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

565 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 519Supreme Court of India2007#113 most cited

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.

565

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT · Section 271(1)(c) · Section 274 · penalty notice invalidity · non-application of mind · concealment of income · furnishing inaccurate particulars · burden of proof Revenue · striking off irrelevant clauses · standard proforma notice · levy of penalty

Also reported as

210 CTR 228

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274 Section 143(3)Section 132 Section 153C Section 250 Section 153A Section 270A

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

penalty under section 271(1)(c)furnishing inaccurate particulars of income furnishing inaccurate particulars penalty u/s 271(1)(c)concealment of income section 274 levy of penalty section 271(1)section 271 section 271(1)(c)section 27 section 139(1)

Judgments citing Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT

Shri Bhaveshbhai N. Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(2), Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2585/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Ld. Cit (A) & Agreed To The Addition Made By The Ao On Account Of Stcg For Rs. 41,39,180.00. Accordingly The Same Was Confirmed By The Learned Cit (A).

For Appellant: Shri Tej Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr.DR

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…oid the litigation. As such, mere admission of income does not attract penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee in support of his contention submitted various pronouncement of different Hon’ble Courts as detailed under: 1. Dilip N Shroff Vs. JCIT (2007) 291 ITR 519 (SC) 2. Ashok Patel Vs. CIT (2007) 292 ITR 11 (SC) 3. National Textile v CIT 249 ITR 125 (Gujarat) 4. CIT vs Baroda Tin Works (1996) 221 ITR 661 (Gujarat) and various ITAT judgments 7. However the AO held that assessee agreed to offer tax only after the same was confronted to him during assessment proceedings. The AO also held that Page 2 of 8 As…

Shri Bhanuprasad D. Trivedi (HUF), Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Cent. Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 501/AHD/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Oct 2019AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri L.P. Jain, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…vidence in the penalty proceedings but the penalty cannot be levied solely on the basis of the reasons given in the original order of assessment”. 6.3 The Hon'ble Supreme Court has recently reiterated the law in case of Dilip N. Shroff vs. Jt. CIT reported in 291 ITR 519 by holding that finding in assessment proceedings cannot automatically be adopted in penalty proceedings and the authorities have to consider the matter afresh from different angle. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble Court stands as under: “Since burden of proof in penalty proceedings varies from that in the assessment proceeding, a finding in…

Subhash Chand Gupta & Sons (HUF), New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-35(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 853/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaassessment Year: 2014-15 Subhash Chand Gupta & Ito Sons (Huf) Vs Ward – 35 (4) 43/1, Rajpura Road, New Delhi New Delhi-110054 Pan No.Aabhs2009G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

…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…

Shri Vipul A. Shah, Baroda vs. DCIT, Circle 1(2), Baroda

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2014/AHD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2014/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Shri Vipul A. Shah, D.C.I.T., 4, Niv Bungalow, Vs. Circle-1(2), B/H Yash Complex, Baroda. Gotri Road, Baroda. Pan: Afops7332C

Section 147Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…e authorities below, therefore we hold that there cannot be any penalty of the assessee in the given facts and circumstances. 9.5 In holding so we find support and guidance from the judgment of the supreme court in case of Dilip N Shroff Vs. JCIT reported in 291 ITR 519 wherein it was held as under: “It signifies a deliberate act or omission on the part of the assessee. Such deliberate act must be either for the purpose of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars” Asstt. Year 2008-09 6 In view of the above, we are not inclined to uphold the findings of the authorities below. Hence we set as…

Ashtavinayak Construction, Navi Mumbai vs. JCIT Cir. 22(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5367/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Ashtavinayaka Jcit Circle 22(3), Mumbai. Construction, Vs. Plot No. R-478, Ttc Industrial Area, Midc, Rabale, Navi Mumbai- 400701. Pan No. Aadfa1724G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Bhadresh Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. S.K. Mishra, DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ITR 228, CIT Vs Escorts Finance Ltd 183 Taxman 453 (Delhi), CIT v. R.M.P. Plasto (P.) Ltd 184 Taxman 372 (SC), K.P. Madhusudhanan v. CIT [2001] 118 Taxman 324 (SC), Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation v. DCIT 22(2) Mumbai, Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT (2007) 291 ITR 519 (SC), CIT M/s Ashtavinayaka Constructions 5 v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd (2010) 322 ITR 0158(SC), UOI v. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills (2010) 1 GSTR 66 (SC), CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal (2009) 317 ITR 1 (SC), Price Water House Coopers Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2012)348 ITR 306(SC), CIT v. Somany Evergreen Knits Ltd (2013)352 ITR 592 (Bom.), CIT…

Shri Ranjan Kumar Sahu, Dhenkanal vs. ITO, Dhenkanal Ward, Dhenkanal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 252/CTK/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack13 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.252/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Shri Ranjan Kumar Sahu, Vs. Ito, Dhenkanal Ward, Hata Road, Mandapsahi, Dhenkanal Dhenkanal, Odisha-759001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan No. : Ahwps 4507 K (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri C.Parida, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 274w

