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?

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 519)

Hans Ispat Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3852/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 3849/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. Prakash D. Shah, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Senapati, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 144Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM and Sh. Kuldip Singh, JM ITA No. 3849/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 ITA No. 3850/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 ITA No. 3851/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 ITA No. 3852/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Hans Ispat Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income Mehta Lodha & Co., Chartered Tax, Central Circle-25, Accountants, 105, Sakar-1, Nr. New Delhi Gandhigram Railway Station, Ashram Road, Ahmadabad (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABCH2447Q Assessee by : Sh. Prakash D. Shah, CA Revenue by : Sh. S. R. Senapati, Sr. DR Da…

Hans Ispat Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3851/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 3849/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. Prakash D. Shah, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Senapati, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 144Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM and Sh. Kuldip Singh, JM ITA No. 3849/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 ITA No. 3850/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 ITA No. 3851/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 ITA No. 3852/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Hans Ispat Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income Mehta Lodha & Co., Chartered Tax, Central Circle-25, Accountants, 105, Sakar-1, Nr. New Delhi Gandhigram Railway Station, Ashram Road, Ahmadabad (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABCH2447Q Assessee by : Sh. Prakash D. Shah, CA Revenue by : Sh. S. R. Senapati, Sr. DR Da…

Hans Ispat Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3850/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 3849/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. Prakash D. Shah, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Senapati, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 144Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM and Sh. Kuldip Singh, JM ITA No. 3849/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 ITA No. 3850/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 ITA No. 3851/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 ITA No. 3852/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Hans Ispat Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income Mehta Lodha & Co., Chartered Tax, Central Circle-25, Accountants, 105, Sakar-1, Nr. New Delhi Gandhigram Railway Station, Ashram Road, Ahmadabad (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABCH2447Q Assessee by : Sh. Prakash D. Shah, CA Revenue by : Sh. S. R. Senapati, Sr. DR Da…

Hans Ispat Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3849/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 3849/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. Prakash D. Shah, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Senapati, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 144Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM and Sh. Kuldip Singh, JM ITA No. 3849/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 ITA No. 3850/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 ITA No. 3851/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 ITA No. 3852/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Hans Ispat Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income Mehta Lodha & Co., Chartered Tax, Central Circle-25, Accountants, 105, Sakar-1, Nr. New Delhi Gandhigram Railway Station, Ashram Road, Ahmadabad (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABCH2447Q Assessee by : Sh. Prakash D. Shah, CA Revenue by : Sh. S. R. Senapati, Sr. DR Da…

ACIT Corporate Circle 5(2), Chennai vs. Uvaraj Natarajan, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3098/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.3097/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vs M/S. Poorvika Mobiles Pvt. Ltd., The Acit, Corporate Circle – 5(2), No.30, Arcot Road, Chennai -34. Kodambakkam, Chennai – 24. Pan: Aaecp9975G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.3098/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vs Shri Uvaraj Natarajan, The Acit, No.33, 2Nd Street, Corporate Circle – 5(2), Chennai -34. Taylors Estate, Kodambakkam, Chennai – 24. Pan: Aaapu6683R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. L. Natarajan, CAFor Respondent: 10.05.2018

Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

…also, it appears that the assessee had agreed for the addition in order to avoid protracted litigation and avoid confrontation with the Revenue. Further, we are reminded of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff’s reported in 291 ITR 519(SC), wherein it was held that only because the opinion of the registered valuer is not accepted or some other expert gives another opinion, is not by itself sufficient for arriving at a conclusion that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars attracting penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Primary burden of proof of furnishing inaccurate p…

ACIT Corporate Circle 5(2), Chennai vs. Poorvika Mobiles Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3097/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.3097/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vs M/S. Poorvika Mobiles Pvt. Ltd., The Acit, Corporate Circle – 5(2), No.30, Arcot Road, Chennai -34. Kodambakkam, Chennai – 24. Pan: Aaecp9975G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.3098/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vs Shri Uvaraj Natarajan, The Acit, No.33, 2Nd Street, Corporate Circle – 5(2), Chennai -34. Taylors Estate, Kodambakkam, Chennai – 24. Pan: Aaapu6683R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. L. Natarajan, CAFor Respondent: 10.05.2018

Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

…also, it appears that the assessee had agreed for the addition in order to avoid protracted litigation and avoid confrontation with the Revenue. Further, we are reminded of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff’s reported in 291 ITR 519(SC), wherein it was held that only because the opinion of the registered valuer is not accepted or some other expert gives another opinion, is not by itself sufficient for arriving at a conclusion that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars attracting penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Primary burden of proof of furnishing inaccurate p…

DCIT 10(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Manz Retail P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 5766/MUM/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5766/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) बिधम/ Dcit-10(2)(2) M/S. Manz Retail Private Room No. 216-A, Aayakar Limited, Knowledge House, Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Off. Jogeshwari Vikhroli Mumbai-400020. Link Road, Shyam Nagar, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai- 400060 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccm1978J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Dinkle Hariya (Ar) Revenue By: Shri T. A. Khan (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22.03.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31.05.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 11.09.2015 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2004-05 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya (AR)For Respondent: Shri T. A. Khan (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271USection 271U(1)(c)

…e. 4.3.7 In the case of Commissioner of Income tax vs. Caplin Point Laboratories Ltd. [2007] reported in 293 ITR 524, the Hon'ble Madras High Court held after considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dilip N. Shroff vs. JCIT [2007} reported in 291 ITR 519, that penalty can be levied only when the explanation of the assesses was main fide and also that the facts material to the computation o£ income were not disclosed. 4 3.8 In the case of Immortal Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 2(2), Mumbai (ITA No. 2563/M/2012 dated 30.04.2013), the Id. Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, had an occasion to consid…

Probodhan Prakashah, Mumbai vs. ITO (E) II(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1531/MUM/2016[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2018AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Ramit Kochar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Anil SatheFor Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen

Section 11Section 271(1)(c)

…cts (P.) Ltd [2010] 189 Taxman 322 (SC), wherein it has been held that penalty cannot be levied merely because the AO and the assessee hold a divergent view on allowablity of a claim for deduction. He also relied on the decision in the case of Dilip N. Shroff 210 CTR 228 (SC) and deleted the penalty imposed by the AO. 5. Before us, the learned DR referred to page 17 of the order of the learned CIT(A) wherein he has mentioned that the quantum appeals of the assessee for the A.Y 2007-08 and 2008-09 have been dismissed by both the CIT(A) and the ITAT. He also relied on the order of the AO. 5 ITA.NO.1529 & 1531/MUM/…

Probodhan Prakashah, Mumbai vs. ITO (E) II(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1529/MUM/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Ramit Kochar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Anil SatheFor Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen

Section 11Section 271(1)(c)

…cts (P.) Ltd [2010] 189 Taxman 322 (SC), wherein it has been held that penalty cannot be levied merely because the AO and the assessee hold a divergent view on allowablity of a claim for deduction. He also relied on the decision in the case of Dilip N. Shroff 210 CTR 228 (SC) and deleted the penalty imposed by the AO. 5. Before us, the learned DR referred to page 17 of the order of the learned CIT(A) wherein he has mentioned that the quantum appeals of the assessee for the A.Y 2007-08 and 2008-09 have been dismissed by both the CIT(A) and the ITAT. He also relied on the order of the AO. 5 ITA.NO.1529 & 1531/MUM/…

Asst CIT Cen Cir 29, Mumbai vs. Shah Rukh Khan, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 5767/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri N.K.Pradhan, Am Dy. Commissoner Of Income-Tax, Shri Shah Rukh Khan Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai 44-Mannat, B.J. Road, Band बिधम/ (Erstwhile Assistant Commissioner Of Income Stand, Bandra (West), Tax, Central Circle-29, Mumbai) Mumbai-400 050. Vs. R. No. 1918, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aahpk3293L (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, D.R

Section 112Section 143(2)Section 23(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)

…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 Vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Kar) (ii) Dilip N. Shroff Vs. JCIT (2007) 291 ITR 519 (SC) (iii) Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Samson Pernchery (2017) 98 CCH 0039 (Bom). (iv) CIT Vs. SSA‟s Emerald Meadows 73 Taxman.com 241 (Kar) (v) SSA‟s Emerald Meadows Vs. CIT 242 Taxman 180 (SC) (vi) S. Chandrashekar Vs. ACIT (2017) 293 CTR 409 (Kar) (vii) Meherjee Cassinath Holdings Private Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITA No. 2555/Mum/2012; dated 28.04.20…

Smt. Sarla Devi, Aligarh vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Aligarh

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 70/AGR/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69Section 69C

