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 367,154 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 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

Dr Sarita Milind Davare, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 40, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2187/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Ramlal Negi (Jm) I.T.A. No. 2187/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year 2009-10)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…in the above said notice the AO did not specify the type of charge for which the penalty proceedings have been initiated. 10. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to the following observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N Shroff (291 ITR 519)(SC). “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 4 2187&1789/M/14 Dr. Sarita Milind Davare deleted, but the same had not been done. Thus, the Assessing Officer himself was not sure as…

Essjay Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 18 & 19, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 7110/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7110/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04) M/S Essjay Enterprises, The Asstt.Commissioner Of बनाम/ 509, Panchratna Opera Income Tax – Central V. House, Circle – 18 & 19, Mama Parmandand Marg, Mumbai. Mumbai – 400 004. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafe 0563 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “E” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7110/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04) M/s Essjay Enterprises, The Asstt.Commissioner of बनाम/ 509, Panchratna Opera Income Tax – Central v. House, Circle – 18 & 19, Mama Parmandand Marg, Mumbai. Mumbai – 400 004. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN : AAAFE 0563 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee by Shri S.C. Tiwari & Ms. Rutuja Pawar Revenue by : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal,DR सुनवाई क" तार"…

Sai Shipping Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3197/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3197/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Sai Shipping Company The Assistant बनाम/ Private Limited Commissioner Of Income V. 1109,Embassy Centre Tax – 5(3), Nariman Point Room No. 573, Mumbai-400 021 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabcs1298J .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Vishwas Jadhav,DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 271(1)(c)

…e of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Private Limited (2010) 322 ITR 158(SC). The assessee also relied upon following decisions:- (a) CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal (2001) 251 ITR 9(SC) (b) T.Ashok Pai v. CIT (2007) 292 ITR 11(SC) (c) Dilip & Shroff v. JCIT (2007)291 ITR 519(SC) Thus, the assessee prayed that no penalty be levied against the assessee u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act as in the opinion of the assessee there is no concealment of particulars of income nor there is furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee in the return of income filed with the Revenue to be brought within the four corners…

Suresh Prasad Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6031/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 6031/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Suresh Prasad Aggarwal, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income P-8, Green Park Extension, Tax, Circle-37(1), New Delhi-110016 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaapa3267H Assessee By : Sh. Akshat Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Anima Barnwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2016 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.09.2014 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xxviii, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Akshat Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Anima Barnwal, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 271(1)(c)

…not sufficient to levy the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The reliance was place on the following case laws: " Price Water House Coopers (P) Ltd. Vs CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC) " CIT Vs Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) " Dilip Shroff 291 ITR 519 (SC) " CIT Vs Ultimate Fashin Maker Ltd. (HC) " CIT Vs B.R. Sharma (2005) 196 CTR 454 (Del) " CIT Vs Globe Sales Corporation (2005) 196 CTR 187 (Del) " CIT Vs Auto Lamps Ltd. (2005) 196 CTR 459 (Del) 6 Suresh Prasad Aggarwal " State of M.P Vs Bharat Heavy Electricals (1998) 99 ELT 33 (SC) " Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs State of Orissa AIR 1970 SC 253…

M/S. M.G. Contractors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 7034/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. P.C. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. DAM Kanunjna, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…high courts and apex court in the following judgments and ultimately penalty has been quashed. Reference can be made to the following decisions. a. Ramila Ben Vs ACIT 60 TTJ 171(Ahmadabad) b. CIT Vs Mannu Engg. 122 ITR 306(Guj) c. Dillip N Sherrof reported in 291 ITR 519(SC)- Wherein these kind of notices are severely criticized by the Apex Court. d. Smt Rita Saudhrey reported in 146 taxation 59(Del) e. Manjunath Cotton Mills reported in 359 ITR 0565(Kar).-Recent Decision. 10. It is pertinent to mention here that in the case of Manjunath (Supra) also the income was surrendered as a result of survey and penalty w…

ITO 3(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Cyrus Engineers P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4552/MUM/2014[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2016AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 4552/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1997-98)

For Appellant: Shri Bihanlal

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 4552/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1997-98) I.T.O.-3(1)(3), M/s Cyrus Engineers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Shapoorji Pallonji Centre, 41/44, Room No.666, M.K. Road, Minoo Desai Marg, Colaba, Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 005. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AAACC 4608B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : : Shri Mohammed Rizwan अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Bihanlal ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 04/02/2016 Date of Hea…

ITO 18(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Ashok Bhimrao Mokashi, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0

ITA 7053/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.7053/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Income Tax Officer-18(3)(1), Shri Ashok Bhimrao बनाम/ 207, Piramal Chambers, Mokashi, V. Lalbaug, 12, Harguru Niwas, Mumbai – 400 012. 45, Taikalwadi, Manorama Nagarkar Road, Mahim, Mumbai –400 016. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Adhpm6235P .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Reepal TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri A. Ramachandran

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…) 3. CIT v. Ajaib Singh & Co. (2001) 253 ITR 630 (P&H) 4. DCIT v. G.M. Gupta (2003) SOT 230 (Del) 5. Vinod Kapur v. ITO (2003) 127 Taxman 53 6. CIT v. Honeywell Dace (India) Ltd. (2007) 292 ITR 169 (Del) ITA 7053/Mum/2013 7 7. Dilip N Shroff v. JCIT (2007) 291 ITR 519(SC) 8. T Ashok Pai v. CIT (2007)292 ITR 11(SC) 9. CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Private Limited (2010) 322 ITR 158(SC) 10. D M Manasavi v. CIT (1973) 3 SCC 207(SC) 11. Anantharam Veerasinghaiah v. CIT (1980) Supp SCC 13 The A.O. observed that the assessee has filed return of income late i.e. beyond the period stipulated u/s. 139(1) of the Act. T…

