What is Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT authority for?

A penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if the Assessing Officer fails to strike out the inapplicable limb (concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars) from the standard proforma, indicating non-application of mind. The initial burden of proving concealment or inaccurate particulars rests on the Revenue.

How many judgments cite Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT?

556 judgments on BharatTax cite Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT (291 ITR 519), spanning 2007 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 271(1)(c), Section 274, Section 143(3), Section 132, Section 153C, Section 250.

Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT (291 ITR 519)

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1840/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT

Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

…outside the books of account. In view of such admission, the appellant had agreed to enhance the net profit by 1% of turnover. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the judicial precedents relied upon by the appellant, including the decisions in Dilip Shroff reported in 291 ITR 519, Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory reported in 35 taxmann.com 250 (Karnataka) and M.M. Gujamagadi reported in 290 ITR 168, and observed that these decisions were rendered in the context of penalty proceedings being independent and penalty not being automatic. However, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the facts of the appellant’s case were distinguishab…

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1839/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT

Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

…outside the books of account. In view of such admission, the appellant had agreed to enhance the net profit by 1% of turnover. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the judicial precedents relied upon by the appellant, including the decisions in Dilip Shroff reported in 291 ITR 519, Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory reported in 35 taxmann.com 250 (Karnataka) and M.M. Gujamagadi reported in 290 ITR 168, and observed that these decisions were rendered in the context of penalty proceedings being independent and penalty not being automatic. However, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the facts of the appellant’s case were distinguishab…

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3),, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1838/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT

Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

…outside the books of account. In view of such admission, the appellant had agreed to enhance the net profit by 1% of turnover. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the judicial precedents relied upon by the appellant, including the decisions in Dilip Shroff reported in 291 ITR 519, Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory reported in 35 taxmann.com 250 (Karnataka) and M.M. Gujamagadi reported in 290 ITR 168, and observed that these decisions were rendered in the context of penalty proceedings being independent and penalty not being automatic. However, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the facts of the appellant’s case were distinguishab…

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1837/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT

Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

…outside the books of account. In view of such admission, the appellant had agreed to enhance the net profit by 1% of turnover. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the judicial precedents relied upon by the appellant, including the decisions in Dilip Shroff reported in 291 ITR 519, Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory reported in 35 taxmann.com 250 (Karnataka) and M.M. Gujamagadi reported in 290 ITR 168, and observed that these decisions were rendered in the context of penalty proceedings being independent and penalty not being automatic. However, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the facts of the appellant’s case were distinguishab…

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1836/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT

Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

…outside the books of account. In view of such admission, the appellant had agreed to enhance the net profit by 1% of turnover. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the judicial precedents relied upon by the appellant, including the decisions in Dilip Shroff reported in 291 ITR 519, Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory reported in 35 taxmann.com 250 (Karnataka) and M.M. Gujamagadi reported in 290 ITR 168, and observed that these decisions were rendered in the context of penalty proceedings being independent and penalty not being automatic. However, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the facts of the appellant’s case were distinguishab…

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1835/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT

Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

…outside the books of account. In view of such admission, the appellant had agreed to enhance the net profit by 1% of turnover. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the judicial precedents relied upon by the appellant, including the decisions in Dilip Shroff reported in 291 ITR 519, Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory reported in 35 taxmann.com 250 (Karnataka) and M.M. Gujamagadi reported in 290 ITR 168, and observed that these decisions were rendered in the context of penalty proceedings being independent and penalty not being automatic. However, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the facts of the appellant’s case were distinguishab…

BRIJ GOPAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4800/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 1Section 143Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(2)(a)

…in the quantum proceedings, 9 though relevant, are not conclusive or determinative of the penalty proceedings. Reliance is placed on the following judgments: i) 86 ITR 376 (SC) CIT v. Khoday Eswarsa ii) 123 ITR 457 (SC) Anantharam Veerasinghaiah vs. CIT iii) 291 ITR 519 (SC) Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT iv) 292 ITR 11 (SC) T. Ashok Pai v. CIT v) 190 Taxman 157 (Del) CIT v. Arctic Investment (P) Ltd. vi) 145 Taxman 530 (Del) CIT v. Globe Sales Corporation vii) 219 ITR 267 (Del) CIT v. J. K. Synthetics Limited viii) 160 ITR 94 (AP) (FB) CIT V. H. Abdul Bakshi ix) 219 CTR 447 (Kar) Bhadra Advancing (P) Ltd. v. ACIT x) 2…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. SURESH MANEKLAL SHETH, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4560/MUM/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Swapnil Choudhary Sr. ARFor Respondent: 30.10.2025

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 4560/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2007-08) Income Tax Officer, Mumbai Suresh Maneklal Sheth Room No. 126, 1st Floor, Kautilya 1 Kusum Niwas, Irla Vile Parle (W), Bhavan, G Block, Bandra Kurla Vs. Mumbai 400056 Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai 400051 PAN: AJMPS0119H Appellant) : Respondent) : Shri Prateek Jain Assessee by : Shri. Swapnil Choudhary Sr. AR Revenue by : 30.10.2025 Date of Hearing : 11.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: This appeal by the revenue is aga…