…T.A No. 70/Agra/2017 8 “CIT vs. Manjunath Cotton and Ginning Factory”, 359 (i) ITR 565 (Kar). “CIT vs. M/s Veerabhadrappa Sangappa & Co”, ITA (ii) No. 5020/2009 (Kar). “CIT vs. SSA Emerald Meadows”, ITA No. 380/2015 (iii) (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. (x) (ix) “ACIT Panjwani”, vs. Deepesh…

Smt. Roshni Devi, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the levy of penalty under section 271B is hereby deleted

ITA 953/JPR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: Shri N.S. Vyas (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Roy (DCIT)

Section 271(1)(c)

…and further the 1,05,256/- was added in estimated income on the basis of sales estimated on the basis of bank account @ 5%. That as regard penalty u/s 271(1)(c), it has been held that in the matter of Dilip N Shroff Vs Jt. CIT (2007) 210 CTR (SC) 228 (2007) 291 ITR 519 SC by the Honorable Supreme Court that levy of penalty u/s 271(1) (c) of the IT Act, 1961 is not automatic and is a matter of discretion and the AO has to be fair and objective. It has been held in a recent judgement by the Honorable Supreme Court in the matter of CIT Vs Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 210 CTR (SC) 228 that where there is…

Smt. Roshni Devi, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the levy of penalty under section 271B is hereby deleted

ITA 952/JPR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: Shri N.S. Vyas (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Roy (DCIT)

Section 271(1)(c)

…and further the 1,05,256/- was added in estimated income on the basis of sales estimated on the basis of bank account @ 5%. That as regard penalty u/s 271(1)(c), it has been held that in the matter of Dilip N Shroff Vs Jt. CIT (2007) 210 CTR (SC) 228 (2007) 291 ITR 519 SC by the Honorable Supreme Court that levy of penalty u/s 271(1) (c) of the IT Act, 1961 is not automatic and is a matter of discretion and the AO has to be fair and objective. It has been held in a recent judgement by the Honorable Supreme Court in the matter of CIT Vs Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 210 CTR (SC) 228 that where there is…

Smt. Roshni Devi, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the levy of penalty under section 271B is hereby deleted

ITA 951/JPR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: Shri N.S. Vyas (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Roy (DCIT)

Section 271(1)(c)

…and further the 1,05,256/- was added in estimated income on the basis of sales estimated on the basis of bank account @ 5%. That as regard penalty u/s 271(1)(c), it has been held that in the matter of Dilip N Shroff Vs Jt. CIT (2007) 210 CTR (SC) 228 (2007) 291 ITR 519 SC by the Honorable Supreme Court that levy of penalty u/s 271(1) (c) of the IT Act, 1961 is not automatic and is a matter of discretion and the AO has to be fair and objective. It has been held in a recent judgement by the Honorable Supreme Court in the matter of CIT Vs Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 210 CTR (SC) 228 that where there is…

M/S Kashmir Steel Rolling Mills, Jammu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jammu

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 548/ASR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 548/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Bansal (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

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

…r.e.f. 01.04.1989, on account of decisions, as in the case of CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. [2000] 246 ITR 568 (Del) and Diwan Enterprises v. CIT [2000] 246 ITR 571 (Del.), which stood approved by the Apex Court in Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint CIT [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC). The Apex Court in UOI v. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC), a decision by its larger bench, held its earlier decision in Dilip N. Shroff (supra) as not representing good law. This was again explained by the Hon'ble 6 ITA No. 548 (Asr)/2016 (AY 2009-10) Kashmir Steel Rolling Mills v. Asst. CIT Apex Court in Atul Mohan…

Dilip Kumar Arora, Ajmer vs. ITO, Ajmer

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

ITA 658/JPR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Poonum Rai (DCIT)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh Hkkxpan] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 658/JP/2017 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2011-12 cuke Shri Dilip Kumar Arora The ITO, Vs. Prop. M/s Shri Arora Plywood, Ward-2(2), Nasirabad Road, Ajmer. Ajmer. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AGKPA 0070 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri S. L. Poddar (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Poonum Rai (DCIT)…