…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 furn…

Smt. Suman Lakhani, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result, the penalty amounting to Rs

ITA 857/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Madan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Janardan Das, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36

…escribed by the statute. ’ 11. I further place reliance upon the Hon’ble Apex Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Ltd (supra). In this case vide order dtd. 17/03/2010 it has been held that the law laid down in the Dilip Sheroff case 291 ITR 519 (SC) as to the meaning of word ‘concealment’ and ‘inaccurate’ continues to be a good law because what was overruled in the Dharmender Textile case was only that part in Dilip Sheroff case where it was held that mensrea was a essential requirement of penalty u/s 271(1) (c). The Hon’ble Apex Court also observed that if the contention of the revenue…

Frontline Associates, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 919/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Frontline Associates, Vs. Acit, 34/35, Ard Complex, Circle-53(1), New Delhi Second Floor, R.K. Puram, Sector-13, New Delhi Pan :Aaaff6558J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Arun Kishore, Ca Respondent By Shri G. Johnson, Sr.Dr

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

Vision Infpro (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -8(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1394/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Gubgotra

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…rprises v. ITO [60 ITR(Trib.) 252]. In the case of DCIT v. Shri Dhaval D. Shah in ITA.No. 1337/Mum/2016 & C.O.NO.08/Mum/2018 dated 16.05.2018 the Coordinate Bench considered similar and identical issue and following the ratio laid down in the Dilip N. Shroff [210 CTR 228 (SC)] and the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Samson Perinchery (supra) held that the penalty proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer is bad in law. While holding so the Coordinate Bench held as under: “9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. The reasons f…

Vyanjan Hotel P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO - 2(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7445/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Ramit Kochar, Hon'Blem/S Vyanjan Hotels Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax Officer – 2(3)(4) Unit No.4, Peninsula Chambers Room No. 555 Peninsula Corporate Park Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road G.K. Marg, Lower Parel (W) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aabcv7944C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora Shri Nikhil Tiwari Department By : Shri Ajay Kumar Ojha

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Ojha

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s Vyanjan Hotels Pvt. Ltd., v. Income Tax Officer – 2(3)(4) Unit No.4, Peninsula Chambers Room No. 555 Peninsula Corporate Park Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road G.K. Marg, Lower Parel (W) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400 013 PAN: AABCV7944C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Rajan Vora Shri Nikhil Tiwari Department by : Shri Ajay Kumar Ojha Date of Hearing : 12.07.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 27.08.2019 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appeal is fil…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kanpur vs. Smt. Shehla Ahmed, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 181/LKW/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. Cit-1 V. Smt. Shehla Ahmad Kanpur 376-C, Allied Street Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aexpa4122N (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.09/Lkw/2018 [In Ita No.181/Lkw/2018] Assessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Shehla Ahmad V. Dy. Cit-1 376-C, Allied Street Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aexpa4122N (Cross-Objector) (Respondent) Department By: Shri R. K. Vishvakarma, D.R. Assessee By: Shri Swarn Singh, Fca Date Of Hearing: 24 07 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 22 08 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: This Is Revenue’S Appeal & Assessee’S Cross Objection Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Ii, Kanpur, Dated 1/12/2017, For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Revenue Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii, Kanpur Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs.22,00,000/- Imposed By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Undisclosed

For Appellant: Shri Swarn Singh, FCAFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Vishvakarma, D.R

Section 10(38)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40a

…ed by the Judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd (SC) reported in 230 CTR Page 320, wherein their Lordships after considering various decisions including Dilip N. Shroff vs. JCIT (2007) 291 ITR 519 (SC) has held that merely because the assessee had claimed the expenditure, which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the Revenue, that by itself would not attract the penalty under s. 271(1)(c). ITA No.181/LKW/2018 & C.O. No.09/LKW/2018 Page 6 of 13 AO imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the reason that at the time of ass…

Shri Ram Sharan Gupta, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 99/JPR/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2019AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA)For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Jha (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…e was also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court decision in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 2463 of 2010. In this case vide order dated 17.3.2010 it has been held that the law laid down in the Dilip Shrrof case 291 ITR 519 7 ITA 99/JP/2018 Ram Sharan Gupta Vs. ITO (SC) as to the meaning of word 'concealment' and 'inaccurate' continues to be a good law because what was overruled in the Dharmender Textile case was only that part in Dilip Shrrof case where it was held that mensrea was an essential requirement of penalty u/s 271(1) (c). The Hon'ble Apex Court also obs…

Harish Kumar HUF, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-34(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1469/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Dr. B.R.R. Kumara.Y. : 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Naveen ND Gupta, CA & Sh. AshuFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 288ASection 94(7)

…A.O that no penalty under the aforesaid statutory provision was liable to be imposed in his hands, relied upon the following judicial pronouncements:- (I) CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Kar.) (ii) Dilip N. Shroffv. JCIT (2007) 291 ITR 519 (SC) (iil) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Samson Pernchery (2017) 98 CCH 0039 (Bom.). (iv) CIT v. SSA's Emerald Meadows 73 Taxman.com 241 (Kar.) (v) SSA's Emerald Meadows v. CIT 242 Taxman 180 (SC) Per contra, the Id. D.R submitted that the contentions advanced by the Id. A.R as regards the validity of the penalty proceedings not being maintainabl…