SH.MOHIT BATOLA,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, CC, DDN, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 101/DDN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun30 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Mohit Batola Vs Acit 155, Village Miyanwala Central Circle P.O.-Harrawala, Dehradun, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand-248001 Pan-Aftpb3533M Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Verendra Kalra, Ca Revenue By Shri S.K.Chaterjee, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.10.2025 Order

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 153A(1)(b)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274(1)

…eld that the standard proforma of notice under section 274 of the Act without striking of the irrelevant clauses would lead to an inference of non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff vs. JCIT, 291 ITR 519(SC) has also noticed that where the Assessing Officer issues notice under section 274 of the Act in the standard proforma and the inappropriate words are not deleted, the same would postulate that the Assessing Officer was not sure as to whether he was to proceed on the basis that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income or furnis…

MANOJ KUMAR GANGADHARAN,BHOPAL vs. ITO (IT AND TP) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 671/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 250Section 253Section 270ASection 270A(9)(a)Section 274

…pectfully submitted that the such reduction of the loss has not resulted to additional tax liability if any payable by the assessee. Sir the reduction of the loss is not due to submission of the inaccurate particulars by the assessee. (Dilip N. Shroff VS CIT (291 ITR 519) (SC)] (Reliance Petro Products (P) Ltd (322 ITR 158 (SC)] 4. sir it is humbly submitted that due to the reduction in the loss there is no tax liability upon the assessee. Sir it is once again requested to you to kindly consider the facts and circumstance of the case, where in there is no defauilt of the assessee 4. Sir, it is pertinent to note…

CHUNDAYIL KALAM GIRIJADEVI ,KERALASSERY vs. ITO WARD 1 & TPS, PALAKKAD

ITA 564/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Padmnathan K.VFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal

Section 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 4

…y is unsustainable because mere preferring a claim which is unacceptable to the Revenue does not ipso facto lead to levy of penalty. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Private Limited 322 ITR 158 (SC) and Dilip N. Shroff 291 ITR 519 (SC) has held that where the addition is made in respect of a bona fide claim, even if such claim is untenable according to the learned Assessing Officer, still no penalty could be levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. D. Where the appellant has made adequate disclosures in the return, the penalty under section 270A of the Act is not justif…

INCOME-TAX OFFICER-8(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. VIBGYOR TEXOTECH LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4705/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292B

…'s insistence that the previous\nproceedings supply justification and cure the defect in penalty\nproceedings has not met acceptance. [Para 186]\n\nQuestion No. 3: What is effect of Supreme Court's decision in Dilip N.\nShroff v. Jt. CIT [2007] 161 Тахтап 218/291 ITR 519 (SC), on issue\nof non-application of mind when irrelevant portions of printed notices\nare not struck off ?\n\nIn Dilip N. Shroff, case (supra) for the Supreme Court, it is of 'some\nsignificance that in the standard Pro-forma used by the Assessing\nOfficer in issuing a notice despite the fact that the same postulates\nthat inappropriate words a…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 (1) MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. PANTHER INVESTRADE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the Cross appeals no

ITA 416/MUM/2025[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Akash Kumar, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan (Sr. DR)

Section 271(1)(c)

…o consider two more aspects: (a) "the impact of non-discussion on the aspect of 'prejudice' in the first set of decisions)": (b) and "the effect of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC) on the issue of non-application of mind where the relevant portions of the printed notices are not struck off . 7.2 While making observation on the judgment of Dilip N. Shroff, it was observed by the hon'ble Court that primary burden of proof is on the Revenue. The AO must satisfy himself that there is primary evidence to establish that the…

DCIT(CENTRAL CIRCLE)-7(1), MUMBAI vs. PANTHER INVESTRADE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the Cross appeals no

ITA 415/MUM/2025[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Akash Kumar, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan (Sr. DR)

Section 271(1)(c)

…o consider two more aspects: (a) "the impact of non-discussion on the aspect of 'prejudice' in the first set of decisions)": (b) and "the effect of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC) on the issue of non-application of mind where the relevant portions of the printed notices are not struck off . 7.2 While making observation on the judgment of Dilip N. Shroff, it was observed by the hon'ble Court that primary burden of proof is on the Revenue. The AO must satisfy himself that there is primary evidence to establish that the…

M/S KUMAON MANDAL VIKASH NIGAM LTD.,NANITAL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, NANITAL

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 44/DDN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

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

…under section 274 of the Act without striking of the irrelevant clauses M/s Kumaon Mandal Vikash Nigam vs. ACIT would lead to an inference of non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff vs. JCIT, 291 ITR 519(SC) has also noticed that where the Assessing Officer issues notice under section 274 of the Act in the standard proforma and the inappropriate words are not deleted, the same would postulate that the Assessing Officer was not sure as to whether he was to proceed on the basis that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income or furnis…

