, V. Tds Ward, Namakkal Dt. – 638 183. Salem. Pan : Aaaab 7285 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. S. Sriniranjani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT

Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271Section 271C

…t of `18,476/- along with interest of `33,636/- was paid on 12.03.2014. These factual aspects are not in dispute. On identical circumstances, Delhi High Court in CIT v. Itochu Corporation (2004) 268 ITR 172 and in CIT v. Mitsui & Co. Ltd. And Another (2005) 272 ITR 545, deleted the penalty. The Apex Court, after reproducing the observation made by the Delhi Bench of this Tribunal, confirmed the order of the Delhi 4 I.T.A. No.255/Mds/17 High Court in Bank of Nova Scotia. In fact, the Apex Court observed as follows:- “2. The matter was pursued by the Revenue before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The In…

M/S.Mithra Agricultural Produce Company Ltd, Cochin vs. The Jt CIT(TDS), Cochin

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 212/COCH/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P. K. Bansal & Shri George George K.

Section 115Section 194BSection 201Section 271BSection 271CSection 271C(1)Section 274

…onduct on the part of the assessee. We find that on similar facts Hon'ble Delhi High Court have deleted levy of penalty u/s 271C in the case of M/s. Itochu Corporation, reported in 268 ITR 172 (Del) and in the case of CIT Vs. Mitsui & Company Ltd. reported in 272 ITR 545. Respectfully following the aforesaid judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the decision of the ITAT, Delhi in the case of Television Eighteen India Ltd., we allow the assessee's appeal and cancel the penalty as levied u/s 271C.” So far the contention of the assessee that the provision of section 271C will not apply where there is failure to…

DCIT, Central Circle - XI, Kolkata vs. Shri Harish Kumar Sarawgi, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1496/KOL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A Nos. 1222 To 1226/Kol/2011 Assessment Years: 2003-04 To 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri D. S. Damle, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…ish that there was contumacious conduct on the part of the assessee. The tribunal also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the cases of Itochu Corporation reported in 268 ITR 172 (Del) and CIT vs Mitsui & Company Ltd reported in 272 ITR 545 (Del) while rendering their decision. He argued that it is not in dispute that the assessee had made complete disclosure of his undisclosed income right at the time of search duly substantiating the manner of deriving the same and paid taxes due thereon. The explanations furnished by the assessee in respect of seized documents containing earning…

Harish Kumar Sarawgi, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - XI, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1222/KOL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A Nos. 1222 To 1226/Kol/2011 Assessment Years: 2003-04 To 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri D. S. Damle, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

M/S. District Manager, Kaithal vs. JCIT (TDS), Karnal

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 2040/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. S. Syal & Shri N. K. Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Permil Goyal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 201Section 271Section 271C

…onduct on the part of the assessee. We find that on similar facts Hon'ble Delhi High Court had deleted levy of penalty u/s 271-C in the case of M/s. Itochu Corporation, reported in 268 ITR 172 (Del) and in the case of CIT Vs. Mitsui & Company Ltd. reported in 272 ITR 545. Respectfully following the aforesaid judgments of Hon’ble Delhi High Court and the decision of the 'ITAT, Delhi in the case of Television Eighteen India Ltd., we allow the assessee's appeal and cancel the penalty as levied u/s 271-C." 3.1 In civil appeal No.1704 of 2008, Hon'ble High Court in the above case has confirmed the order of ITAT and 3…

Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages vs. Jt.Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is allowed in the above terms, but in the circumstances, with

ITA/194/2004HC Delhi01 Aug 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271

…TA 194/2004 Page 15 of 17 penalty proceedings was limited. Reference was made to the decisions in CIT v. Mitsui & Co. Ltd. (2005) 272 ITR 545 (Del) and Azadi Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2001) 252 ITR 471 (Del). Discussion and Reasons 33. Under Section 273-B of the Act, no penalty under Section 271-C of the Act "shall be imposable on the person or the assessee, as the case may be, for any failure referred to in the said provision if he proves that there was reasonable caus…

I.T.O WD - 28(3), Kolkata vs. Shri Ran Vijay Singh, Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2038/KOL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 May 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 194ISection 271C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “C” KOLKATA Before Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member and Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member ITA No.2038-2039/Kol/2013 Assessment Years :2004-05 & 2005-06 ITO Ward-28(3), V/s. Shri Ran Vijay Singh Aaykakar Bhavan, 2, Hide Road, Dakshin, 3rd Floor, 2, Kolkata-700 043 Gariahat Roa, South, [PAN No.AMHPS 8770 S] Kolkata-700 068 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Miraj D Shah, AR आवेदक क" ओर से/By Assessee Shri P.B.Pramank, JCIT-DR राज"व क" ओर से/By Respondent 24-05-2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 27-05-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronounce…

M/S. Central Bank of India, Noida vs. Addl. CIT (TDS), Ghaziabad

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5968/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh.AjayWadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A.K.Saroha, CIT DR

Section 194ASection 194A(3)(iii)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

…by the assessee was also supported by various decisions of ITAT .Hence, it cannot be said the plea of the assessee that no tax is required to be deducted on payment of interest made to Noida is incorrect. 14. Hon. Delhi High court in CIT Vs. Mitsui& Co. Ltd. 272 ITR 545 of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court which is held that the assessee is require to prove the existence of reasonable cause of preponderance of probability only and not by way of adducing any proof beyond reasonable doubt. We are also aware about the decision of Hon. Delhi High Court in CIT Vs Fourways International, 166 Taxman 461 (Del)wherein it is held…

Commr.of Income Tax-Xviii, Delhi vs. Bank of Nova Scotia

C.A. No.-001704-001704 - 2008Supreme Court07 Jan 2016

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Vide Order Dated 31.03.2006 Entered The Following Findings: “11..We Have Carefully Considered The Rival Submissions. In The Instant Case We Are Not Dealing With Collection Of Tax U/S 201(1) Or Compensatory Interest U/S 201(1A). The Case Of The Assessee Is That These Amounts Have Already Been Paid So As To End Dispute With Revenue. In The Present Appeals We Are Concerned With Levy Of 1

Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271

…Page 1 JUDGMENT NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1704 OF 2008 COMMR.OF INCOME TAX-XVIII, APPELLANT DELHI VERSUS BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T KURIAN, J. 1. The short issue pertains to the assessment of penalty under Section 271-C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Against the order of Assessing Officer, the respondent took up the matter in appeal and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the levy of penalty. 2. The matter wa…