Saidutta Transport & Developers P. Ltd, Thane vs. ACIT Cir 4, Thane

Appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 4483/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4483/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Saidutta Transport & Developers Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited Income Tax Circle-4 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park Near Hanuman Mandir बनाम/ Chatrapati Shivaji Marg Vs. Road No.16Z Virar(W),Tal.Vasai Wagle Industrial Estate Thane-400 601 Thane-400 604 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aadcs-8773-N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Revenue By : Saurabh Kumar Rai, Ld.Dr Assessee By : Subodh Ratnaparkhi,Ld.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / : 03/04/2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 06 /04/2018 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Subodh Ratnaparkhi,Ld.ARFor Respondent: Saurabh Kumar Rai, Ld.DR

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

…ttled legal propositions while imposing penalty on the assessee which is quite evident from certain legal judicial pronouncements as enumerated by us in the succeeding paragraphs. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment titled as Dilip N.Shroff Vs. JCIT (291 ITR 519) has observed that the concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income are different and carry different connotations. The Hon’ble Court further held that non-striking off of the relevant portions of standard show-cause notice reflects non-application of mind by AO and hence vitiates the penalty. We also note that the rat…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Ghodawat Energy (I) Pvt. Ltd., Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1170/PUN/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Mar 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R.G. NaharFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal

Section 2Section 271(1)(c)

…ppeals) has referred to the decision of Tribunal, Pune Bench in the case of Everready Investment Pvt. Ltd. (sic) and thereafter has concluded as under : “6. The decision of honourable Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shrof v/s JCIT, Special Range, Mumbai 291 ITR 519 the decision is more exhaustive. It was held by the honourable Supreme Court that a duty may be enjoined on the assessee to make a correct disclosure of income but if the disclosure is based on opinion of an expert, only because his opinion is not accepted, the same by itself may not be sufficient for arriving at conclusion that assessee has furn…

The ITO, Ward-2(3)(5), Surat vs. M/S. Global Syntax, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2936/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C .M. Garg & Shri O. P. Meena

Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

…see. It has been held that onus on the assessee stands discharged and the presumption under Explanation to section 271(1)(c) stands rebutted. Hence, penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed in such a case. In the case of Dilip N Shroff v. JCIT [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that finding in assessment proceedings can not be M/s.Global Syntax in ITA No.2936/Ahd/2016 for A.Y. 2010-11 Page 5 of 5 automatically adopted in penalty proceedings and the authorities have to consider the matter afresh from different angles. In CIT v. Mahendra Singh Khedia [2012] 252 CTR 453 (Raj) the Hon’b…

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 7249/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru, D.R

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…t itself. The ld. A.R in order to drive home his aforesaid contention relied on the following judicial pronouncements: Sr. No. Particulars Citation/Case Number 1. CIT Vs. SSA‟s Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 taxmann.com 248 (SC) 2. Dilip N. Shroff Vs. JCIT [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC) 3. CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery ITA Nos.953, 1097, 1154 and 1226 of 2014 (order dated 05.01.2017 (Bom. HC) 4. PCIT Vs. Smt. Baisetty Revathi ITA No. 684 of 2016 (order dated 13.07.2017) (AP- HC) 5. Jehangir HC Vs. Asst CIT ITA No. 261/Mum/2011 (order dated 17.05.2017) (Mum.- Trib.) 6. Meherjee Cassinath Holdings Private Limited Vs. ACIT (o…

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

Hans Ispat Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Hans Ispat Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Hans Ispat Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Hans Ispat Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ACIT Corporate Circle 5(2), Chennai vs. Uvaraj Natarajan, Chennai

ACIT Corporate Circle 5(2), Chennai vs. Poorvika Mobiles Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

DCIT 10(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Manz Retail P.Ltd, Mumbai

Probodhan Prakashah, Mumbai vs. ITO (E) II(1), Mumbai

Probodhan Prakashah, Mumbai vs. ITO (E) II(1), Mumbai

Asst CIT Cen Cir 29, Mumbai vs. Shah Rukh Khan, Mumbai

Smt. Sarla Devi, Aligarh vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Aligarh

Smt. Roshni Devi, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

Smt. Roshni Devi, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

Smt. Roshni Devi, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

M/S Kashmir Steel Rolling Mills, Jammu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jammu

Dilip Kumar Arora, Ajmer vs. ITO, Ajmer

Saidutta Transport & Developers P. Ltd, Thane vs. ACIT Cir 4, Thane

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Ghodawat Energy (I) Pvt. Ltd., Kolhapur

The ITO, Ward-2(3)(5), Surat vs. M/S. Global Syntax, Surat

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai