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 366,470 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

Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Mangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Mangalore

In the result, all these 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 742/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ravish Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.739 to 747/Bang/2025 Assessment years: 2010-11 to 2013-14 & 2016-17 Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Mangalore, 3, Srinivasnagar S.O. Ward 1(1), 575 025. Mangalore. PAN: AAAAD 1743J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Ravish Rao, CA Respondent by : Shri Balusamy N, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 10.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025 O R D E R Per Bench 1. All these appeals are filed Dakshina Kannada…

Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Mangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Mangalore

In the result, all these 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 741/BANG/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ravish Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Mangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Mangalore

In the result, all these 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 740/BANG/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ravish Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Mangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Mangalore

In the result, all these 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 739/BANG/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ravish Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Pankajkumar Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rajkot vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2, 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

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

…ya approach is not sanctioned by the statute and amounts to an overreach of the Assessing Officer's authority, for that reliance is placed on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax [(2007) 291 ITR 519 (SC)], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: "66. Section 271(1) (c) remains a penal statute. Rule of strict construction shall apply thereto. Ingredients of imposing penalty remains the same. The purpose of the Legislature that it is meant to be deterrent to tax evasion is evidenced by the increase in the quantum of penalty, from 20…

Pankajkumar Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rajkot vs. The Actit, Central Circle-2, 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

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…

Dhoop Singh, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward - 1(4), Jaipur

ITA 1241/JPR/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jan 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Us Today, Under Signatures Of The Appellant- Applicant Seeking Condonation Of Delay Of 123 Days. Affidavit Of The Applicant In Support Of The Application Has Already Been Filed On 15.01.2025.

For Appellant: Sh. R.S. Poonia, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, "SMC" JAIPUR श्री राठौड़ कमलेश जयन्तभाई, लेखा सदस्य एव श्री नरेन्द्र कुमार, न्यायिक सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 1241/JPR/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Sh. Dhoop Singh 92/230, Agarwal Mansarovar, Jaipur. Farm नाम The ITO, Vs. Ward-1(4), Jaipur. स्थायीलेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AGSPP2799R अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. R.S. Poonia, C.A. राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue by: Sh.…

Bipin Pranjivandas Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 27(1)(1), Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 1661/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…ow Trib) iii) Prem Chand vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax (2014) 52 Taxmann.com 95 (Chandigarh Trib). iv) Commissioner of Income-tax v. P. H. I. Seeds India Ltd., (2008) 301 ITR 0013—(DeI). v) Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, (2007) 291 ITR 519 (SC). 13. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Parasamal Babulal Jain, ITA No. 20 of 2006, order dated 14.09.2011, has held that the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is not attracted where addition made on estimate basis. The said order reads as under: “Penalty cannot be levied on the disallowance of expenses made on estimate basis. If…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Nashik vs. Chakrahar Contractors and Engineers Private Limited, Jalgaon

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

ITA 1940/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 270A(3)(i)Section 270A(6)(a)Section 270A(9)

…In this order, the Hon'ble ITAT has relied upon the following decisions, wherein it is held that "without specifying the limb within which the penalty is imposed is unsustainable". (i) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N Shroff vs JCIT reported in 291 ITR 519 (SC) (ii) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Pal vs CIT reported in 292 ITR 11 (SC) (iii) Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samson Pericherry. (iv) Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT Vs Goa Dorado. (v) Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT Vs New Era Sova Mine. (vi) Prem Brothers Infrastructure LLP V/…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Nashik vs. Chakradhar Contractors and Engineers Private Limited, Jalgaon

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

ITA 1939/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 270A(3)(i)Section 270A(6)(a)Section 270A(9)

Bhaveshkumar Shantilal Jani, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1321/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40a

…e and non-deduction of TDS. But, in the notice, there was no mention regarding the particular limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT & Another vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory, 291 ITR 519(SC) and also relied upon the decision of Dilip N. Shroff vs. JCIT, 6 SCC 329. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee has difference in closing stock is not justifiable as the assessee has admittedly submitted that the Audited Accounts has given proper details related to the opening stock and closing A.Y. 2012-13 Bhaveshkumar Shantilal Jan…

