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

Karl Pestonji Kerawalla, Mumbai vs. ITO 11(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7152/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Blekarl Pestonji Kerawalla V. I.T.O. – 11(2)(4) Kerawalla Chamber (4Th Floor) Aayakar Bhavan, 25, P.J. Ramchandani Marg., M.K. Road, Colaba, Mumbai – 400 039 Mumbai-400 020

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModyFor Respondent: Shri Abiram Kartikeyan

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

…on Perinchery [ITA.No. 953, 1097, 1154 & 1226 of 2014], CIT v. Smt Kaushalya & ors. [216 ITR 660], M/s.Maharaj Garage & Co. v. CIT [Income Tax Reference No. 21 of 2008] and also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT [210 CTR 228] held that the penalty proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer is bad in law since no specific charge was mentioned for which the penalty is imposed, observing as under: - “7. Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee submits that in the instant case the notice issued by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 does not specify the limb of section…

Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd, Jhansi vs. DCIT -2(3)(1), Jhansi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee, are allowed

ITA 193/AGR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra07 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 44A

…inning (i) Factory”, 359 ITR 565 (Kar). “CIT vs. M/s Veerabhadrappa Sangappa & Co”, (ii) ITA No. 5020/2009 (Kar). I.T.A No. 192/Agra/2017 6 & ITA No.193/Agra/2017 “CIT vs. SSA Emerrald Meadows”, in ITA No. (iii) 380/2015 (Kar). “Dilip N. Shroff Vs. JCIT”, 291 ITR 519 (SC). (iv) “Ashok Pai vs. CIT”, 292 ITR 11 (SC). (v) (vi) “CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd.”, 322 ITR 158 (SC). (vii) “Uma Shankar Agarwal vs. DCIT”, ITA No. 1831 to 1835/Kol/2015. (viii) “Suvaprasanan Bhatacharya vs. ACIT”, ITA No. 1303/Kol/2010. (Kol). “SLK Properties vs. ITO”, ITA No. 140/PN/2014. (ix) “ACIT Panjwani” (x) vs. Deepesh M…

Shree Tirupati Geenfield Developers, Thane vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 3, Thane

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 586/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Shree Tirupati Greenfield Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Developers, Tax, Central Circle – 3, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park Devanchand Hansraj Compound, Kolshet Road Road No.16Z, Wagle Estate Dhokali, Thane (W)-400607 Thane (W) Pan/Gir No. Abdfs2863H Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM Shree Tirupati Greenfield Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Developers, Tax, Central Circle – 3, 6th Floor, Ashar IT Park Devanchand Hansraj Compound, Kolshet Road Road No.16Z, Wagle Estate Dhokali, Thane (W)-400607 Thane (W) PAN/GIR No. ABDFS2863H Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee by Shri Chetan Karia & Shri Tejas Parekh Revenue by Shri Ashish Kumar Date of Hearing 25/07/2018 Date of Pronouncement 06/08/2018 आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the o…

Tanna Financial Services P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 206/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar

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

…). 16 I.T.A. No. 206/Mum/2011 M/s Tanna Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. 8. In view of the above, the question as framed do not give rise to any substantial question of law Thus, not entertained" 26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dilip N. Shroff v/s JCIT, [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC), has observed that while issuing the notice under section 274 r/w section 271, in the standard format, the Assessing Officer should delete the inappropriate words or paragraphs, otherwise, it may indicate that the Assessing Officer himself was not sure as to whether he had proceeded on the basis that the assessee had concealed his income or…

ACIT, Central Circle-2(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Badrinath Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 154/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2013-14 Acit, Central Circle- V/S. M/S Badrinath Infrastructure 2(3), Room No. 403, 4Th Pvt. Ltd., 107, Park Street, Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Kolkata-16 Poorva, 110, Shanti [Pan No.Aaccv 5513 E] Pally; E.M. Bye-Pass, Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant None ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 09-07-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 27-07-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14 Challenges The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Kolkata’S Order Dated 08.11.2016, Passed In Case No.1136/Cit(A)-20/Cc-2(3)/15-16, Reversing Assessing Officer’S Action Imposing Penalty Of ₹85,97,925/- In His Order Dated 29.09.2015, Involving Proceedings U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’.

