Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT

M/S. Machintorg (India) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

…& H High Court) (vi). ITO vs. M/s. Energetic Construction Pvt. Ltd.(ITA No. 93/Del/12 (Tri-Delhi). (vii). CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., 322 ITR 158(SC) (viii). Chandra Pal Bagga v. ITAT (2003) 128 Taxman 632. (ix). Dilip N. Shroff vs. JCIT (2007) 291 ITR 519 (SC) (x). Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (83 ITR 26 SC) (xi). CIT v. Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd., 327 ITR 510 (Del.). 4. The learned DR relied upon the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that from the findings recorded by the learned AO, the appellant has furnished no cogent reply as why a penalty be not imposed. The appel…

Sh. Ashwani Jain, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08 Ashwani Jain, A-92, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Gujrawalan Town, Part-1, Income Tax, Circle-20(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Pan: Aahpj3505G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : S/Sh. Rakesh Gupta & Tarun Kumar, Advocates Respondent By : Sh. K.K. Jaiswal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.09.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2015 Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Xxii, New Delhi, Dated 31.12.2012 Passed For The Assessment Year 2007-08. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: I. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of Ld. Ao In Levying Penalty Of Rs.6,23,046/- & That Too Without Assuming Jurisdiction As Per Law & Without Considering The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & The Impugned Penalty Order Being Illegal & Void Ab-Initio. Ii. That In Any Case & In Any View Of The Matter, Action Of Ld. Cit(A) In Not Quashing The Penalty Order Framed By Ld. Ao Is Beyond Jurisdiction & Without Considering The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & The Impugned Penalty Order Being Illegal & Void Ab-Initio & The Impugned Penalty Order Has Been Framed Without Considering The Submissions/Evidences Of The Assessee & Without Providing Any Adverse

…llant relied on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of New Sorathia Engineering Co. Vs. CIT, 282 ITR 642 (Guj.) and on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of T. Ashok Pai Vs. CIT, 292 ITR 11 (SC) and Dilip N. Shroff Vs. CIT, 291 ITR 519 (SC). The Assessing Officer had brushed aside the explanation furnished by the assesee and proceeded to levy the penalty of Rs. 6,23,046/- vide his order dated 30th June, 2010. Aggrieved by this order of penalty, the appellant preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), who vide order dated 31.12.2012 dismissed the appeal vide paras 8 to 8.9 & 9 of th…

CIT vs. Sarla Fabrics Pvt Ltd

…ITA-788/2011 Page 1 $~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI DECIDED ON: 20.07.2012 + ITA 788/2011 CIT ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Deepak Chopra, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Harpreet Singh Ajmani, Advocate. versus SARLA FABRICS PVT LTD ..... Respondent Through: Mr. M.P. Rustogi with Mr. Deepak Malik and Mr. K.N. Ahuja, Advocates. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) % 1. The Revenue claims to be aggrieve…

CIT vs. Sir Shadi Lal Enterprises Ltd

…e is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd., (2010) 322 ITR 158. While deciding this case, the Hon'ble Court inter-alia considered the decision in the case of Dilip N. Shroff Vs. Joint CIT (2007) 291 ITR 519(SC) and Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC). It is mentioned that for levy of penalty, the circumstances mentioned in section 271(1)(c) and the Explanations appended thereto must exist. It has been further held that "furnishing inaccurate particulars of income" 1  furnishing parti…

Astra Housing & Investment P.Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi New Delhi

…ITA No. 622/2008 Page 1 of 14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA No. 622/2008 % Judgment reserved on : 19.05.2011 Judgment delivered on : 03.06.2011 ASTRA HOUSING & INVESTMENT P. LTD … APPELLANT Through: Mr. O.S. Bajpai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. V.N. Jha, Advocate Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ... RESPONDENT Through: Ms. Anshul Sharma, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.MEHTA 1. Whether the…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M. S. Bindra & Sons P. Ltd

…ection 271(1)(c) came to be interpreted by the Apex Court in Union of India & Ors. vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors & Ors. (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC). The three Judge Bench of the Apex Court over-ruled the decision in Dilip N. Shroff vs. Joint CIT (2007) 291 ITR 519 (SC) and approved the decision in Chairman, SEBI vs. Shriram Mutual Fund and Anr. (2006) 5SCC 361. In the said case, the Supreme Court held:- “27. The Explanations appended to section 272(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act entirely indicate the element of strict liability on the assessee for concealment or for giving inaccurate particulars w…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Manor Hotels Pvt. Ltd

…ection 271(1)(c) came to be interpreted by the Apex Court in Union of India & Ors. vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors & Ors. (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC). The three Judge Bench of the Apex Court over-ruled the decision in Dilip N. Shroff vs. Joint CIT (2007) 291 ITR 519 (SC) and approved the decision in Chairman, SEBI vs. Shriram Mutual Fund and Anr. (2006) 5SCC 361. In the said case, the Supreme Court held:- “27. The Explanations appended to section 272(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act entirely indicate the element of strict liability on the assessee for concealment or for giving inaccurate particulars w…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Medsave Healthcare Limited

…ection 271(1)(c) came to be interpreted by the Apex Court in Union of India & Ors. vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors & Ors. (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC). The three Judge Bench of the Apex Court over-ruled the decision in Dilip N. Shroff vs. Joint CIT (2007) 291 ITR 519 (SC) and approved the decision in Chairman, SEBI vs. Shriram Mutual Fund and Anr. (2006) 5SCC 361. In the said case, the Supreme Court held:- “27. The Explanations appended to section 272(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act entirely indicate the element of strict liability on the assessee for concealment or for giving inaccurate particulars w…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Krishna Maruti Ltd

Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine

Bench: The Cit(A) Who, By Virtue Of Its Order Dated 20.02.2008, Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee. Eventually The Matter Travelled To The Tribunal Which, Vide Its Order Dated 26.06.2009, Relying On The Order Of The Cit(A), Dismissed The Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Before It.

…we may profitably note to a three-Judge Bench decision rendered in *Union of India v. Dharmendra Textiles Processors & Ors.*, [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC). In the said case, the Apex Court held that *Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint CIT*, [2007] 8 Scale 304 (SC) = [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC) did not lay down the law correctly. Their Lordships referred to the anatomy especially the explanations to Section 271(1)(c) and 276C of the Act and came to hold as follows: - "The Explanations appended to Section 272(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act entirely indicate the element of strict liability on the assessee for concealment or for giving…

CIT vs. Shashi International Pvt Ltd

Accordingly the same stands dismissed in limine

…271(1)(c) came to be interpreted by the Apex Court in Union of India and Ors. vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors and Ors. (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC). The three Judge Bench of the Apex Court over-ruled the decision in Dilip N. Shroff vs. Joint CIT (2007) 291 ITR 519 (SC) and approved the decision in Chairman, SEBI vs. Shriram Mutual Fund and Anr. (2006) 5SCC 361. In the said case their Lordships further proceeded to hold that:- ?27. The Explanations appended to section 272(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act entirely indicate the element of strict liability on the assessee for concealment or for givin…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Virgo Marketing P.Ltd

…ating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. She also accepted the fact that the view taken by this Court in Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. has been approved by the Supreme Court in Dalip N. Shroff v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC) and T. Ashok Pai v. Commissioner of Income Tax, [2007] 292 ITR 11 (SC). - 4. Nevertheless, it was contended that the matter should Page 2 of 7 ŝ **©**  be referred to a larger Bench because the following issue has been referred to a larger Bench in *Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi v. Indus Valley Promoters…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi vs. Frontiline Solutions Baroda Ltd

…that the Assessing Officer must record his satisfaction in specific terms for initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. This decision has been upheld by the Supreme Court in Dalip N. Shroff v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC) and T. Ashok Pai v. Commissioner of Income Tax, [2007] 292 ITR 11 (SC).  4. Nevertheless, it was contended that the matter should be referred to a larger Bench because the following issue has been referred to a larger Bench in Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi v. Indus Valley Promoters Limited, (2006) 155 Taxman…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Virgo Marketing P.Limited

…ating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. She also accepted the fact that the view taken by this Court in Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. has been approved by the Supreme Court in Dalip N. Shroff v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC) and T. Ashok Pai v. Commissioner of Income Tax, [2007] 292 ITR 11 (SC). 1 $\nabla$  4. Nevertheless, it was contended that the matter should be referred to a larger Bench because the following issue has been referred to a larger Bench in *Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi v. Indus Valley Promoters Limited,* (…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Wisee Global Limited

…ted, the penalty proceedings are illegal. At the outset, it requires to be noted that the decision of this Court in Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. has been approved by the Supreme Court in Dilip N. Shroff Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC) and T.Ashok Pai Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, [2007] 292 ITR 11 (SC). Learned counsel for the Revenue states that another Bench of this Court has in Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi IV v. Indus Valley Promoters Limited (2006) 155 Taxman 223 referred the following substantial question of law to a larger Bench which according…