Santosh Kumar Khandelwal, Baripada vs. ACIT, Balasore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 449/CTK/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अपील संसंसंसं/Ita No.449/Ctk/2024 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) वष"

Section 144Section 270(9)(c)Section 270ASection 274Section 9

…आयकर अपीलीय आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, कटक कटक "यायपीठ "यायपीठ,कटक आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण कटक कटक "यायपीठ "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील संसंसंसं/ITA No.449/CTK/2024 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) वष" Santosh Kumar Khandelwal, Vs ACIT, Balasore Ward No.8, HUDCO Colony, Madhuban, Baripada, Mayurbhanj-757001 PAN No. : AAOFS 0967 J (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. िनधा"रती…

The Koraput Central Cooperative Bank Ltd, Jeypore, Koraput vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 348/CTK/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack19 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीलीय आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, कटक कटक "यायपीठ "यायपीठ,कटक आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण कटक कटक "यायपीठ "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील संसंसंसं/ITA No.348/CTK/2024 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) वष" The Koraput Central Cooperative Vs ITO, NFAC, Delhi/ Bank Limited, ACIT, Circle-1(1), Sambalpur Head Office, NKT Road, Vikram Nagar, Near Laxmi Talkies Jeypore, Koraput PAN No. : AAAAT 2619 K (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant…

Ayyappankavu Chandrasekharan Vijayalakshmi, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-14(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2136/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2136/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ayyappankavu Chandrasekharan Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Vijayalakshmi, 4, Thiruvengadam Income Tax, Street, West Mambalam, Corporate Circle 14(1), Chennai 600 033. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aadpv3516D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Kumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.05.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. We Find That This Appeal Was Filed With A Delay Of 22 Days. On Perusal Of The Petition Filed In Support Of Notarized Affidavit, Submissions Of The Ld. Ar & Ld. Dr, We Find The Reasons Explained By The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri R. Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 271(1)(c)

…hipping Co. (supra), wherein, it was held that for non-submissions of proper voucher for the expenditure incurred could not amount to concealment of income by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT 291 ITR 519(SC). Admittedly, the ld. CIT(A) in the quantum appeal restricted the addition to an extent of ₹.9,55,706/- as against the addition of ₹.1,11,44,117/- for want of evidence supporting the expenditure. The ld. CIT(A) on examination of the same, restricted the addition to the extent above which clearly establishes that the assessee succeeded in part…

Santosh Kumar Sahoo, Rajsunakhala, Nayagarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Khurda Ward, Khurda

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 342/CTK/2024[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack14 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीलीय आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, कटक कटक "यायपीठ "यायपीठ,कटक आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण कटक कटक "यायपीठ "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील संसंसंसं/ITA No.342/CTK/2024 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-2011) वष" Santosh Kumar Sahoo, Vs ITO, Khurda Ward, Khurda At: Durga Bazar, PO: Rajsunakhala, Nayagarh PAN No. :AXFPS 2477 K (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. िनधा"रती िनधा"रती क" िनध…

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Shakuntlam Colonizers Private Limited, Jaipur

ITA 697/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik, CIT &

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…res and estimation of likely profits. Therefore, in such cases, it cannot be said that the appellant filed inaccurate particulars of income because the calculation differs. 5.3.3. As the appellant pointed out, in case of Dilip N. Shroff Vs. JCIT & Anr. (2007) 291 ITR 519/161, the Honourable Apex Court has held that if there is no evidence on material to show that the assessee had deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of income a mere omission or negligence would not constitute deliberate act of concealing particular so income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Supreme Court in case of CIT…

Suresh Chand Bansal, Haryana vs. ACIT, Central Circle-16, Delhi

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

ITA 3666/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ceal" inherently carries with it the requirement of establishing that there was a conscious act or omission on the part of the assessee to hide his true income. This was also the conclusion of the Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT [2007] 291 ITR 519/161 Taxman 218. 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 CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158/189 Taxman 322 (SC) the Court clarified that Dilip N. Shroff (supra) stood overruled only to the ex…