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 274Section 143(3)Section 132Section 153CSection 250Section 153ASection 270A
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

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

Judgments citing Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT

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 7248/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

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…

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 7247/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

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…

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 7246/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

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…

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 7245/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

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…

Shri Vishnu Kumar Bhargava, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 694/JPR/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: None (Written submissions)For Respondent: Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT)
Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

…intention to evade tax at all. Rather it is a case where the A has honestly attempted to bring cash receipts into the regular banking channel. The legal position, as having emerged in the process of judicial churning beginning with the case of Dilip C Shroff 291 ITR 519 and crystallizing after rendering of judgment in Reliance Petro products Pvt. Ltd reported in [2010] 322 ITR 158 , is that dis- allowance of any claim cannot become the basis of the levy of penalty under the said provision. The aforesaid rule has since been followed in umpteen cases: 1. CIT v/s Filterex Technologies p. Ltd. 120161380ITR 222 (Karn…

Ms/ Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries, Agra vs. The A.C.I.T., Circle-4(1), Agra

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

ITA 378/AGR/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Agra09 Mar 2018AY 2008-09
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 44A

…vs. Manjunath Cotton and Ginning (i) Factory”, 359 ITR 565 (Kar). “CIT vs. M/s VeerabhadrappaSangappa& Co”, (ii) ITA No. 5020/2009 (Kar). I.T.A No. 378/Agra/2014 6 “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) “SuvaprasananBhatacharya vs. ACIT”, ITA No. 1303/Kol/2010. (Kol). “SLK Properties vs. ITO”, ITA No. 140/PN/2014. (ix) “ACIT Panjwani” (x) vs. Deepesh M.…

ITO, Ward-1, Berhampur vs. Sri T. Biswanath Patro, Ganjam

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 121/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Feb 2018AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI N.S.SAINI, AM & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM ITO, Ward-1, Berhampur Vs. Sri T.Biswanath Patro, Laxmi Bazar, Aska, Ganjam-761110 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ PAN/GIR No. : AIVPP 6698 N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri D.K.Sheth, AR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 27/02/2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement 28/02/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri N.S.Saini, AM: This is an appeal filed by the Revenue a…

Makcon, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 2 Panvel, Thane

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1940/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Makcon The Income Tax Officer C/O Malleshi Arakeri Ward 2, Panvel (Partner), Vs. Flat No, 4038 Phalke Niketan, Tilak Nagar, Chembur, Mumbai-400 089 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaofm9275B

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…d was not substantiated. 4 Reliance is placed on the Apex Court's, observation in the case of Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008 - 306 ITR 277) wherein the larger bench of the Apex Court (after the decision in the case of Dilip N. Shroft -291 ITR 519) had disapproved the statement that willful concealment is essential for attracting concealment penalty. It is held that Object behind enactment of Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) r/w Explanations indicate that the said section has been enacted to provide for a remedy for loss of revenue. Penalty under that provision is a civil liability and willful concea…

Tata Communication Transformation Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissoner of Income Tax, Range 14(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3108/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, A.R. & Ms. Urvi Hemta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.C Omi Ningshen, D.R
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ase and find that the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of DCIT vs Dr. Sarita Milind Davare in ITA No.1789/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 10 M/s. Tata Communications Transformation Services Limited 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 t…

ITO 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Alia Creative Consultants P. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4857/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4857/Mum/2016 & Cross Objection No.304/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Sanjiv M. Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Rajat Mittal, Ld. DR
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…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. 7. 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 ra…

Harekrushna Panigrahi, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 176/CTK/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Jan 2018AY 2006-07
For Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, “एस.एम.सी” न्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI N.S.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./ITA No.172 to 176/CTK/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2002-03 to 2006-07) Harekrushna Panigrahi, Vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Plot No.258/220/2508, Bhubaneswar Saileshwar Vihar, Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ PAN/GIR No. : AELPP 9469 F (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. : Shri A.P.Mishra, AR निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee by राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 29/01/2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date…

Harekrushna Panigrahi, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 175/CTK/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Jan 2018AY 2005-06
For Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, “एस.एम.सी” न्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI N.S.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./ITA No.172 to 176/CTK/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2002-03 to 2006-07) Harekrushna Panigrahi, Vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Plot No.258/220/2508, Bhubaneswar Saileshwar Vihar, Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ PAN/GIR No. : AELPP 9469 F (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. : Shri A.P.Mishra, AR निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee by राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 29/01/2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date…

Harekrushna Panigrahi, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 174/CTK/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Jan 2018AY 2004-05
For Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, “एस.एम.सी” न्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI N.S.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./ITA No.172 to 176/CTK/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2002-03 to 2006-07) Harekrushna Panigrahi, Vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Plot No.258/220/2508, Bhubaneswar Saileshwar Vihar, Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ PAN/GIR No. : AELPP 9469 F (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. : Shri A.P.Mishra, AR निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee by राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 29/01/2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date…

Harekrushna Panigrahi, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 173/CTK/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Jan 2018AY 2003-04
For Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, “एस.एम.सी” न्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI N.S.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./ITA No.172 to 176/CTK/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2002-03 to 2006-07) Harekrushna Panigrahi, Vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Plot No.258/220/2508, Bhubaneswar Saileshwar Vihar, Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ PAN/GIR No. : AELPP 9469 F (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. : Shri A.P.Mishra, AR निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee by राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 29/01/2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date…

Harekrushna Panigrahi, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 172/CTK/2017[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Jan 2018AY 2002-03
For Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, “एस.एम.सी” न्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI N.S.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./ITA No.172 to 176/CTK/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2002-03 to 2006-07) Harekrushna Panigrahi, Vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Plot No.258/220/2508, Bhubaneswar Saileshwar Vihar, Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ PAN/GIR No. : AELPP 9469 F (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. : Shri A.P.Mishra, AR निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee by राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 29/01/2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date…

DCIT, Circle - 16(2), Hyderabad vs. M/S Maheshwari Mega Ventures Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1352/HYD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri J. Siri Kumar
Section 115JSection 133ASection 143(1)

…tablished before levying penalty. The AR laid reliance on the following cases: a. Banaras Textorium Vs CIT (169 ITR 782) (All) b. CIT Vs Saraf Trading Corporation (65 ITR 60) (Ker) c. CIT Vs D Ratnam (1995) (Tax LR 504, 506) d. DILIP N SHROFF Vs JCIT, 2007, (291 ITR 519 SC) e. T.Ashok Pai Vs JCIT (292 ITR 11) (SC) 14.1 Further, the AR mentioned that as observed by the Hon'ble ITAT Lucknow bench in the case of Star International (P) Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2009] 122 TTJ 380 unless the assessing officer give a finding that assessee did not substantiate the explanation offered, the same was not bonafide and all the fac…

Indrani Sunil Pillai, Mumbai vs. ACIT 21(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1339/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay Phadke a/wFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…e assessment or reassessment in pursuance of which penalty is levied, cannot be the subject matter of penalty proceedings. The assessment or reassessment cannot be declared as invalid in the penalty proceedings. 11. In case of Dilip N. Shroff v/s JCIT, [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed, while issuing the notice under section 274 r/w section 271 of the Act in 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…

Shahnawazz Khan, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(3)(2), Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed as above

ITA 6651/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.6651/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shahnawaz Z.Khan Income Tax Officer 21(3)(2) Pratyakshakar Bhavan A/104, Aero View Co-Op.Hsg बनाम/ Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(E) (Next To Sahara Hotel) Vs. Mumbai-400 051 Lbs Road, Kurla (West) Mumbai-400 070 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Agzpk-9060-H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Prayag Jha, Ld.ARFor Respondent: V.Justin, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

…ettled legal propositions while imposing penalty on the assessee which is quite evident from certain legal judicial pronouncements as enumerated by us in the succeeding paragraph. 6. 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 ra…

Syma Technology P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(3), Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed as above

ITA 4632/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4632/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Syrma Technology Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ Unit No.601, 6Th Floor Income Tax 8(3) Floral Deck Plaza, Midc, Andheri(E) Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Vs. Mumbai-400 093 Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaics-5745-D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Rahul Hakani, Ld.ARFor Respondent: V.Justin, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…ettled legal propositions while imposing penalty on the assessee which is quite evident from certain legal judicial pronouncements as enumerated by us in the succeeding paragraph. 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 ra…

Sadhana Nitro Chem Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 7 (2) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 2192/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Sadhana Nitro Chem Ltd. Ito 7(2)(2), Hira Baug, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Kasturba Chowk, (C.P. Tank), Vs. Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400004. Pan: Aabcs1231R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V.Mohan (ARFor Respondent: Shri V.Vidhyadhar (DR)
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 145ASection 253Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 43B

…urnished all the details of income in its Return, which details, for which there is no finding that the details were not found to be inaccurate nor could be viewed as the concealment of income on its part. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dilip N. Shorff Vs CIT (291 ITR 519 SC) held that when the assessee has furnished all the particulars of income the imposition of penalty is not automatic. Further, Hon’ble Apex Court in Reliance Petroproducts Ltd Vs CIT (322 ITR 158 SC) held that mere 4 ITA No. 2192/M/2016- M/s Sadhana Nitro Chem Ltd. making a claim which is not sustainable in law does not attract the penalty…