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

Shree Cental Silk Mills, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5359/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta Nos.5359 To 5361/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S. Shree Central Silk The Ito 14(3)(2), बनाम/ Mills, 6Th Floor, Earnest House, Vs. 673, Madhavrai Lane, Mumbai-400 021 M.J. Market, Mumbai-400 02 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aatfs 7036H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Assessee By: Shri Dhirendra M. Shah Shri Vishwas Jadhav ""यथ" क" ओर से/Revenue By:

For Appellant: Shri Dhirendra M. Shah
Section 148Section 24Section 271(1)(c)

…pplied) The Supreme Court also held that it was only on the point of mens-rea that in Union of India & Ors. vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors & Ors, the Supreme Court over-ruled the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in Dilip N. Shroff vs. Jt. CIT, (2007) 291 ITR 519. 13. Mr.Malhotra submitted that Explanation 1(B) to Section 271(1) mandates the levy of penalty even where a claim for deduction is not upheld, even though the assessee has disclosed all material facts and has not suppressed any material facts. He submitted that a view to the contrary would render explanation 1(B) nugatory. His only response to t…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Reach Interactive Com. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3469/DEL/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg:Asstt. Yr: 2001-02 Dcit, Circle 15(1), Vs. Reach Interactive Com. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 7, Local Shopping Centre, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi. Pan: Aabcr 9137 R ( Appellant ) (Respondent) Appellant By : Ms. Kesong Y. Sherpa Sr. Dr Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing : 05/05/2016. Date Of Order : 10/05/2016. O R D E R Per S.V. Mehrotra, A.M:

For Appellant: Ms. Kesong Y. Sherpa Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…enalty u/s 271 (1 )(c). In this context, I find that the Hon'ble ITAT, Pune in the case of Kanbay Software India (P) Ltd. (2009) 31 SOT 153 after considering the decisions of the Apex Court in Dharmendra Textile Processors 295 ITR 244 (SC) and Dilip N. Shroff 291 ITR 519 (SC) has inter alia held as under: "Whether details or information about income deal with factual details of income and this cannot be extended to areas which are subjective , such as status of taxability of an income, admissibility of a deduction and interpretation of law-Held, yes - Whether admission or rejection of a claim is a subjective exer…

Raman Chopra, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 6619/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Srivastava, ARFor Respondent: Sh. R.S. Negi, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 154Section 156Section 271(1)(c)

…sion 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 reve…

Harrington House, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 89/CHNY/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 89,90 & 91/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-2008

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…ground for initiating penal action. 4.3. The appellant placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) CIT Vs Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (SC). (ii) CIT Vs Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. 224 CTR 1 (SC) (iii) Dilip N Shroff Vs JCIT 291 ITR 519(SC) (iv) CIT Vs VIP Industries 122 TTJ 289 (Mum) (v) CIT Vs Kamby Software 122 TTJ 721 (Mum) (vi) CIT Vs Siddarth Enterprises 184 Taxmann 460 (P&H)’’. ITA Nos.89, 90 & 91/Mds/2016. :- 7 -: The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) considered submissions, judicial decisions and findings of the Assessing Officer and made elaborate discussio…

DDIT(It) - 2(1), Kolkata. vs. Raj Narayan Sinha, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal in I

ITA 867/KOL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Apr 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasusdevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2004-05 Ddit(It)-2(1), Aayakar V/S. Raj Narayan Sinha Bhawan Poorva, 2Nd C/O A.S.Gupta & Co., Floor, Room No. 10, Old Post Office 211,110, Shantipally, Road, Kolkata-01 Kolkata-700107 [Pan No.Ayrps 5729 H] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 276CSection 49Section 55(2)(b)

…ce reliance to the Hon'ble Apex Court decision in the case of CIT v. Reliance Petro Products (P)) Ltd. [2010] 189 Taxman 322 (SC). In this case vide order dated 17.3.2010 wherein it has been held that the law laid down in the Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT [2007] 291 ITR 519 / 161 Taxman 218 (SC) as to the meaning of word ‘concealment’ and ‘inaccurate’ continues to be a good law because what was overruled in the Dharmendra Textile case was only that part in Dilip Sheroff case where it was held that means rea was a essential requirement of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). The Hon'ble Apex Court also observed that if the conten…