DCIT Corporate Circle -3(2), Chennai vs. Rajeshs Corporation, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 130/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Mr. D.Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. R.Clement Ramesh –

Section 271(1)(c)Section 35(1)(ii)

…to levy the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act to the extent of 300% of the tax sought to be evaded. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) had deleted the penalty by following the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff reported in 291 ITR 519, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that the inappropriate words and paragraphs were not deleted in the notice issued showed the non-application of mind by the AO. The Ld.CIT(A) also followed the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory & Others, reported in 359 ITR 565, wherein…

Sujit Kumar Behera, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 190/CTK/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack24 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri C.Parida, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK ‘SMC’ BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sujit Kumar Behera, Plot Vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Bhubaneswar. No.A/356, Saheed nagar, Bhubaneswar. PAN/GIR No. (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri C.Parida, AR Revenue by : Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR Date of Hearing : 23/07/ 2019 Date of Pronouncement : 23/07/ 2019 O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Bhubaneswar dated 4.5.2018 for the assessment year 2011-12 confirming the penalty of Rs.…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Resurgere Mines and Minerals India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1531/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, CA and Shri Ashish Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

…e Revenue is accepted then in case of every Return where the claim made is not accepted by the AO for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty u/s 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature. (iii) The law laid down in Dilip Shroff 291 ITR 519 (SC) as to the meanings of the words "conceal" and "inaccurate" continues to be good law because what was overruled in Dharmendra Textile Processors 306 ITR 277 (SC) was only that part in Dilip Shroff where it was held that mens rea was an essential requirement for penalty u/s 271 (1)(c)." Your honor in the case of CIT vs Mahanagar Telephone…

Mesers Malwa Motors, Bathinda vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Bathinda

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 131/ASR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 131/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

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

…ides that of a host of decisions by the Apex Court, including that afore-referred, on the primacy of the explanation furnished in determining the validity or otherwise of the imposition of the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) (also see Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC), clarifying it to be always the position). 3.4 The first addition is qua a set of incomes, not disclosed, even as the same stand reflected, upon deduction of tax at source thereon, in Form 26AS, w.r.t. which the AO discovered the failure on the assessee’s part in not returning the same. The obligation on the assesse to return his income fai…

Shri H.K. Gandotra, Gurgaon vs. The Inocme-Tax Officer, Jammu

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 594/ASR/2014[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Jun 2019AY 1997-98

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 594/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 1997-98

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 246Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

…omission or 9 ITA Nos. 594/Asr/2014 (AY 1997-98) H. K. Gandotra v. ITO commission, i.e., concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Reference for this may be made to the decision in Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC), holding that to have always been the position. How, then, one may ask, this distinction in the penalty notice is of any significance, i.e., in the final analysis, much less lead to any prejudice? It needs to be appreciated, and is to be borne in mind, that the primary and relevant facts are only in the special knowledge of the assessee. Why…

Confluence Project Management Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(2), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 4489/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Aliasgar Rampurwala – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhi Rama Kartikeyan-Ld.DR

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

…9 ITR 565 Ginning Factory 2. CIT Vs Samson Perinchery Hon’ble Bombay High Court 392 ITR 4 3. CIT Vs SSA’s Emerald Hon’ble Karnataka High Court 72 Taxmann.com 241 Meadows SLP dismissed reported as 242 Taxman 180 4. Dilip N. Shroff Vs JCIT Hon’ble Supreme Court 291 ITR 519 5. Meherjee Cassinath Holdings P. Mumbai Tribunal 187 TTJ 722 Ltd. Vs ACIT 6. Jayant B. Patel Vs ACIT Mumbai Tribunal The Ld. DR defended the same by placing reliance on the stand of Hon’ble Supreme court rendered in Jain Brothers Vs Union of India 77 ITR 107. 6.1 We have carefully heard the rival submissions and perused relevant material on reco…

Arun Ravindranath Sawhney, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 7192/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 7192/Mum/2016 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2007-08) Arun Ravindranath Sawhney The Dy. Commissioner Of 502, Daisylea Apartment, 17- Income Tax, Central Circle A Mount Pleasant Road, 3(4), Old Acit Central Vs. Mumbai-400 006 Circle 24& 26 Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aafps4688F

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: S/shri Anadi Varma

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “A” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य एविं श्री जी. मंजुनाथ लेखा दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI G MANJUNATHA, AM Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 7192/Mum/2016 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2007-08) Arun Ravindranath Sawhney The Dy. Commissioner of 502, Daisylea Apartment, 17- Income Tax, Central Circle A Mount Pleasant Road, 3(4), Old ACIT Central Vs. Mumbai-400 006 Circle 24& 26 Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 .. (p`%yaqaaI- / Respondent) (ApIlaaqaI- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./P…