CIT v. Super Steel (Sales) Co.

178 ITR 451High Court1989#4198 most cited

What is CIT v. Super Steel (Sales) Co. authority for?

A protective assessment can be made, but a penalty cannot be levied on a protective basis. A penalty can only be levied after the income is assessed as concealed income in the assessment of an assessee.

28

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Super Steel (Sales) Co. · 178 ITR 451 · protective assessment · protective penalty · concealed income · section 271(1)(c)

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Issues it is cited on

section 158bfasection 271aaaprotective assessmentsection 153(a)section 91section 158bbdeletion of penaltysubstantive assessmentsection 158bcindexed cost of acquisitionpenalty under section 271(1)(c)section 48

Judgments citing CIT v. Super Steel (Sales) Co.

DCIT 41 1 1, MUMBAI vs. SATYA KIM YASHPAL, MUMBAI

ITA 5136/MUM/2024[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: returning to India in the year 2001. JSY expired on 28/06/2017.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule; Shri Bhangepatil
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…rnishing of inaccurate particulars does not belong to him and he is assessed only as a protective measure." (Emphasis Supplied) 9. Similarly, the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta has, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Super Steel (Sales) Co. [1989] 178 ITR 451 (Calcutta)[21-12-1988], held as under: C.O.No.265, 266, 264, 268, 263, 262/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2002-03, 2003-04, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-2010 & 2011-2012 “3. It appears that in this case the assessment was made on protective basis and for the last several years, the income had actually been assessed in the hands of one Mahabir Prasad Modi an…

DCIT 41 1 1, MUMBAI vs. SATYA KIM YASHPAL, MUMBAI

ITA 5134/MUM/2024[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: returning to India in the year 2001. JSY expired on 28/06/2017.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule; Shri Bhangepatil
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…rnishing of inaccurate particulars does not belong to him and he is assessed only as a protective measure." (Emphasis Supplied) 9. Similarly, the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta has, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Super Steel (Sales) Co. [1989] 178 ITR 451 (Calcutta)[21-12-1988], held as under: C.O.No.265, 266, 264, 268, 263, 262/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2002-03, 2003-04, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-2010 & 2011-2012 “3. It appears that in this case the assessment was made on protective basis and for the last several years, the income had actually been assessed in the hands of one Mahabir Prasad Modi an…

DCIT 41 1 1, MUMBAI vs. SATYA KIM YASHPAL, MUMBAI

ITA 5132/MUM/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: returning to India in the year 2001. JSY expired on 28/06/2017.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule; Shri Bhangepatil
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…rnishing of inaccurate particulars does not belong to him and he is assessed only as a protective measure." (Emphasis Supplied) 9. Similarly, the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta has, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Super Steel (Sales) Co. [1989] 178 ITR 451 (Calcutta)[21-12-1988], held as under: C.O.No.265, 266, 264, 268, 263, 262/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2002-03, 2003-04, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-2010 & 2011-2012 “3. It appears that in this case the assessment was made on protective basis and for the last several years, the income had actually been assessed in the hands of one Mahabir Prasad Modi an…

DCIT 41 1 1, MUMBAI vs. SATYA KIM YASHPAL, MUMBAI

ITA 5131/MUM/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: returning to India in the year 2001. JSY expired on 28/06/2017.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule; Shri Bhangepatil
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…rnishing of inaccurate particulars does not belong to him and he is assessed only as a protective measure." (Emphasis Supplied) 9. Similarly, the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta has, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Super Steel (Sales) Co. [1989] 178 ITR 451 (Calcutta)[21-12-1988], held as under: C.O.No.265, 266, 264, 268, 263, 262/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2002-03, 2003-04, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-2010 & 2011-2012 “3. It appears that in this case the assessment was made on protective basis and for the last several years, the income had actually been assessed in the hands of one Mahabir Prasad Modi an…

