Dilip N. Shroff (supra). Thereafter, in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.

Q: How many judgments cite Dilip N. Shroff (supra). Thereafter, in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.?

19 judgments on BharatTax cite Dilip N. Shroff (supra). Thereafter, in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (11 SCC 762), spanning 2013 to 2024.

Q: Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Dilip N. Shroff (supra). Thereafter, in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 132, Section 143(1), Section 148, Section 250, Section 271(1)(c), Section 274.

11 SCC 762Supreme Court of India2010#5922 most cited

What is Dilip N. Shroff (supra). Thereafter, in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

In penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c), mens rea is not a requirement, though the AO must prove the assessee consciously intended to hide income. The term "conceal" requires proof of specific conduct showing intent.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. · section 271 · section 271(1)(c) · penalty · concealment of income · mens rea · strict liability · onus on AO · conduct of assessee · Dilip N. Shroff

Sections most often in play

Section 132 Section 143(1)Section 148 Section 250 Section 271(1)(c)Section 274 Section 292B

Issues it is cited on

section 274 section 271 section 271(1)(c)section 27 india

Judgments citing Dilip N. Shroff (supra). Thereafter, in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.

Mrs. Pratibha Ashokkumar Godha, Nadiad vs. The ITO, Ward-1 (Previously Ward-5), Nadiad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1273/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumarasstt.Year : 2013-14 Mrs.Pratibha Ashokumar Godha The Ito, Ward-1 10, Prena Park, Vs (Previously Ward-5) Nr.Kashimir Park Society Nadiad. Nana Kumbhnath Road Nadiad. Pan : Afepg 0254 M (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri Pratibha Parmar Revenue By : Shri Ravindra, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/10/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

For Respondent: Shri Ravindra, SR.DR

Section 250Section 271Section 274Section 54

…hemselves were not found to be inaccurate, no penalty could be levied. 2 3. It is submitted that a difference in opinion cannot lead to issuance of penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act. 4. In the case of CIT Ahmedabad v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. [(2010) 11 SCC 762] the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under - "10. ...We do not agree, as the assessee had furnished all the details of its expenditure as well as income in its return, which details, in themselves, were not found to be inaccurate nor could be viewed as the concealment of income on its part. It was up to the authorities to accept its claim in th…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -7 vs. Sumitomo Corporation India (P) Ltd

ITA/52/2023HC Delhi02 Sept 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

…of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat Central v. Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd.20 and where the ambit of Section 144B was explained in the following terms:- 20 (2016) 11 SCC 762 Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:02.09.2024 17:04:21 Signature Not Verified ITA 52/2023 & other connected matters Page 59 of 74 ―9. Section 144-B of the Act deals with a situation where ITO intends to pass an assessment order which is in variation to the income or loss that is shown in the return of the a…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -7 vs. Yum Restaurant Marketing Pvt. Ltd

ITA/385/2024HC Delhi20 Aug 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

Section 145Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 27l

…themselves, were not found to be inaccurate nor could be viewed as the concealment of income on its part. It was up to the authorities to accept its claim in the Return or not. Merely because the assessee 4 (2010) 11 SCC 762 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/08/2024 at 12:19:48 ITA 385/2024 Page 4 of 4 had claimed the expenditure, which claim was not accepted or was not acc…

Arvind Balkrishna Goregoankar, Wadala vs. The Income Tax Officer 26 (1) (2), Bkc, Bandra East

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2791/MUM/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Arvind Balkrishna Goregaonkar The Income Tax Officer – 26(1)(2) Flat No. B – 1305, Bhavya Heights, 706, C-11, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Katrak Road, N R Ram Mandir, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Wadala (W), Mumbai-400 031 Mumbai -400 051

For Appellant: Dr. Rajendra Kumar Jain &For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292B

…or concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of 3 Arvind Balkrishna Goregaonkar vs. ITO income. The ld. AR relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. [2010] 11 SCC 762 (SC) along with various other decisions. 8. The learned Departmental Representative ('ld.DR' for short), on the other hand, had nothing to controvert the same and supported the order of the lower authorities by stating that the ld. A.O. has mentioned the relevant limb for which penalty proceeding is initiated in the assessment order. 9. We hav…

Smt. Jaya Mogra, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 333/JODH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur20 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Section 127Section 132Section 271(1)(c)

…e deposit in the aforenoted facts a conclusion of concealment of income is inescapable. 15.3 Since, the penalty was initiated on estimated income of Rs. 21,45,000/- Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2010) 11 SCC 762 it is held that where there was no finding that there were any details supplied by the assessee, which were found to be incorrect or erroneous or false, it would not attract penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. As regards the above argument of the assessee, it is relevant to note that estimate of such income was necessitated because the as…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-4 vs. M/S Giesecks & Devrient (India) Pvt. Ltd

ITA/141/2020HC Delhi10 Dec 2021

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…Page 5 of 5 13. We do not find any infirmity in the above observation of the learned ITAT. As held by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., (2010) 11 SCC 762, for the purpose of invoking Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, there has to be a concealment of particulars in the income of the assessee and the assessee must have furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. Making an incorrect claim in law cannot tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Mere makin…

Keystone Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 5, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2558/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

Section 14ASection 244ASection 27(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…lied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Price Waterhouse Coopers (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT, Kolkata 348 ITR 306 (SC). The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Private Limited (2011) 11 SCC 762: 322 ITR 158 3 wherein it is held that submitting incorrect claim in law does not tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income of assessee or concealment. 6. The Ld DR relied upon the assessment order, penalty order and order of the CIT(A). 7. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -6 vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd

ITA/995/2019HC Delhi02 Mar 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -6 vs. Microsoft India ( R & D) Pvt. Ltd

ITA/993/2019HC Delhi02 Mar 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

International Tractors Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6098/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…d upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Price Waterhouse Coopers (P.) 3 Ltd. vs. CIT, Kolkata 348 ITR 306 (SC). The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Private Limited (2011) 11 SCC 762: 322 ITR 158 wherein it is held that submitting incorrect claim in law does not tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income of assessee or concealment. 6. The Ld DR relied upon the assessment order, penalty order and order of the CIT(A). 7. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. T…

Bcd Travels India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 9(2)(1) Earlier Addl CIT 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4161/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S. Bcd Travels India Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Range 9(2)(1), Level 2, Office No.3-B, B-Wing, (Earlier Addl. Cit-8(1)), Times Square, Andheri Kurla Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 012 Marol, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 059 Pan/Gir No. Aaacf 1613 R (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Miss Nipur Agarwal Respondent By : Shri Ashish Kumar Date Of Hearing : 22.07.2019 : 05.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Miss Nipur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar

Section 10ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…on of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors, [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC). He rejected the assessee’s reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., (2010) 11 SCC 762 (SC). 4. Upon the assessee’s appeal in this regard, he confirmed the penalty. 5. Against this order, the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. 6. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. We find that in this case there is a reduction in allowance for section 10A exemption by allocation of certain common expenditure. There is n…

Brij Bhushan Aggarwal, Saharanpur vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Saharanpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5079/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2014-15 Brij Bhushan Aggarwal, Vs. Ito, 2A/1501, Post Office Road, Ward-3(1), Saharanpur (Up). Saharanpur (Up). Pan: Abfpa6529A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sameer Jain, Advocatee & Shri Suvigya Awasthy, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.08.2019 Order

For Appellant: Shri Sameer Jain, Advocatee &For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 3

…oks of account and since the case is ten years old the assessee is not in a position to substantiate with documentary evidence. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2010) 11 SCC 762, he submitted that submitting incorrect claim in law does not tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of 2 income of assessee or concealment. He accordingly submitted that the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT(A) is no sustainable. 5. The ld. counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to the noti…

The Pr Commissioner of vs. M/S Mphasis Limited

ITA/909/2017HC Karnataka16 Aug 2018

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

Section 482

…ect. The Apex Court, later, in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDABAD v. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED 4 has held as follows: “…. …. …. …. 3 (2008) 13 SCC 369 4 (2010) 11 SCC 762 33 15. It was only on the point of mens rea that the judgment in Dilip N. Shroff v. CIT [(2007) 6 SCC 329] was upset. In Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors [(2008) 13 SCC 369] after quoting from Section 271 extensively and also considering Section 271(1)(c), the Court came to the conclusion that since Section 271(1)(c…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-19 vs. Shri Neeraj Jindal

ITA/464/2016HC Delhi09 Feb 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 260Section 263Section 264Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…519 (SC). In a later decision in Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors, (2008) 13 SCC 369, the Supreme Court overruled its decision in Dilip N. Shroff (supra). Thereafter, in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., (2010) 11 SCC 762 the Court clarified that Dilip N. Shroff (supra) stood overruled only to the extent that it imposed the requirement of mens rea in Section 271(1)(c); however, no fault was found with the meaning of “conceal” laid down in Dilip N. Shroff’s case. Thus, as the law stands, the word “conceal” in Section 271(1)(c), would require the A.O. to prove th…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-19 vs. Shri Ankur Aggarwal

ITA/465/2016HC Delhi09 Feb 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 260Section 263Section 264Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-19 vs. Shri Ankur Aggarwal

ITA/466/2016HC Delhi09 Feb 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 260Section 263Section 264Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

New Holland Tractors (India) Private Limited

ITA/182/2002HC Delhi25 Sept 2014

Section 271(1)(c)

…It is not uncommon to have dissenting opinion on the question of law, in the courts. 32. On the aforesaid aspect, we would like to refer to the following observations of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd., (2010) 11 SCC 762:- ― 10. Section 271(1)(c) is as under: ―271. Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc.—(1) If the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person— 2014:DHC:5004-DB ITA Nos. 182/2002 & 255/2003…

Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-III vs. M/S. Anant Overseas P. Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/479/2014HC Delhi04 Sept 2014

Section 153CSection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…articulars were submitted”. 8. The aforesaid factors and details were duly noticed and considered by Tribunal. Reference has been made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd., [2010] 11 SCC 762, wherein it has been held: “10. Section 271(1)(c) is as under: “271. Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc.—(1) If the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person— *** (c) has concealed the particulars of his income or fur…

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Arcotech Ltd (Formerly Sks Ltd.)

The appeal is disposed of

ITA/71/2013HC Delhi12 Sept 2013

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 43B

…e Court in Hindustan Steel Limited versus State of Orissa, (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC), which pertains to the earlier provision relating to penalty, which was worded differently. Decision in the case of CIT versus Reliance Petroproducts Private Limited, (2010) 11 SCC 762 is relevant but would indicate that in the said case the assessee had given an explanation in respect of disallowance of expenditure under Section 14A. Full details of expenditure had been given in the return but the claim of the assessee was not accepted in view of the legal interpretation given to the statutory provision. Thus, merely mak…