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 80/RJT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.76 To 80/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2012-13 & आयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No. 81/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya 3Rd Floor, Parth, Diwanpara Main Road, Rajkot-3600 001 Pan: Aampl 3903 F (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2 Rajkot, 2Nd Floor, Amruta Estate, M.G. Rad, Rajkot-360 001 (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/03/2025 : 30/04/2025 Order Per Bench, Captioned Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2008-09 To 2012-13 & Ay 2014-15, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (“Ld.Cit(A)” For Short) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act" For Short), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Orders, Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) & 271Aab(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, राजकोटन्यायपीठ, राजकोट । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/.ITA No.76 to 80/RJT/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2008-09 to 2012-13 AND आयकर अपीलसं/.ITA No. 81/RJT/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya 3rd Floor, Parth, Diwanpara Main Road, Rajkot-3600 001 PAN: AAMPL 3903 F (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-2 Rajkot, 2nd Floor, Amruta Estate, M.G. Rad, Rajkot-360 001 (प्रत्यर्थी/…

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAKJOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 78/RJT/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

…approach is not sanctioned by the statute and amounts to an overreach of the\nAssessing Officer's authority, for that reliance is placed on the judgement of the\nHon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint Commissioner of\nIncome Tax [(2007) 291 ITR 519 (SC)], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court\nheld as follows:\n\"66. Section 271(1) (c) remains a penal statute. Rule of strict construction shall apply\nthereto. Ingredients of imposing penalty remains the same. The purpose of the\nLegislature that it is meant to be deterrent to tax evasion is evidenced by the increase\nin the quantum of penalty, f…

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACTIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 77/RJT/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.76 To 80/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2012-13 & आयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No. 81/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya 3Rd Floor, Parth, Diwanpara Main Road, Rajkot-3600 001 Pan: Aampl 3903 F (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/04/2025 Order Per Bench, Captioned Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2008-09 To 2012-13 & Ay 2014-15, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (“Ld.Cit(A)” For Short) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act" For Short), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Orders, Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) & 271Aab(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, राजकोटन्यायपीठ, राजकोट । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/.ITA No.76 to 80/RJT/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2008-09 to 2012-13 AND आयकर अपीलसं/.ITA No. 81/RJT/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya 3rd Floor, Parth, Diwanpara Main Road, Rajkot-3600 001 PAN: AAMPL 3903 F (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Mehul Ranpura, AR राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue by : Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date o…

PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 76/RJT/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

…ITA No.76 to 81/RJT/2022 (AY 8-09 to 12-13 & 14-15) Pankaj C Lodhiya आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, राजकोटन्यायपीठ, राजकोट । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/.ITA No.76 to 80/RJT/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2008-09 to 2012-13 AND आयकर अपीलसं/.ITA No. 81/RJT/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya 3rd Floor, Parth, Diwanpara Main Road, Rajkot-3600 001 PAN: AAMPL 3903 F (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-2 Rajko…

SHRI ROHIT AGARWAL,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 3(3), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 352/LKW/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Rohit Agarwal V. Ito-3(3) Room No.108, 1St Floor Kanpur 49/52, General Ganj Radha Kripa, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Abapa2045C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 08 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31 01 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R

Section 154Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

…served on 2.4.2019 that too is showing incorrect address not belonging to the appellant messing up the entire request and left us to request and take shelter of your honour. 7. That the honorable apex court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff vs. Joint CIT (2007) 291 ITR 519 (SC) has held that if there is no evidence on material to show that the assessee had deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars and there was any mala fide intention on his part so as to make him liable for penalty. A mere omission or negligence would not constitute deliberate act of concealing particulars of income or suppressed or furnished…

Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT

What is Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3),, BANGALORE

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

BRIJ GOPAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, DELHI

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. SURESH MANEKLAL SHETH, MUMBAI

SH.MOHIT BATOLA,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, CC, DDN, DEHRADUN

MANOJ KUMAR GANGADHARAN,BHOPAL vs. ITO (IT AND TP) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

CHUNDAYIL KALAM GIRIJADEVI ,KERALASSERY vs. ITO WARD 1 & TPS, PALAKKAD

INCOME-TAX OFFICER-8(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. VIBGYOR TEXOTECH LIMITED, MUMBAI

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 (1) MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. PANTHER INVESTRADE LIMITED, MUMBAI

DCIT(CENTRAL CIRCLE)-7(1), MUMBAI vs. PANTHER INVESTRADE LIMITED, MUMBAI

M/S KUMAON MANDAL VIKASH NIGAM LTD.,NANITAL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, NANITAL

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAKJOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACTIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

SHRI ROHIT AGARWAL,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 3(3), KANPUR