DCIT 41 1 1, MUMBAI vs. SATYA KIM YASHPAL, MUMBAI

ITA 5129/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: returning to India in the year 2001. JSY expired on 28/06/2017.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule; Shri Bhangepatil
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…rnishing of inaccurate particulars does not belong to him and he is assessed only as a protective measure." (Emphasis Supplied) 9. Similarly, the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta has, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Super Steel (Sales) Co. [1989] 178 ITR 451 (Calcutta)[21-12-1988], held as under: C.O.No.265, 266, 264, 268, 263, 262/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2002-03, 2003-04, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-2010 & 2011-2012 “3. It appears that in this case the assessment was made on protective basis and for the last several years, the income had actually been assessed in the hands of one Mahabir Prasad Modi an…

DCIT 41 1 1, MUMBAI vs. SATYA KIM YASHPAL, MUMBAI

ITA 5120/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: returning to India in the year 2001. JSY expired on 28/06/2017.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule; Shri Bhangepatil
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…rnishing of inaccurate particulars does not belong to him and he is assessed only as a protective measure." (Emphasis Supplied) 9. Similarly, the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta has, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Super Steel (Sales) Co. [1989] 178 ITR 451 (Calcutta)[21-12-1988], held as under: C.O.No.265, 266, 264, 268, 263, 262/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2002-03, 2003-04, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-2010 & 2011-2012 “3. It appears that in this case the assessment was made on protective basis and for the last several years, the income had actually been assessed in the hands of one Mahabir Prasad Modi an…

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 218/AHD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

…case of Bhailal Manilal Patel vs. CIT 49 taxmann.com 539 (Gujarat), the High Court held that where assessment order was a protective assessment order, penalty cannot be levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the case of CIT vs. Super Steel (Sales) Co. 178 ITR 451 (Calcutta), the High Court held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income cannot be levied on the assessee when protective assessment was made in case of assessee and income was actually assessed in the hands of another person and it was therefore, not certain as to who out of the two had concealed the income. In t…

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 217/AHD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

…case of Bhailal Manilal Patel vs. CIT 49 taxmann.com 539 (Gujarat), the High Court held that where assessment order was a protective assessment order, penalty cannot be levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the case of CIT vs. Super Steel (Sales) Co. 178 ITR 451 (Calcutta), the High Court held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income cannot be levied on the assessee when protective assessment was made in case of assessee and income was actually assessed in the hands of another person and it was therefore, not certain as to who out of the two had concealed the income. In t…

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 216/AHD/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

…case of Bhailal Manilal Patel vs. CIT 49 taxmann.com 539 (Gujarat), the High Court held that where assessment order was a protective assessment order, penalty cannot be levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the case of CIT vs. Super Steel (Sales) Co. 178 ITR 451 (Calcutta), the High Court held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income cannot be levied on the assessee when protective assessment was made in case of assessee and income was actually assessed in the hands of another person and it was therefore, not certain as to who out of the two had concealed the income. In t…

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 215/AHD/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

…case of Bhailal Manilal Patel vs. CIT 49 taxmann.com 539 (Gujarat), the High Court held that where assessment order was a protective assessment order, penalty cannot be levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the case of CIT vs. Super Steel (Sales) Co. 178 ITR 451 (Calcutta), the High Court held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income cannot be levied on the assessee when protective assessment was made in case of assessee and income was actually assessed in the hands of another person and it was therefore, not certain as to who out of the two had concealed the income. In t…

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 214/AHD/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

…case of Bhailal Manilal Patel vs. CIT 49 taxmann.com 539 (Gujarat), the High Court held that where assessment order was a protective assessment order, penalty cannot be levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the case of CIT vs. Super Steel (Sales) Co. 178 ITR 451 (Calcutta), the High Court held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income cannot be levied on the assessee when protective assessment was made in case of assessee and income was actually assessed in the hands of another person and it was therefore, not certain as to who out of the two had concealed the income. In t…

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 213/AHD/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

…case of Bhailal Manilal Patel vs. CIT 49 taxmann.com 539 (Gujarat), the High Court held that where assessment order was a protective assessment order, penalty cannot be levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the case of CIT vs. Super Steel (Sales) Co. 178 ITR 451 (Calcutta), the High Court held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income cannot be levied on the assessee when protective assessment was made in case of assessee and income was actually assessed in the hands of another person and it was therefore, not certain as to who out of the two had concealed the income. In t…

