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

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 7333/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

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…

ACIT, Cir-27, Kolkata vs. Shri Bijay Kumar Agarwal, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 438/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2017AY 2008-2009
Section 143(2)Section 271(1)Section 54Section 54F

…merely because the assessee withdrew his appeal because of transfer of the new capital asset. The Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT v. Reliance Petro products (P.) Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158, after considering various decisions including Dilip N. Shroff v Jt.CIT [2007] 291 ITR 519/161 Taxman 218 (SC) and Union of India v.Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 306 ITR 277 / 174 Taxman 571 (SC) concluded that a mere making of a claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the Income of the assessee. The mere disallowance of claim will not amount to filing of…

Asst CIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Trends Holding & Consultancy P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the appellant is allowed

ITA 7379/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.7379/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बनाम/ Acit 2(3) M/S. Trends Holdings & R. No.552, 5Th Floor, Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, 11, Horizone View, 381, Mumbai – 400020 J. General Bhonsale Marg, Opp. Sachivalaya Gymkhana Mumbai - 400021 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaact3203D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Sambit Mishra
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…Petro Products Pvt. Ltd, 189 Taxman 322 (SC); CIT Vs. SSP Ltd, 328 ITR 643 (P & H)]. In yet another set of decisions, it has also been held that where an assessee has furnished all particulars of income, imposition of penalty is not automatic [Dilip N Shroff, 291 ITR 519 (SC); Twin Star Jupiter Co-operative Housing Society Ltd, 31 SOT 474 (Mumbai); Enpake Motors Pvt. Ltd, ITA No. 914/Mum/2008]. It has also been held that where a legal issue under consideration is debatable and the assessee makes a claim which is not acceptable, penalty cannot be levied [Devsons Pvt. Ltd, 329 ITR 483 (Del)]. Let us examine a few o…

DCIT, CC-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Trans Freight Containers Ltd., Mumbai

In the result this appeal by the revenue is stands dismissed

ITA 2337/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sanjay Garg

For Respondent: Shir. Mihir Shah
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 50c

…n.com 330 by Hon'ble Bombay High Court, by ITAT Bombay in the case of ACIT vs. Sunland Metal Recycling (ITA Trans Freight Containers Ltd. ITA No. 2337/Mum. /2016 No.6454/Mum/2011) and by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dilip N. Shroff V JCIT, Special Range, Mumbai (291 ITR 519) apply with full force to the facts and circumstances of this case. Therefore, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1061 of Rs.50,26,4961- is hereby deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed. 6. Against above order revenue is in appeal before us. 7. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. We find that the issue involved is…

DCIT Cir 1, Kalyan vs. Dembla Valves Ltd, Bhiwandi

In the result, penalty deleted by the CIT(A) is upheld and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3040/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S Dembla Valves Ltd., Central Circle-1, Kalyan, Income C-30, Jai Matadi Compound Tax Office, 1St Floor, Mohan Thane-Bhiwandi-Agra Road Vs. Plaza, Wayale Nagar, Thane, Bhiwandi Khadakpada, Kalyan-421301, Mumbai-421301 Pan No.Aaacd9909J Appellant .. Respondent Revenue By .. Shri Suman Kumar, Dr Assessee By .. Shri Prasad Bapat, Ar Date Of Hearing .. 17-01-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 24-02-2017 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…d that there may be a Hundred and one reasons for not protesting and agreeing to addition but that does not follow to the conclusion that the amount agreed to be added was concealed Income. b) the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dilip N. Shroff V/S Jt. CIT - 291 ITR 519 as under. In the penalty proceedings, thus, the authorities must consider the matter afresh as the question has to be considered from a different angle. Before a penalty can be imposed Page 5 of 8 the entirely of the circumstances must reasonably point to the conclusion that the disputed amount represents income and that the assessee has consciou…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-19 vs. Shri Neeraj Jindal