Section 132(4)Section 271(1)(c)

…made to purchase peace or for other similar reason, surrender cannot amount to admission, constituting evidence of concealment in penalty proceedings. We also rely on the judgemeknt of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Dilip N. Shroff v.Jt. CIT [2007] 291 ITR 519 ()SC) wherein it was held that imposition of penalty is not automatic. Levy of penalty is not only discretionary in nature, but such discretion is required to be ITA No.154/Kol/2017 A.Y 2013-14 ACIT, CC-2(3), Kol. Vs. M/s Badrinath Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Page 3 exercised on the part of the Assessing Officer, keeping the relevant factors in mind…

DCIT, Circle-17(1), Hyd, Hyderabad vs. Dr. Reddy'S Labouratories Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 779/HYD/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Sekhar &For Respondent: Shri J. Siri Kumar

Section 115JSection 144CSection 144C(2)Section 144C(5)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…e Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd., 322 ITR 158, submitted that no penalty is leviable in the cases of disclosure of particulars by assessee. Also relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff Vs. JCIT, 291 ITR 519, submitted that imposition of penalty is not automatic and levy of penalty not only discretionary in nature but such discretion is required to be exercised on the part of the AO. 4. The CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee as well as discussed the additions made by the AO at length and analysed the issue with various case law…

Shri Anand Jain, Bhilwara vs. ITO, Ward-4, Bhilwara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 295/JODH/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur19 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma(Respondent) Pan: Aazpj3120D

Section 271(1)(c)

…ot accepted by the Assessing Officer for any reason the assessee will invite penalty u/s 271(1)(c). This is clearly not the intendment of the legislature. In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has duly considered the law lay down in the case of Dilip Sharof 291 ITR 519 and Dharmendra Textile 306 ITR 277. 6. Respectively following the proposition of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Reliance Petro Products (supra) and applying the same to the facts of instant case, I do not find any merit for levy of penalty with respect to the proportionate disallowance of claim of depreciation. 5 ITA 295/Jo…

Asst CIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Shivgopal Trading Company P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 7375/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ramlal Negi

For Appellant: Shri V. Justin-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54Section 54E

…. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd, 189 Taxman 322 (SC); [CIT Vs. SSP Ltd, 328 ITR 643 (P & H)]. In other decisions, it has also been held that where an assessee has furnished all particulars of income, imposition of penalty is not automatic [Dilip N. Shroff, 291 ITR 519 (SC); Twin Star Jupiter Cooperative Housing Society Ltd, 31 SOT 474 (Mumbai); Enpake Motors Pvt. Ltd, ITA No. 9147Mum/2008]. It has also been held that where a legal issue under consideration is debatable and the assessee makes a claim which is not acceptable, penalty cannot be levied [Devsons Pvt.Ltd. 329 ITR 483(Del.)].” 6. Thereafter learned…

Eon Aviation Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3011/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

…ase and find that the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of DCIT vs Dr. Sarita Milind Davare in ITA No.l789/Mum/2014 dated 21-12-2016 has considered the decision rendered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the light of Supreme Court judgement in the case of Dilip N Shroff 291 ITR 519 (SC) and observed that there should be application of mind on the part of the AO at the time of issuing notice. Since the co-ordinate bench has already considered the judgement of Hon'ble Bombay High Court, we are of the view that case law relied upon by the Ld.DR is not applicable to the facts of the'present case." 8. In so far as the judgment…

Alpex Exports Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 239/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Section 24Section 271(1)(c)

…369) (SC), incidentally reported in same ITR Volume, it is held that penalty cannot be levied solely on 4 basis of reasons given in original order of assessment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the law in case of Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT [2007] 291 ITR 519 by holding in Para 62 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 statute requires a satisfaction on the part of the Assessing Officer. He is required to arrive at a satisfaction so as to show that concealed the amo…

M/S Keti Sangam Infrastructure (I) Ltd., Indore vs. The DCIT (Central), Indore

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

ITA 1341/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

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

…e u/s. 274 of the Act should be specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c}, i.e. whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. 8.4. The Hori'ble Supreme Court in Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT [2007J 291 ITR 519 (SC), has observed that while sending the notice under section 27'4 r/io 271, section in the standard format, the Assessing Officer should delete the inappropriate words or paragraphs, otherwise, it may indicate that the Assessing Officer himself was not sure as to whether he had proceeded on the basis that the assessee had concealed his income o…

M/S Shree Coal Enterprises (I) Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal vs. The ACIT 3(1), Bhopal

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

ITA 1337/IND/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

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

M/S Keti Sangham Infrastruture (I) Limited, Indore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Indore

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

ITA 516/IND/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

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