Sh. Chander Pal Aggarwal, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2461/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantchander Pal Aggarwal Vs Ito 3611, Raja Park, Shakur Basti, Ward 25(2) Rani Bagh, Delhi. New Delhi. Adnpa1455D

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275(1)(a)Section 68

…C), 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 recently 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 ITA No. 2461/D/15 Page 4 of 11 Chander Pal Aggarwal 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 a…

Rdc Concrete (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2918/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Kesang Y. Sherpa, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

…as to be exercised keeping the relevant factors in mind and the approach of the taxman must be fair and objective. This subject has been a matter of great controversy. Finally, after referring to the decisions in the case of Dilip N. Shroff vs JCIT & Another, 291 ITR 519, Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 13 SCC 369, as well as Union of India vs Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills [2009] 13 SCC 448, the Hon'ble Supreme Court 8 in the case of CIT vs Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd, 322 ITR 158, has held as under: “A glance at the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, sugge…

Smt. Aarti Jain, Meerut vs. ITO, Meerut

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5281/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2016AY 2003-04

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

Section 133(6)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…(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 recently 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 there is primary…

Smt. Aarti Jain, Meerut vs. ITO, Meerut

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5280/DEL/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2016AY 2002-03

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

Section 133(6)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Rathi Pragati Steel Manufacturing Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1533/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amrit Lal, Sr-DR

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…as to be exercised keeping the relevant factors in mind and the approach of the taxman must be fair and objective. This subject has been a matter of great controversy. Finally, after referring to the decisions in the case of Dilip N. Shroff vs JCIT & Another, 291 ITR 519, Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 13 SCC 369, as well as Union of India vs Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills [2009] 13 SCC 448, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd, 322 ITR 158, has recently held as under: “A glance at the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961,…

Hewitt Associates (India) Pvt. Ltd.., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 989/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2003-04

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

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

…(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 recently 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. It is clear from the assessment order itself that neither any information was concealed nor any inaccurate particulars were furnished. The assessment order…

Oasis Infrastructure P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 10(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5501/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumarआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5501/Mum/2014 (यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2009-10) Oasis Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 119-121/B,Shrikant Chambers Tax, Circle 10(2) Vs. Sion Trombay Road, 4Th Floor, Ayakar Bhavan, Near R K Studio, M K Road, Chembur, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400071 स्थायी ऱेखा सुं./ Pan : Aaaco5715H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Dr.S Pandian

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 274

…” 9. We would also like to refer to the Hon‟ble Apex Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 2463 of 2010. 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 revenue…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Ghodawat Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, appeal the filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1613/BANG/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raodeputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(2) Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Ghodawat Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 1St Floor, Embassy Point, 150, Infantry Road, Bangalore. … Respondent Aaccm6628B

For Appellant: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT(DR)For Respondent: None

Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 3(1)(2) Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/s.Ghodawat Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 1st floor, Embassy Point, 150, Infantry Road, Bangalore. … Respondent AACCM6628B Appellant by : Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT(DR) Respondent by : None. Date of hearing : 19/05/2016 Date of pronouncement : 03/06/2016 O R D E R Per INTURI RAMA RAO, AM : This is an appeal filed by the revenue directed against the order of the CIT(A), Kolhapur, dated 15/9/2014 del…

DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai vs. Cifco Properties P Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, these appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6007/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Taneja

Section 271(1)(c)

…inaccurate particulars.” 24. Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that penalty cannot be levied merely because the assessing officer and the assessee hold a divergent view on allowability of a claim for deduction. Further, in the case of Dilip N. Shroff, 291 ITR 519 (SC) [this case has been, though approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in principle, it has been overruled only on the point of mens-rea in Dharamendra Textile Processors, 306 ITR 277 (SC)], it has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that the meaning of the words ‘conceal’ and ‘inaccurate’ involves or ‘keeping a secret’ or withdraw from Observatio…

DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai vs. Cifco Properties P Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, these appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6006/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Taneja

Section 271(1)(c)

DCIT, Faridabad vs. Smt. Parminder Chadha, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 716/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year: 2008-09 The D.C.I.T. Vs. Shri Parminder Chadha Circle - 1 10, Mathura Road Faridabad Jangpura, New Delhi Pan : Aadpc 7936 Q Q [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 31.05.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2016 Appellant By : Shri R.S. Negi, Sr. Dr Respondent By : Shri Sanjeev Puri, Ca

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Negi, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Puri, CA

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

…as to be exercised keeping the relevant factors in mind and the approach of the taxman must be fair and objective. This subject has been a matter of great controversy. Finally, after referring to the decisions in the case of Dilip N. Shroff vs JCIT & Another, 291 ITR 519, Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 13 SCC 369, as well as Union of 5 India vs Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills [2009] 13 SCC 448, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd, 322 ITR 158, has recently held as under: “A glance at the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961,…

Samtel India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5517/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2009-10 Ay: 2009-10 Samtel India Ltd., Vs Acit, 501, Copia Corporate Suites, Circle 7(1), District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi. New Delhi-110025 (Pan: Aaacs0390N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri D.C. Garg, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Anima Banwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.02.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.05.2016

For Appellant: Shri D.C. Garg, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anima Banwal, Sr. DR

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…of the opinion that the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 2463 of 2010 order dated 17.3.2010 is squarely applicable. In this case it has been held that the law laid down in the Dilip Shroff 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 Textiles case was only that part in Dilip Shroff 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 reve…

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4924/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2016AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri D.C. Garg, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anima Banwal, Sr. DR

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)