ITA/464/2016HC Delhi09 Feb 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 260Section 263Section 264Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…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 Karta of N.D. Shroff v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range Mumbai and Anr., (2007) 291 ITR 519 (SC). 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 Commissioner of Income Tax v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., (2010) 11 SCC 762 the Court clarified that Dilip N. Shroff (supra) stood overruled only to the ext…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-19 vs. Shri Ankur Aggarwal

ITA/465/2016HC Delhi09 Feb 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 260Section 263Section 264Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…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 Karta of N.D. Shroff v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range Mumbai and Anr., (2007) 291 ITR 519 (SC). 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 Commissioner of Income Tax v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., (2010) 11 SCC 762 the Court clarified that Dilip N. Shroff (supra) stood overruled only to the ext…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-19 vs. Shri Ankur Aggarwal

ITA/466/2016HC Delhi09 Feb 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 260Section 263Section 264Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…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 Karta of N.D. Shroff v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range Mumbai and Anr., (2007) 291 ITR 519 (SC). 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 Commissioner of Income Tax v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., (2010) 11 SCC 762 the Court clarified that Dilip N. Shroff (supra) stood overruled only to the ext…

Krishna Kumar Gupta, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 819/JPR/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Feb 2017AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Tanuj Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai, DCIT- DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…stt. CST (1980) 124 ITR 15 (SC) 2. Motilal Padampati Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. vs. State of U.P> (1979), 118 ITR 326 (SC) 3. Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1972)83 ITR 26 (SC) 4. CIT vs. R.K. Golecha 173 ITR 423 (Raj.) 5. Dilip N Shroff vs. JCIT (2007) 291 ITR 519 (SC) 6. CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts pvtltd (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) 7. Price Waterhouse Coopers (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC) 8. CIT vs. Hiralal Doshi (ITA No. 2331/2013 dated 9-02-2016 (Bom) Hence, taking into consideration all the facts, circumstances of the case and the case laws relied upon by the ld. AR of the assessee (sup…

M/S. Cosmos Fiber Glass Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3486/DEL/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu

For Appellant: DR. RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, ADV. &For Respondent: SH. F.R. MEENA, SR. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…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…

Sh. Harpreet Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 6132/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2017AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Arvind Kumar, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Amrit Lal, Sr.D.R
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 54

…each case has to be seen in the context and the penalty provision should be applied to see whether there was a concealment of particulars of income or whether the appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. (ii) Dilip N. Shroff Vs. JCIT, (2007) 291 ITR 519, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: "83. It is of some significance that in the standard proforma used by the Assessing Officer in issuing a notice despite the fact that the same postulates that inappropriate words and paragraphs were to be deleted, but the same had not been done. Thus, the Assessing Officer himself was not sure a…

Estate of Late Shri N., J Patel, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is hereby Allowed

ITA 3563/MUM/2011[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2017AY 1994-95

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.3563/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 1994-95) Estate Of Late Shri N.J.Patel बनाम/ Ito 12(3)(4) C/O.Shri. C.N.Patel Mumbai Vs. Mani Bhavan, 10Th Parleshar Road, Vile Parle (East) Mumbai - 400057 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaace2830M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""थ" /Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N.M.PorwalFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

…आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, मुंबई"ायपीठ‘बी’मुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“B” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी जी. एस. प"ू, लेखा सद", एवं "ी अमरजीत िसंह, "ाियक सद", के सम" BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.3563/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 1994-95) Estate of Late Shri N.J.Patel बनाम/ ITO 12(3)(4) C/o.Shri. C.N.Patel Mumbai Vs. Mani Bhavan, 10th Parleshar Road, Vile Parle (East) Mumbai - 400057 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACE2830M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""थ" /Respondent) Assessee by: Shri N.M.Porwal Department by: Shri M. Rajan सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date of Hearing:27.09…

ITO (E) 2(2), Mumbai vs. Prabhodhan Prakashan, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

ITA 3833/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan ()

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Ojha, DRFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sathe, AR
Section 11Section 12ASection 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. 6. Per contra, the learn…

