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 367,154 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

Archana D.Talati, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2696/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jun 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Mrs. Archana D. Talati Vs. Ito – 25 (3)(3), Mumbai B/1101, Naman Tower Chs Ltd., Nr. Kandivali Flyover, Off. S.V.Road, Kandivali (West) Mumbai – 400 067 Pan/Gir No. Aacpb5257C Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM Mrs. Archana D. Talati Vs. ITO – 25 (3)(3), Mumbai B/1101, Naman Tower CHS Ltd., Nr. Kandivali Flyover, Off. S.V.Road, Kandivali (West) Mumbai – 400 067 PAN/GIR No. AACPB5257C Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee by Shri Tarun Ghai Revenue by Ms. Vinita Menon Date of Hearing 05/04/2017 Date of Pronouncement 05/ 06 /2017 आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) – 45, Mumbai dated 25/01/2016 for the A.Y.2006-07 in the matter of imposition of pe…

M/S. Carissa Investment (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 5123/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: SH. RAJESH DUREJA, ADVFor Respondent: SH. ANIL KR. SHARMA, SR. DR
Section 143(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…ision in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 2463 of 2010 is squarely applicable in the present case of the assessee. In this case vide order dated 17.3.2010 it has been held that the law laid down in the Dilip Sheroff case 291 ITR 519 (SC) as to the meaning of word ‘concealment’ and ‘inaccurate’ continues to be a good law because what was overruled in the Dharmender Textile case was only that part in Dilip Sheroff case where it was held that mensrea was a essential requirement of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The Hon’ble Apex Court also observed that if the contention of the reven…

Panther Fincap & Management Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 40, Mumbai

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

ITA 7570/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Sandeep Gosain (Jm)

Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” Bench, Mumbai Before S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Sandeep Gosain (JM) I.T.A. No. 7570/Mum/2013 (Assessment Year 2008-09) Panther Fincap & ACIT CC-40 Management Services Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan 9, Bhupen Chambers M.K. Road Ground Floor Mumbai-400 020. Dalal Street, Fort Mumbai-400 023. PAN No. AAACP3045P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Department by Dr. P. Daniel Date of Hearing 26.4.2017 Date of Pronouncement 02.6.2017 O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran (AM) :- The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 19.11.2013 pas…

DCIT 12(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Allied Instruments P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 759/MUM/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodthe Dcit,12(1)(1), R.No.223, 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs. M/S. Allied Instruments Pvt. Ltd., 30, Cd Govt. Industrial Estate, Kandivali (W), Mumbai 400 067 Pan: Aaaca 1032F .... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ajai Pratap SinghFor Respondent: Shri Sanjiv M. Shah
Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80HSection 80ISection 80l

…evidence requisitioned by the AO with regard to the deduction u/s. 80IB. Therefore, the appellant’s case does not fall within the mischief of the first limb of Sec. 271(1)(c). Reliance is placed on K.C. Builder Vs ACIT (265 ITR 562)(SC), Dilip Shroff Vs JCIT (291 ITR 519 (SC) and Ashok Pai Vs CIT 292 ITR 11 (SC). The appellant had thus contended that its case does not satisfy the second limb viz. furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income of Sec. 271(1)(c). The AO has not relied upon any independent material to hook the case of the appellant u/s. 271(1)(c). Thus the penalty order is founded on guess work, sur…

M/S. Groz Net Industries, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6241/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2004-05 Groz Net Industries, Vs Acit, C-717, New Friends Colony, Circle-22(1), New Delhi. New Delhi (Pan: Aaafg8454E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Ms Rano Jain Ca Shri Ashish Goel, Ca Respondent By : Shri S.K. Jain, Dr Date Of Hearing: 9.3.2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.5.2017 Order

For Appellant: Ms Rano Jain CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 43BSection 80H

…I.T.A. No. 6241/Del/2013 Assessment Year 2004-05 Volume, 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 [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 amou…

Gupta Gemhouse P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 7371/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.7370/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.7371/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04) Gupta Gemhouse Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer (1)(4) 2Nd Floor, Metro House Room No. 579 बनाम/ M.G.Road Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Mumbai – 400 020 M.K.Marg Mumbai – 400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacg-1992-L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Farrokh Irani. Ld. ARFor Respondent: Vidisha Kalra, Ld. CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…/ exact charge for which the assessee was being penalized. Therefore, the penalty order stands vitiated for want of principles of natural justice and hence, need to be quashed. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Apex Court in Dilip N.Shroff Vs. JCIT (291 ITR 519) wherein the Supreme Court 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. Our attention is further drawn to t…

Gupta Gemhouse P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 1(1)(4), Mumbai

ITA 7370/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.7370/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.7371/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04) Gupta Gemhouse Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer (1)(4) 2Nd Floor, Metro House Room No. 579 बनाम/ M.G.Road Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Mumbai – 400 020 M.K.Marg Mumbai – 400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacg-1992-L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Farrokh Irani. Ld. ARFor Respondent: Vidisha Kalra, Ld. CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…/ exact charge for which the assessee was being penalized. Therefore, the penalty order stands vitiated for want of principles of natural justice and hence, need to be quashed. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Apex Court in Dilip N.Shroff Vs. JCIT (291 ITR 519) wherein the Supreme Court 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. Our attention is further drawn to t…

Jahangir HC Jahangir, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 12(3), Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1261/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1261/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07)

For Appellant: Farrokh Irani. Ld. ARFor Respondent: BCS Naik, Ld. CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40

…rocessor (306 ITR 277) wherein it was held that levy of penalty is a civil liability and willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability. Reliance was also placed on Apex court decision in the case of Dilip N.Shroff Vs. JCIT (291 ITR 519). 4. Aggrieved, the assessee contested the penalty without any success before Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 15/12/2010 wherein Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty by noting that the assessee made a false claim and the assessee failed to establish that the mistake in the return was inadvertent and by making the wrong claim, the assessee has tr…

Roop Kishanchand Khemani, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 31, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 3944/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & C.N. Prasad (Jm)

Section 132Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…Nathani Milind Davare (supra). The co-ordinate bench considered the decision rendered by the jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of Smt Kaushalya and Others (216 ITR 660), the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N Shroff (291 ITR 519) and other decisions discussed by the Bombay High Court in the case of Smt Kaushalya and others (supra) and came to the conclusion that the non-application of mind by the AO would vitiate the penalty proceedings, by following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court. 24. In the instant case, we have noticed that there is no clarity in the a…

Shri Kumar Satur Nathani, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 31, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 3942/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & C.N. Prasad (Jm)

Section 132Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…Nathani Milind Davare (supra). The co-ordinate bench considered the decision rendered by the jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of Smt Kaushalya and Others (216 ITR 660), the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N Shroff (291 ITR 519) and other decisions discussed by the Bombay High Court in the case of Smt Kaushalya and others (supra) and came to the conclusion that the non-application of mind by the AO would vitiate the penalty proceedings, by following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court. 24. In the instant case, we have noticed that there is no clarity in the a…

Siddhi Home Makers, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO Cen Thane, Thane

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 4168/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singhsiddhi Home Makers, B-304, Shiv Chambers, Plot No.21, Sector -11, Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai 400 614 Pan: Abffs8504H ...... Appellant Vs. The Ito, Central , Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, “B”Wing, Room No.22, Road No.16Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane .... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Dr.A.K.Nayak
Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 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…

Megayields, Mumbai vs. DCIT 17(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 2581/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S. Meghayields D C I T – 17(2) C/O. Prafullkumar Kenia 217, Piramal Chambers 698/1, Kanti Villa Vs. 2Nd Floor, Lalbaug Dr. Dinshaw Master Road Mumbai 400013 Dadar, Mumbai 400014 Pan – Aahfm8449G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Dhirandra M. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 43(5)Section 73

…itiation of penalty proceedings was for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, considered the issue and after taking into account the ratio of the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Dilip N. Shroff (2007) 291 ITR 519 (SC), Dharmendra Textile Processers & Others (2008) 306 ITR 277 and DCIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC); of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Kaushalya Devi (1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bombay) held the notice issued under section 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act to be invalid since it was defective and issued without app…

Chandru K Mirchandani, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 5368/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainshri Chandru K. Mirchandani Income Tax Officer-14(3)(3) C/O. Sorabi Hormusji & Co. 6Th Floor, Earnest House Vs. 22, Mangaldas Road Nariman Point Mumbai 400002 Mumbai 400021 Pan – Aftpm3209F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…the initiation of penalty proceedings was for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, considered the issue and after taking into consideration the ratio of the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dilip N. Shroff (2007) 291 ITR 519 (SC), Dharmendra Textile Processers & Others (2008) 306 ITR 277 and DCIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) and of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Kar), held the notice issued under section 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act to be invalid since it was defective and issue…

Rama Kapur, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6484/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

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

…TR 369) (SC), incidentally reported in same ITR Volume, 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 [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 I.T.A. No.6484/D…

M/S. Chintels India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3793/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasstt. Year: 2008-09 Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Asstt. Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Chandra Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271(1)

…(SC), incidentally reported in same ITR Volume, 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 also reiterated the law in the 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 that 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 there is pr…

M/S. Chintels India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3792/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasstt. Year: 2008-09 Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Asstt. Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Chandra Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271(1)

…(SC), incidentally reported in same ITR Volume, 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 also reiterated the law in the 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 that 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 there is pr…

M/S. Chintels India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3791/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasstt. Year: 2008-09 Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Asstt. Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Chandra Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271(1)

…(SC), incidentally reported in same ITR Volume, 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 also reiterated the law in the 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 that 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 there is pr…

Imtias Gulamgaus Mulla, Tiruppur vs. DCIT, Tiruppur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 684/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

For Respondent: Mr.G.M.Das, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ng to furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. In the decisions relied upon by the assessee i.e CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 and also in the case of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dilip N.Shroff [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC) held that non-striking of the irrelevant column in the notice issued u/s.274 r.w.s.271(1)(c) make the notice invalid and consequent penalty required to be cancelled. The Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the Revenue on the same issue. The Revenue has not controverted the decisions relied up on by the as…

Global Proserv Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 9, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 7335/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A Thar
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40

…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 Tribunal…

Global Proserv Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 9, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 7334/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A Thar
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40

…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 Tribunal…