DCIT, Coimbatore vs. Lakshmi Ceramics, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1033/CHNY/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1033/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Lakshmi Ceramics, Income Tax, V. No.63, Krishnasamy Mudaliar Road, Central Circle – Ii, (Brooke Bond Road), Coimbatore. Coimbatore – 641 007. Pan : Aacfl 0921 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sasikumar, JCITFor Respondent: Sh. T.N. Seetharaman, Advocate
Section 132ASection 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…s) committed an error in deleting the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. 4. Referring to the order of the CIT(Appeals), more particularly para 6.1, the Ld. Departmental Representative pointed out that the judgment of the Apex Court in Dilip N. Shroff (291 ITR 519) referred by the CIT(Appeals) was overruled by the Apex Court in Union of India v. Dharmendra Textiles Processors And Others (2008) 306 ITR 277. Referring to the judgment of Delhi High Court referred by the CIT(Appeals) in Chhabra Emporium (264 ITR 249), the Ld. D.R. submitted that Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was not availabl…

Smt. Rekha Jindal, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3479/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2009-10 Rekha Jindal, Vs Ito, C/O Garg Bros. & Associates, Ca, Ward-20(4), 203/88, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Adjpj6476B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : None Present Respondent By : Shri P. Damkanunja, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.12.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: Order

For Appellant: None presentFor Respondent: Shri P. Damkanunja, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC-I NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J.S. REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY: 2009-10 Rekha Jindal, vs ITO, C/o Garg Bros. & Associates, CA, Ward-20(4), 203/88, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (PAN: ADJPJ6476B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None present Respondent by : Shri P. Damkanunja, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 21.12.2015 Date of pronouncement: ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)- XXI…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Srf Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3848/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Ms. Anima Bernwal, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Satyen Sethi, Adv
Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 35(2)

…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 held as under: “A glance at the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, suggests th…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Brijwasi Impex Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5589/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri A.T. Varkey

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…cumstances must reasonably point to conclusion that disputed amount represented income and that assessee had consciously concealed the particulars of his income or had furnished inaccurate particulars thereof - Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT [2007J 161 Taxman 218/291 ITR 519 (SC). 8. Kindly appreciate that in the present case under consideration, Ld. A.O. has imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the LT. Act, without establishing any fact contrary to the explanation given by the assessee during assessment, appellate and penalty proceedings. Ld. A.O. has not placed an iota of evidence showing any mala-fide in explanation g…

Smt. Kamini Jain, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result the penalty in question as confirmed by the Ld

ITA 2421/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Kuldip Singhay: 2007-08 Smt. Kamini Jain Vs. Acit, Circle 20(1) A 92, Gujrawalan Town New Delhi Part I New Delhi 110 009 Pan: Adkpj 7858 A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Somil Aggarwal, Adv. & Ms. Poonam Ahuja, Adv. Respondent By : Sh.Rishpal Bedi, Sr.D.R.

For Appellant: Sh. Somil Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh.Rishpal Bedi, Sr.D.R

…ealed the particulars of income. In the absence of any such findings, the penalty order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and in support of this proposition, we rely on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 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…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ecom Concepts (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 2627/DEL/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2015AY 2001-02
For Appellant: Sh. Raman Kant Garg, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Naveen Gupta, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…IT [2000] 246 ITR 571 (Delhi) (f) CIT v. Shivnarayan Jamnalal & Co. [1998] 232 ITR 311/[1996] 89 Taxman 420 (MP) (g) CIT v. T. Abdul Majeed [1998] 232 ITR 50/[1997] 93 Taxman 491 (Ker) 4 The hon'ble apex court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT [2007] 291 ITR 519/161 Taxman 218 had held vide paras 56 and 57 as follows (page 546) : "The term 'inaccurate particulars' is not defined. Furnishing of all assessment of value of the property may not by itself be furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Even if the Explanations are taken recourse to, a finding has to be arrived at having regard to clause (a) of Expla…

