How many judgments cite CIT v. Norton Electronics Systems (P) Ltd.?

27 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Norton Electronics Systems (P) Ltd. (41 Taxmann.com 280), spanning 2017 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Norton Electronics Systems (P) Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 271(1)(c), Section 148, Section 274, Section 143(3), Section 250, Section 69A.

CIT v. Norton Electronics Systems (P) Ltd.

41 Taxmann.com 280High Court2014#4359 most cited

What is CIT v. Norton Electronics Systems (P) Ltd. authority for?

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not sustainable when the income addition is made on an estimated basis without clinching material suggesting concealment or inaccurate particulars.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Norton Electronics Systems (P) Ltd. · penalty u/s 271(1)(c) · addition on estimate basis · concealment of income · inaccurate particulars of income · section 271(1) · section 274 · levy of penalty

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 148 Section 274 Section 143(3)Section 250 Section 69A Section 133(6)Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

penalty under section 271(1)(c)concealment of income furnishing inaccurate particulars of income furnishing inaccurate particulars penalty u/s 271(1)(c)section 271(1)section 274 levy of penalty section 271 section 271(1)(c)section 27 section 69

Judgments citing CIT v. Norton Electronics Systems (P) Ltd.

ITO 29(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Shri. Dharmesh Vinaykumar Shah, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4078/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Kanojiya

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.4078/Mum./2019 (Assessment Year : 2010–11) Income Tax Officer ……………. Appellant Ward–29(1)(3), Mumbai v/s Shri Dharmesh Vinaykumar Shah Flat no.1404, Park Royal Opp Samudhi Hall, M.M. Malviya Road ……………. Respondent Mulund (W), Mumbai 400 080 PAN – AAIPS1584R Revenue by : Shri Kailash Kanojiya Assessee by : Shri Bhadresh Doshi Date of Hearing – 24.03.2021 Date of Order – 31.05.2021 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M. The present appeal preferred by the Revenue ch…

Income Tax Officer 9(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Dytex Seals India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 5478/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Kanojiya

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.5478/Mum./2019 (Assessment Year : 2009–10) ITA no.5479/Mum./2019 (Assessment Year : 2010–11) ITA no.5480/Mum./2019 (Assessment Year : 2011–12) Income Tax Officer ……………. Appellant Ward–9(3)(2), Mumbai v/s Dytex Seals India Pvt. Ltd. Gala no.2A, 1st Floor ……………. Respondent Sadhna Industrial Estate S.V. Road, Mumbai 400 102 Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Kailash Kanojiya Date of Hearing – 22.03.2021 Date of Order – 25.05.2021 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.…

Sunil B Vorani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 17(3) (4), Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5829/MUM/2019[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2021AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5829/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri Karan, AR byFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Menon

Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5829/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Sunil B. Vorani, ITO-17(3)(4), R. No. 111, 1st floor, 23 Shirin Mansion, 1st बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, floor 14, Kosla lane, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Pydhonie, Mumbai-400 003 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN No. AAQHS3185J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : Shri Karan, AR by प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Vijay Kumar Menon, DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 11.03.2021 Date of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 25.…

ITO, Ward 3 (5), Kalyan vs. Jatin S. Gandhi, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2019/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2019 & 2020/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11)

For Respondent: None

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…alment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 9. We find support from the series of decisions by different High Court as well Coordinate Benches of ITAT, i.e. in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Norton Electronics Systems (P) Ltd. (2014) 41 Taxmann.com 280 (Allahabad HC). It was held that when addition is made on estimate basis, no penalty is sustainable. 10. We also rely upon the decision in the case of Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Vision Research Management ('P) Ltd. ITAT Lucknow (2015) 63 Taxmann.com 8 (Lucknow Trib), wherein it was held that Imposition of Penalty upon assessee u/…

ITO Ward 1(4), Kalyan vs. M/S Sumangala Machineries, Kalyan

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 1300/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shris. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1300 & 1301/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Bhera Ram, DR byFor Respondent: None

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Hanuman Singh Rathore, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 1517/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1517/Mum/2017, (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Hiwase, DR

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

…ncealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. We find support from the series of decisions by different High Court as well Coordinate Benches of ITAT, i.e. in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Norton Electronics Systems (P) Ltd. (2014) 41 Taxmann.com 280 (Allahabad HC). It was held that when addition is made on estimate basis, no penalty is sustainable. We also rely upon the decision in the case of Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Vision Research Management ('P) Ltd. ITAT Lucknow (2015) 63 Taxmann.com 8 (Lucknow Trib), wherein it was held that Imposition of Penalty upon assessee u/s. 2…

Jitendra J. Gowda, Mumbai vs. ITO 15(2)(3), Mumbai

ITA 5753/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5753/Mum/2016, (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. M. V. Rajguru

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 80C

…s, we request your good self not to levy penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. To further substantiate our claim, we submit following additional judicial pronouncements: i) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Norton Electronics Systems (P) Ltd. (2014) 41 Taxmann.com 280 (Allahabad HC) When addition is made on estimate basis, no penalty is sustainable. ii) Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Vision Research Management ('P) Ltd. ITAT Lucknow (2015) 63 Taxmann.com 8 (Lucknow Trib) Imposition of Penalty upon assessee u/s. 271(1)(c) on basis of adhoc & estimated disallowance/addition, without bringing any clin…