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 212/AHD/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

…case of Bhailal Manilal Patel vs. CIT 49 taxmann.com 539 (Gujarat), the High Court held that where assessment order was a protective assessment order, penalty cannot be levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the case of CIT vs. Super Steel (Sales) Co. 178 ITR 451 (Calcutta), the High Court held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income cannot be levied on the assessee when protective assessment was made in case of assessee and income was actually assessed in the hands of another person and it was therefore, not certain as to who out of the two had concealed the income. In t…

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 211/AHD/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

…case of Bhailal Manilal Patel vs. CIT 49 taxmann.com 539 (Gujarat), the High Court held that where assessment order was a protective assessment order, penalty cannot be levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the case of CIT vs. Super Steel (Sales) Co. 178 ITR 451 (Calcutta), the High Court held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income cannot be levied on the assessee when protective assessment was made in case of assessee and income was actually assessed in the hands of another person and it was therefore, not certain as to who out of the two had concealed the income. In t…

SHRI ROHITJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 210/AHD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

…case of Bhailal Manilal Patel vs. CIT 49 taxmann.com 539 (Gujarat), the High Court held that where assessment order was a protective assessment order, penalty cannot be levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the case of CIT vs. Super Steel (Sales) Co. 178 ITR 451 (Calcutta), the High Court held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income cannot be levied on the assessee when protective assessment was made in case of assessee and income was actually assessed in the hands of another person and it was therefore, not certain as to who out of the two had concealed the income. In t…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

ITA 3531/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Khare, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Chopra, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…Fit for Publication ITA Nos.-3531/Del/2015 and four other appeals. (AM) (JM) M/s Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘A’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI S.K. YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No:- 3531/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Deputy Commissioner of Income M/s Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd., 1113, 11th Floor, Kailash Tax, Vs. Central Circle-13, Building, New Delhi. 26 Kg Marg, New Delhi-110001. PAN No: AADCN5377R APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA No:- 3135/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Commissioner of In…

NIRALA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

ITA 3155/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Khare, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Chopra, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…Fit for Publication ITA Nos.-3531/Del/2015 and four other appeals. (AM) (JM) M/s Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘A’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI S.K. YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No:- 3531/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Deputy Commissioner of Income M/s Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd., 1113, 11th Floor, Kailash Tax, Vs. Central Circle-13, Building, New Delhi. 26 Kg Marg, New Delhi-110001. PAN No: AADCN5377R APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA No:- 3135/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Commissioner of In…

M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

ITA 3137/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Khare, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Chopra, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…Fit for Publication ITA Nos.-3531/Del/2015 and four other appeals. (AM) (JM) M/s Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘A’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI S.K. YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No:- 3531/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Deputy Commissioner of Income M/s Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd., 1113, 11th Floor, Kailash Tax, Vs. Central Circle-13, Building, New Delhi. 26 Kg Marg, New Delhi-110001. PAN No: AADCN5377R APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA No:- 3135/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Commissioner of In…

M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

ITA 3136/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Khare, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Chopra, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…Fit for Publication ITA Nos.-3531/Del/2015 and four other appeals. (AM) (JM) M/s Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘A’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI S.K. YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No:- 3531/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Deputy Commissioner of Income M/s Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd., 1113, 11th Floor, Kailash Tax, Vs. Central Circle-13, Building, New Delhi. 26 Kg Marg, New Delhi-110001. PAN No: AADCN5377R APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA No:- 3135/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Commissioner of In…

M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

ITA 3135/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Khare, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Chopra, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…Fit for Publication ITA Nos.-3531/Del/2015 and four other appeals. (AM) (JM) M/s Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘A’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI S.K. YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No:- 3531/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Deputy Commissioner of Income M/s Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd., 1113, 11th Floor, Kailash Tax, Vs. Central Circle-13, Building, New Delhi. 26 Kg Marg, New Delhi-110001. PAN No: AADCN5377R APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA No:- 3135/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Commissioner of In…

Showing 1–20 of 28 · Page 1 of 2