Intech Corporation, Mumbai vs. ITO 20(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5820/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Sanjay Garg, (Jm) सर्वश्री बी.आर.बास्करन, ऱेखा सदस्य एर्ुं श्री संजम गगग, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष आमकय अऩीर सं /I.T.A. No.5820/Mum/2013 (ननधधगयण वषग / Assessment Year : 2005-06) बनाम/ M/S Intech Corporation, Income Tax Officer, 20(1)(3), C/O Suresh Shah, Piramal Chambers, Vs. 3/A Hashim Building, Parel, 40, Veer Nariman Road, Lalbaug, Fort, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400001 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. स्थधमी रेखध सं./जीआइआय सं./Pan :Aaafi 1299P अऩीरधथी ओय से / Appellant By Shri Sanjay R Parikh प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By Shri Ravindra Sindhu सुनवधई की तधयीख / Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2015 घोषणध की तधयीख /Date Of Pronouncement :29.10.2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran: The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Order Dated 12- 08-2013 Passed By Ld Cit(A)-31, Mumbai For The Assessment Year 2005- 06 Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.16,74,180/- Levied By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

…approved value, who had estimated the fair market value as on 1.4.1981 at Rs.25.00 lakhs and adopted the same for computing the long term capital gain. The Ld A.R placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N Shroff (291 ITR 519)(SC) and submitted the estimation of fair market value cannot lead to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. With regard to the addition made u/s 50C of the Act, he submitted that the said addition has been made on account of legal fiction 3 brought under that section and the same would not result in furnishing of inaccurate particulars…

ITO 8(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Rinita Implex P.Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 3028/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta Nos. 2960 & 3028/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years:2009-10 & 2010-11 The Dcit-8(3), M/S. Rinita Impex Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Bombay Mutual Bldg., Dr. D.N. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001

For Appellant: Shri A.K. SrivastavaFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Jain
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…therefore penal proceedings should be dropped. 3.3. The submissions of the assessee did not find any favour with the AO. Drawing support from the decisions of the hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Dharmendra Processors 306 ITR 277 and Dilip Shroff 291 ITR 519, the AO concluded by levying minimum penalty of Rs. 6,30,28,304/-. 4. The assessee strongly agitated the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) and reiterated its contention. After considering the facts and the submissions, the First appellate authority posed a question to itself – Whether the assessee has concealed any particulars of income and submitted…

DCIT 8(3), Mumbai vs. Rinita Impex P. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2960/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta Nos. 2960 & 3028/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years:2009-10 & 2010-11 The Dcit-8(3), M/S. Rinita Impex Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Bombay Mutual Bldg., Dr. D.N. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001

For Appellant: Shri A.K. SrivastavaFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Jain
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…therefore penal proceedings should be dropped. 3.3. The submissions of the assessee did not find any favour with the AO. Drawing support from the decisions of the hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Dharmendra Processors 306 ITR 277 and Dilip Shroff 291 ITR 519, the AO concluded by levying minimum penalty of Rs. 6,30,28,304/-. 4. The assessee strongly agitated the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) and reiterated its contention. After considering the facts and the submissions, the First appellate authority posed a question to itself – Whether the assessee has concealed any particulars of income and submitted…

ITO 14(1)3, Mumbai vs. Ashokkumar M Parikh, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4986/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 55(2)(a)

…on the following decisions where Sh.Bharatkumar Maneklal Parikh & 19 Sh.Ashokkumar Maneklal Parikh penalty levied on the assessee was deleted on the fact that he followed the advice of a professional tax expert:- T. Ashok Pai 292 ITR 11(SC) Dilip N. Shroff 291 ITR 519 (SC) Lachman Chaturbhuj Java 132 ITR 631 (Bom) Shyam Gopal Charitable Trust 290 ITR 99 (Del) Deepak Kumar 232 CTR (P&H) 78 Sania Mirza 259 CTR (AP) 386 State of Kerala v. Krishna Kurup Madhava Kurup air 1971 Ker. 211 The Supreme Court in Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi [1979] 118 ITR 507, has held that legal advice given…

ITO 14(1)3, Mumbai vs. Bharatkumar M Parikh, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4985/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 55(2)(a)

…on the following decisions where Sh.Bharatkumar Maneklal Parikh & 19 Sh.Ashokkumar Maneklal Parikh penalty levied on the assessee was deleted on the fact that he followed the advice of a professional tax expert:- T. Ashok Pai 292 ITR 11(SC) Dilip N. Shroff 291 ITR 519 (SC) Lachman Chaturbhuj Java 132 ITR 631 (Bom) Shyam Gopal Charitable Trust 290 ITR 99 (Del) Deepak Kumar 232 CTR (P&H) 78 Sania Mirza 259 CTR (AP) 386 State of Kerala v. Krishna Kurup Madhava Kurup air 1971 Ker. 211 The Supreme Court in Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi [1979] 118 ITR 507, has held that legal advice given…

Ashokkumar Maneklal Parikh, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(1)(3)

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3709/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 55(2)(a)

…on the following decisions where Sh.Bharatkumar Maneklal Parikh & 19 Sh.Ashokkumar Maneklal Parikh penalty levied on the assessee was deleted on the fact that he followed the advice of a professional tax expert:- T. Ashok Pai 292 ITR 11(SC) Dilip N. Shroff 291 ITR 519 (SC) Lachman Chaturbhuj Java 132 ITR 631 (Bom) Shyam Gopal Charitable Trust 290 ITR 99 (Del) Deepak Kumar 232 CTR (P&H) 78 Sania Mirza 259 CTR (AP) 386 State of Kerala v. Krishna Kurup Madhava Kurup air 1971 Ker. 211 The Supreme Court in Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi [1979] 118 ITR 507, has held that legal advice given…

Bhartkumar Maneklal Parikh, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(1)(3)

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3708/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 55(2)(a)

…on the following decisions where Sh.Bharatkumar Maneklal Parikh & 19 Sh.Ashokkumar Maneklal Parikh penalty levied on the assessee was deleted on the fact that he followed the advice of a professional tax expert:- T. Ashok Pai 292 ITR 11(SC) Dilip N. Shroff 291 ITR 519 (SC) Lachman Chaturbhuj Java 132 ITR 631 (Bom) Shyam Gopal Charitable Trust 290 ITR 99 (Del) Deepak Kumar 232 CTR (P&H) 78 Sania Mirza 259 CTR (AP) 386 State of Kerala v. Krishna Kurup Madhava Kurup air 1971 Ker. 211 The Supreme Court in Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi [1979] 118 ITR 507, has held that legal advice given…

Ashokkumar Maneklal Parikh, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 179/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 55(2)(a)

…on the following decisions where Sh.Bharatkumar Maneklal Parikh & 19 Sh.Ashokkumar Maneklal Parikh penalty levied on the assessee was deleted on the fact that he followed the advice of a professional tax expert:- T. Ashok Pai 292 ITR 11(SC) Dilip N. Shroff 291 ITR 519 (SC) Lachman Chaturbhuj Java 132 ITR 631 (Bom) Shyam Gopal Charitable Trust 290 ITR 99 (Del) Deepak Kumar 232 CTR (P&H) 78 Sania Mirza 259 CTR (AP) 386 State of Kerala v. Krishna Kurup Madhava Kurup air 1971 Ker. 211 The Supreme Court in Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi [1979] 118 ITR 507, has held that legal advice given…

Bharatkumar Maneklal Parikh, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1250/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 55(2)(a)

…on the following decisions where Sh.Bharatkumar Maneklal Parikh & 19 Sh.Ashokkumar Maneklal Parikh penalty levied on the assessee was deleted on the fact that he followed the advice of a professional tax expert:- T. Ashok Pai 292 ITR 11(SC) Dilip N. Shroff 291 ITR 519 (SC) Lachman Chaturbhuj Java 132 ITR 631 (Bom) Shyam Gopal Charitable Trust 290 ITR 99 (Del) Deepak Kumar 232 CTR (P&H) 78 Sania Mirza 259 CTR (AP) 386 State of Kerala v. Krishna Kurup Madhava Kurup air 1971 Ker. 211 The Supreme Court in Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi [1979] 118 ITR 507, has held that legal advice given…