CIT v. Schell International

278 ITR 630High Court2005#15521 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing CIT v. Schell International

M/S Kanippayyur Service Co-Op Bank, Thrissur vs. ITO Ward 1, Guruvayoor

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 923/COCH/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 923/Coch/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Kanippayyur Service Co- बनाम/ Cit(A)/Income Tax Operative Bank, Department, National Vs. Kanippayyur, Faceless Appeal Centre Kunnamkulam, Thrissur- (Nfac), Delhi. 680517. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabtk8207E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vipin K. K Revenue By: Smt J. M Jamuna Devi, (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 24.08.2022 For Ay. 2012-13. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Penalty Levied Against The Assessee Society U/S 271B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 3. Brief Facts As Noted By The Ao Is That The Assessee Is A Primary Credit Society & Turnover Was To The Tune Of Rs.3,12,85,157/-. Therefore, According To Ao, Since The Assessee’S Turnover Was More Than Rs.1 Crores [As Per Section 44Ab Of The Act] It Was Liable To Get Its Accounts Audited By An Accountant Before The Specified Date; & Furnished By That Date, Report Of Such Audit, In The Prescribed Form Duly Signed & Verified By Accountant By Setting Forth Such Particulars As May Be Prescribed. According To The Ao, The Assessee Failed To Furnish

For Appellant: Shri Vipin K. KFor Respondent: Smt J. M Jamuna Devi, (Sr. AR)
Section 271BSection 44A

…ed because the assessee was new to the scenario and was unaware of the requirements of law, the Tribunal's finding that the omission was not intentional or deliberate so as to merit penalty was supported by the High Court in CIT v. Schell International [2005] 278 ITR 630 (Bom). While coming to the conclusion, following the precedents on the subject, the High Court cited from the decision of the Supreme Court in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co Ltd v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1979] 118 IT 326 (SC) citing a passage from English decision of House of Lords in Evans v. Bartiam [1937] AC 473 (HL) to the following effect”…

Rani Grover, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT (TDS) RG 3, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for all three assessment years are allowed

ITA 6334/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah (AR)For Respondent: Shri K.C. Kanojia (DR)
Section 197Section 253Section 272ASection 272A(2)(k)

…nk of India versus ACIT in ITA No.122/Agra/2012, Branch Manager(TDS) UKO Bank versus ACIT in ITA No. 91/CTK/2013, SBI Vs JCIT (TDS) in ITA No. 261&262(CTK) of 2014 and the judgement of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT versus Schell International reported viz; 278 ITR 630(Bom). On the other hand, ld DR for revenue argued that assessee has not given any satisfactory explanation to the notice of penalty. It was further argued that the assessee despite given sufficient proportionately did not appear before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The ld DR for revenue prayed that the order of authorities below is well re…

Shreerang Mercantile (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT (TDS) 3, Mumbai

ITA 7495/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & C.N. Prasadआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/7495, 4599 & 4600/Mum/2014 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 वष" Shreerang Mercantile (I) Pvt. Ltd. Addl.Cit, (Tds)-3, Room No.1001 501, Shreerang House, 5Th Floor Smt. K.G. Mittal New Marine Lines Ayurvedic Hospital Bldg., Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Charni Road Pan:Aadcs 0954 M Mumbai-400 020. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By:Shri N. Sathya Moorthy-Dr Assessee By: Shri Dharmendra M. Shah सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19.07.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Orders Dated 8.10.2014 & 19.5.2014, Of The Cit(A)-14 The Assessee Has Filed The Appeals For The Above Mentioned Three Years.Issue Involved In All The Appeals Is About Levy Of Penalty U/S.272A(2)(K)Of The Act,For Filing Quarterly Returns In Form Number 24Q/ 26Q Belatedly.So,We Are Adjudica - Ting All The Appeals By Single Order.

For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra M. ShahFor Respondent: Shri N. Sathya Moorthy-DR
Section 200(3)Section 254(1)Section 272A(2)(K)Section 272A(2)(k)Section 273B

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई “ई” खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“E”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं सी एवं सी सी. एन सी एन एन. "साद एन "साद "साद,"याियक "साद "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and C.N. Prasad,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ITA/7495, 4599 & 4600/Mum/2014 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 वष" Shreerang Mercantile (I) Pvt. Ltd. Addl.CIT, (TDS)-3, Room No.1001 501, Shreerang Hous…

Seafarer'S Welfare Fund Society, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT (TDS) RG 3, Mumbai

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

ITA 4570/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No. 4568, 4569 & 4570/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2008-09 To 2010-11 Seafarer’S Welfare Fund The Addl. Cit (Tds), बनाम/ Scoeity, Range-3, Vs. Commerce House,1St Floor, Mumbai Curimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aacts 6282J .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri N.J. Jawker ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Kailash Gaikwad

For Appellant: Shri N.J. JawkerFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Gaikwad
Section 272A(2)(K)

…only a technical default and no penalty is to be levied. 4.1. He further submits that levy of penalty is not mandatory in bonafide cases. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT Vs Schell International (278 ITR 630) wherein it was held that, where the assessee was a film producer, produced only one film, which was failed at Box office failure to file statement since assessee was not aware of duty to file statement, penalty, need to be imposed. It was also held that ignorance of law is no excuse but there is no presumption that everyone knows the law. Where…

Seafarer'S Welfare Fund Society, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT (TDS) RG 3, Mumbai

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

ITA 4569/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No. 4568, 4569 & 4570/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2008-09 To 2010-11 Seafarer’S Welfare Fund The Addl. Cit (Tds), बनाम/ Scoeity, Range-3, Vs. Commerce House,1St Floor, Mumbai Curimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aacts 6282J .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri N.J. Jawker ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Kailash Gaikwad

For Appellant: Shri N.J. JawkerFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Gaikwad
Section 272A(2)(K)

…only a technical default and no penalty is to be levied. 4.1. He further submits that levy of penalty is not mandatory in bonafide cases. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT Vs Schell International (278 ITR 630) wherein it was held that, where the assessee was a film producer, produced only one film, which was failed at Box office failure to file statement since assessee was not aware of duty to file statement, penalty, need to be imposed. It was also held that ignorance of law is no excuse but there is no presumption that everyone knows the law. Where…

Seafarer'S Welfare Fund Society, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT (TDS) RG 3, Mumbai

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

ITA 4568/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No. 4568, 4569 & 4570/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2008-09 To 2010-11 Seafarer’S Welfare Fund The Addl. Cit (Tds), बनाम/ Scoeity, Range-3, Vs. Commerce House,1St Floor, Mumbai Curimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aacts 6282J .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri N.J. Jawker ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Kailash Gaikwad

For Appellant: Shri N.J. JawkerFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Gaikwad
Section 272A(2)(K)

…only a technical default and no penalty is to be levied. 4.1. He further submits that levy of penalty is not mandatory in bonafide cases. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT Vs Schell International (278 ITR 630) wherein it was held that, where the assessee was a film producer, produced only one film, which was failed at Box office failure to file statement since assessee was not aware of duty to file statement, penalty, need to be imposed. It was also held that ignorance of law is no excuse but there is no presumption that everyone knows the law. Where…

CIT v. Schell International (278 ITR 630) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax