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 367,164 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

M/S. R.H. Agro Overseas (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5233/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr. DR

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

…he case of CIT v. Khoday Eswara (83 ITR 369) (SC), it is held that penalty cannot be levied solely on 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 reported in 291 ITR 519 by holding in Para 62 that finding in assessment proceedings cannot automatically be adopted in penalty proceedings and that the authorities have to consider the matter afresh from different angle. 5.1 Further, the statute requires a satisfaction on the part of the Assessing Officer. He is required to arrive at a satisfaction so as to show tha…

Sh. Ramesh Chand Garg, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Hapur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3419/DEL/2013[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2017AY 2000-01

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

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr. DR

Section 271Section 271(1)Section 275Section 282Section 68

…assessee can be said to have furnished inaccurate particulars of income or have concealed the income so as to make him liable for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff reported in 291 ITR 519 (SC) have held that the burden of proof in penalty proceedings varies from that in assessment proceedings. A finding in the assessment proceedings that a particular receipt is income cannot automatically be adopted in penalty proceedings. 5.1 We have also examined the facts of the assessee's case in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Ap…

M/S. Kalinga Mining Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2), Cuttack

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 118/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Jesthi, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

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

…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…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ge Capital Business Process Management Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department stand

ITA 4980/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Satija, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR

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

…on the Explanation. The various High Courts in the country understood the effect of the Explanation differently often leading to conflicting decisions. In this context two landmark judgments were given by Apex Court in Dilip N. Shroff Vs Joint CIT (2007) 291 ITR 519 (SC) and T. Ashok Pai Vs CIT (2007) 292 ITR 11 (SC), which spell out mainly the following rules for the purpose of penalty imposable: (i) Both the expressions "concealment of income" and "furnishing of inaccurate particulars" indicate some deliberation on the part of the assessee, though the word "deliberately" and the word "willfully" are no…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Inter Ocean Shipping India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5528/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…ying on the Explanation. The various High Courts in the country understood the effect of the Explanation differently often leading to conflicting decisions. In this context two landmark judgments were given by Apex Court in Dilip N. Shroff Vs Joint CIT (2007) 291 ITR 519 (SC) and T. Ashok Pai Vs CIT (2007) 292 ITR 11 (SC), which spell out mainly the following rules for the purpose of penalty imposable: (i) Both the expressions "concealment of income" and "furnishing of inaccurate particulars" indicate some deliberation on the part of the assessee, though the word "deliberately" and the word "willfully" are no lon…

Harilal Mulukchand Metha, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 19(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 671/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year : 2009-10 Harilal Mulukchand Mehta Ito Ward 19(1)(3) Flat No.2, Tannar Kutir, Mumbai Vs. Plot No.540, 17Th Road, Khar(W) Mumbai 400 052 Pan Aadpm4219L (Appellant) Respondent)

For Appellant: Hariom TulsyanFor Respondent: T A Khan

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

…ion as on 01.04.1981 on the basis sale instances for Mumbai. The assessee has also not objected to the assessment. But can this be a case for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act? We find that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N Shroff vs. JCIT [291 ITR 519] on the issue of capital gain on the basis of the valuer’s report, which was not accepted by the Assessing Officer, the penalty was deleted and relevant observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court reads as under: “91. The assessee could get the valuation done through any other mode of index value, or the assessee could have engaged any other valuer oth…

Chandulal P. Shah ( HUF), Mumbai vs. ACIT 20(1), Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 5656/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5656/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Chandulal P.Shah (Huf) Assistant Commissioner Of Eastern Chemicals, 6Th Floor Income Tax-20(1) बनाम/ 601-B, Morya Landmark-Ii Mumbai – 400 020 Oshiwara Link Road Vs. Opp. Infinity Mall Andheri (West), Mumbai-400 053 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabhc-3234-M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Paresh Shaparia, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Rajat Mittal, Ld. DR

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

…to do so and the same has resulted into taking away assessee’s valuable right of contesting the same and thereby violates the principles of natural justice. 7. Our view is fortified by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Dilip N.Shroff Vs. JCIT (291 ITR 519) wherein the Hon’ble Court has observed that the concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income are different. 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 find that the ratio of t…

Sh. Rohit Kochhar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6549/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Sistani, CAFor Respondent: None

