CIT v. Standard Mercantile Company

160 ITR 613High Court1986#2555 most cited

What is CIT v. Standard Mercantile Company authority for?

A penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars can be imposed if the assessee fails to demonstrate reasonable cause for non-compliance or where an intention to evade tax is proved.

45

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Standard Mercantile Company · 160 ITR 613 · penalty under section 271(1)(c) · concealment of income · furnishing inaccurate particulars · reasonable cause · mens rea · evasion of tax · Section 274 · penalty proceedings

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 271AABSection 271AAB(1)(c)

Issues it is cited on

section 271aab(1)section 271aabpenalty proceedings initiatedsection 271aasection 260section 271afurnishing inaccurate particulars of incomepenalty under section 271(1)(c)furnishing inaccurate particularsnon-application of mindpenalty u/s 271(1)(c)section 274

Judgments citing CIT v. Standard Mercantile Company

Moin Akhtar Qureshi As Representative Assessee/Agent of M/S. Jean Louis Deniot, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 19, New Delhi

In the result ITA Nos 6815 to 6821/del/2017 are dismissed and ITA

ITA 6817/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Mehta, C.A. &For Respondent: Ms. Pramila M. Biswas, CIT/DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 163Section 271(1)(b)

…th the compliance of statutory notices issued in the assessment proceedings; and that no other reasonable cause was given by the assessee. He, therefore, relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of CIT vs. Standard Mercantile Company, 160 ITR 613, sustained the penalty saddled against the assessee. 5. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that sincein some of the disputed years, the assessments have resulted into no additions, as such assessment orders have been passed at Nil income, no penalty can be initiated against the assessee; that in remaining years, reply dated 19.09.20…

Moin Akhtar Qureshi As Representative Assessee/Agent of M/S. Jean Louis Deniot, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 19, New Delhi

In the result ITA Nos 6815 to 6821/del/2017 are dismissed and ITA

ITA 6816/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Mehta, C.A. &For Respondent: Ms. Pramila M. Biswas, CIT/DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 163Section 271(1)(b)

…th the compliance of statutory notices issued in the assessment proceedings; and that no other reasonable cause was given by the assessee. He, therefore, relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of CIT vs. Standard Mercantile Company, 160 ITR 613, sustained the penalty saddled against the assessee. 5. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that sincein some of the disputed years, the assessments have resulted into no additions, as such assessment orders have been passed at Nil income, no penalty can be initiated against the assessee; that in remaining years, reply dated 19.09.20…

Moin Akhtar Qureshi As Representative Assessee/Agent of M/S. Jean Louis Deniot, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 19, New Delhi

In the result ITA Nos 6815 to 6821/del/2017 are dismissed and ITA

ITA 6815/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Mehta, C.A. &For Respondent: Ms. Pramila M. Biswas, CIT/DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 163Section 271(1)(b)

…th the compliance of statutory notices issued in the assessment proceedings; and that no other reasonable cause was given by the assessee. He, therefore, relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of CIT vs. Standard Mercantile Company, 160 ITR 613, sustained the penalty saddled against the assessee. 5. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that sincein some of the disputed years, the assessments have resulted into no additions, as such assessment orders have been passed at Nil income, no penalty can be initiated against the assessee; that in remaining years, reply dated 19.09.20…

Shah Pratap Industries P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 44, Mumbai

In the result, all above seven appeals filed the Assessee are allowed

ITA 4643/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & C.N. Prasadआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.Ita.S./4643To4649/Mum/2014 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 To 2011-2012 वष" M/S. Shah Pratap Industries Pvt. Dcit, Cc-44 Room No.656, 6Th Floor, Ltd. 16, Gundecha Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road Vs. Nm Road, Fort Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400 023. Pan:Aaacs5494D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By:- Shri Sanjeev Kashyap-Dr Assessee By: Ms. Nidhi Patel सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26.07.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 03.08.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम, 1961 अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" क" धारा धारा धारा केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आदेश ( 1 ) 254 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 Order,Dtd.13.05.14,Of The Cit(A)-38,Mumbai, The Assessee Has Filed Appeals For The Above Mentioned Seven Ay.S.As The Issue Involved In All The Appeals Are Common,So We Are Disposing Them Off By A Consolidated Order. Effective Goa For All The Years Is Upholding The Levy Of Penalty,Imposed By The Ao,U/S.271(1)(B) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Ms. Nidhi PatelFor Respondent: - Shri Sanjeev Kashyap-DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(b)

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण ,मुंबई अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई ” ई “खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“E”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं सी .एन ."साद,"याियक सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and C.N. Prasad,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.ITA.s./4643to4649/Mum/2014 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 to 2011-2012 वष" M/s. Shah Pratap Industries Pvt. DCIT, CC-44 Room No.656, 6th Floor, Ltd. 16, Gundecha Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, MK Road Vs. NM Road, Fort Mumba…

Anil C. Kilachand, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 8(1), Mumbai

ITA 6377/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2016AY 2004-05
For Appellant: Shri Anil SatheFor Respondent: Shri M. Murli
Section 143Section 254(1)Section 271Section 94

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई “ए” खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“A”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं अिमत शु"ल "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and Amit Shukla,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.6377/Mum/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05 Shri Anil C. Kilachand ACIT, Circle-8(1) Kilachand House Aayakar Bhavan 95, Napeansea Road Mumbai-400 006. Vs. Mumbai-400 006. PAN:AACPK 3838 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) Revenue by: Shri M. Murli Assessee by: Shri Anil Sathe सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing:07.03.2016 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement: 16.03…