ITO (E) 2(2), Mumbai vs. Pabodhan Prakashan, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

ITA 3831/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan ()

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Ojha, DRFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sathe, AR
Section 11Section 12ASection 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. 6. Per contra, the learn…

Prince Consultancy P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 13(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 6068/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Ramlal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin S. ChhagFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 45ESection 54E

…nd Davare in ITA No. 2187/Mum/2014 dated 21.12.2016 wherein after, inter alia, considering the decisions of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. B. Kaushalya and Others (216 ITR 660) and the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dilip N. Shroff (291 ITR 519) (SC), Dharmendra Textile Processors (306 ITR 277) (SC) and Reliance Petro Products P. Ltd. ((322 ITR 158) (SC) and of the Hon'ble Karnataka high Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Kar) the Bench has held that since the AO in that case had not specified in the said notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271 of…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, we confirm the order of the Ld

ITA 191/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Acountant Member

For Appellant: Sh. R.S. Rawal, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…s in conjunction, they must mean the details supplied in the return, which are not accurate, not exact or correct, not according to truth or erroneous. We must hasten to add here that in this case, there is no finding that any details supplied by the * [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC). ** [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC). assessee in its return were found to be incorrect or erroneous or false. Such not being the case, there would be no question of inviting the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. A mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars reg…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, we confirm the order of the Ld

ITA 189/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Acountant Member

For Appellant: Sh. R.S. Rawal, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…s in conjunction, they must mean the details supplied in the return, which are not accurate, not exact or correct, not according to truth or erroneous. We must hasten to add here that in this case, there is no finding that any details supplied by the * [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC). ** [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC). assessee in its return were found to be incorrect or erroneous or false. Such not being the case, there would be no question of inviting the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. A mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars reg…

Precision Contaneurs Ltd (Formerly Known As Vasparr Fische Ltd ), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 9(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 1996-97

ITA 3449/MUM/2011[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2017AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Shri Ranathir Gupta
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 43B

…proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were invalid and bad in law, as per the contentions laid M/s. Precision Containeurs Ltd. out above, the learned A.R. placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements:- (i) Dilip N. Shroff vs. JCIT (2007) 291 ITR 519(SC), (ii) GOI vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors & Others (2008) 322 ITR 158 (SC), (iii) CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC), (iv) CIT vs. Manjutha Cotton & Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565(Kar) 5.2.1 We have heard the rival contentions of both parties on the issues raised in these additional grounds and perused and…

Precision Contaneurs Ltd (Formerly Known As Vasparr Fische Ltd ), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 9(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 1996-97

ITA 3448/MUM/2011[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2017AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Shri Ranathir Gupta
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 43B

…proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were invalid and bad in law, as per the contentions laid M/s. Precision Containeurs Ltd. out above, the learned A.R. placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements:- (i) Dilip N. Shroff vs. JCIT (2007) 291 ITR 519(SC), (ii) GOI vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors & Others (2008) 322 ITR 158 (SC), (iii) CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC), (iv) CIT vs. Manjutha Cotton & Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565(Kar) 5.2.1 We have heard the rival contentions of both parties on the issues raised in these additional grounds and perused and…

ACIT. Cir.-9(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Vasparr Fischer Ltd. (Now M/S. President Containers Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 1996-97

ITA 3445/MUM/2011[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2017AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Shri Ranathir Gupta
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 43B

…proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were invalid and bad in law, as per the contentions laid M/s. Precision Containeurs Ltd. out above, the learned A.R. placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements:- (i) Dilip N. Shroff vs. JCIT (2007) 291 ITR 519(SC), (ii) GOI vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors & Others (2008) 322 ITR 158 (SC), (iii) CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC), (iv) CIT vs. Manjutha Cotton & Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565(Kar) 5.2.1 We have heard the rival contentions of both parties on the issues raised in these additional grounds and perused and…