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

…ITA No.6549/Del/14 Assessment Year: 2007-08 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, HON’BLE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 6549/Del /2014 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Mr. Rohit Kochhar, ACIT, Unit No.1120-1121, Circle-37(1), vs 11th Floor, New Delhi-110002 DLF Towers, Jasola Distt. Centre, New Delhi-110025 (PAN: AAFPT2953A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri B.S. Sistani, CA Respondent by : None Date of Hearing : 04.09.2017 Date of Pronouncement: 04.10.2017 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M. This appeal filed…

Viren Vini Ahuja, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir- 84, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 422/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhshri Viren Vini Ahuja Acit, Cc-8(4), 1, Neelkanth Road No.6, Mumbai. Vs. Chembur, Mumbai-400071 Pan: Aacpa4809M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Bairagra (AR )For Respondent: Shri V. Justin (DR)

Section 132Section 153ASection 253Section 254(1)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69

…adows. [ITA 380/2015 (High Court Karnataka.) 3 Meherjee Cassinath Holdings Private Limite Limited vs. ACIT [ITA 2555/Mum/2012] ITA No.422/M/2017- Shri Viren Vini Ahuja 4 CIT vs. Samson Perinchery (ITA No. 1154, 953, 1097/M/2014) 5 Dalip N. Shroff vs. JCIT (291 ITR 519) (SC) 6 Sarita Milind Davare vs. ACIT (ITA No. 2187 & 1789/M/2014). 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR for the Revenue supported the order of authorities below. It was argued that various Courts have held that penalty can be levied on the additions on estimate basis. The ld. DR for the Revenue relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court…

Shri Dhansukhbhai G. Shah, (HUF), Vapi vs. The ACIT, Vapi Circle, Vapi

ITA 1237/AHD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

Section 271(1)(c)

…ITA No.1237/Ahd/2014 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Page 1 of 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD ‘D’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD [Coram: Pramod Kumar, AM and Mahavir Prasad, JM] Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dhansukhbhai G Shah (HUF), .......…………...........Appellant Near Customs Office, Vapi – Daman Road, Vapi. [PAN : AAPHS 6063 O] Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Vapi Circle, Vapi. ............................Respondent Appearances by: Hardik Vora for the appellant V.K. Singh for the respondent Date of concluding the hearing : 12.07.2017 Date of pronouncing the order : 19.09.2017 O R D E R Per Pramod Kuma…

Shri Kulwant Singh Bhatia, Indore vs. The Addl. CIT, Range-3, Indore

In the result, all the ix appeals as mentioned above are

ITA 414/IND/2012[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Aug 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ /. सं . अ .

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

…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. 16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dilip N. Shroff v. 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 Shri Kulwant Singh Bhatia…

Kanni Uvaraj, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3141/CHNY/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Aug 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3141/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Respondent: Mr.A.R.V.Sreenivasan, JCIT

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

…o, 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 :- 5 -: particulars attracting penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Primary burden of proof of furnishing in…

Sambit Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 429/CTK/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Jul 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri G.Naik/S.K.Sarangi, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Suvendu Dutta, DR

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69

…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 furni…

M/S Abhijit Construction Co., Nagpur vs. A, C.I.T Cent Cir. 1(4), Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2007–08

ITA 495/NAG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jun 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri K.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri A.R. Ninawe

Section 132(1)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)

…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 Rajesh Moolchand Dayaramani, Nagpur vs. ACIT-Circle-8, Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 293/NAG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri K.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri A.R. Ninawe

Section 271(1)(c)Section 54FSection 54F(1)

…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…

P.K. Joshua, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 26(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4491/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal

Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…the High Court decisions the case of CIT vs. Manjunath Cotton & Ginning Factory v) Dr. Sarita Milind Davare vs ACIT (Mumbai Tribunal) I.T.A. No. 2187/Mum/2014(AY-2009-10) 21.12.2016 vi) CIT vs Manu Engg. (122 ITR 306) (Guj. HC) vii) Dilip N. Shroof vs. JCIT (291 ITR 519) (SC) viii) UOl vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors (295 ITR 244) (SC) ix) CIT V/s Reliance Petrophoducts (P) Ltd (322 ITR 159) (SC) Finally, the ld.AR prayed before the Bench that in view of the defective notice which was incurable in view of the ratio laid down by the various decisions of the Hon’ble High Courts and the decisions of the Tribuna…