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

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1(2), Pune vs. Fiat India Automobiles Ltd, Pune

ITA 2295/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 2295 & 2296/Pun/2017 करनििाारण वषा/ Assessment Year : 2009-10 & 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, . . . . . . . अऩीऱाथी / Appellant Circle-1(2), Pune. बनाम / V/S. Fiat India Automobiles Limited, B-19A, Ranjangaon Midc, Shirur, Pune. . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pan : Aaacf1716D द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwalla Revenue By : Shri Prashant Gadekar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 26/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 26/08/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; Present Appeals Of The Revenue Are Assailed Against Separate Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 13, Pune [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 27/07/2016 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”] Which Sprung Out Of Orders Of Penalty [For Short “Po”] Of Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-1(2), Pune [For Short “Ao”] Dt. 29/03/2017 Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2009-10 & 2010-11. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 5

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Gadekar
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 92C

…आयकर अपीऱीय न्यायाधिकरण, पुणे न्यायपीठ, “सी” बेंच पुणे में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE “C” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No. 2295 & 2296/PUN/2017 करनििाारण वषा/ Assessment Year : 2009-10 & 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, . . . . . . . अऩीऱाथी / Appellant Circle-1(2), Pune. बनाम / V/s. Fiat India Automobiles Limited, B-19A, Ranjangaon MIDC, Shirur, Pune. . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent PAN : AAACF1716D द्वारा / Appearances Assessee by : Shri Percy Pardiwalla Revenue by : Shri Prashant Gadekar सुनव…

ACIT Circle-12(1), New Delhi vs. Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Limited, Gurgaon

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 497/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…the Revenue is accepted then in case of every Return where the claim made is not accepted by the AO for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty u/s 27I(l)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature. (iii) The law laid down in Dilip Shroff 291 ITR 519 (SC) as to the meanings of the words “conceal” and "inaccurate” continues to be good law because what was overruled in Dharmendra Textile Processors 306 ITR 277 (SC) was only that part in Dilip Shroff where it was held that mens rea was an essential requirement for penalty u/s 271(l)(c). ” 5.7 The judgment of Reliance Petroproducts clearly shows…

Chiranjeev Kumar Vinayak, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-47(5), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 6644/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292BSection 68Section 69C

…A.O that no penalty under the aforesaid statutory provision was liable to be imposed in his hands, relied upon the following judicial pronouncements:- (i) CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565(Kar.) (ii) Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT (2007) 291 ITR 519 (SC) (iii) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Samson Pernchery(2017) 098 CCH 0039 (Bom.). (iv) CIT v. SSA's Emerald Meadows 73 Taxman.com 241 (Kar.) (v) SSA's Emerald Meadows v. CIT 242 Taxman 180 (SC) 12 Chiranjeev Kumar Vinayak Vs. ITo Per contra, the Id. D.R submitted that the contentions advanced by the Id. A.R as regards the validity of the pen…

George Kutty, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-13(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3788/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] George Kutty, Vs Dcit, C/O-M/S. Oasis Tours India (P.) Circle-13(1), Ltd., C-40, Middle Circle, Dwarka New Delhi. Sadan, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aajpk4005H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Manish Malik, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2022

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 276CSection 68

…alty under the aforesaid statutory provision was liable to be imposed in his hands, relied upon the following judicial pronouncements:- 14 | P a g e (i) CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Kar.) (ii) Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT (2007) 291 ITR 519 (SC) (iii) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Samson Pernchery (2017) 98 CCH 0039 (Bom.). (iv) CIT v. SSA's Emerald Meadows 73 Taxman.com 241 (Kar.) (v) SSA's Emerald Meadows v. CIT 242 Taxman 180 (SC) Per contra, the Id. D.R submitted that the contentions advanced by the Id. A.R as regards the validity of the penalty proceedings not being maintainabl…

Uttam Balasaheb Godbharale, Latur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Latur

ITA 991/PUN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 991/Pun/2019 करिनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 Uttam Balasaheb Godbharale, Shree Tyres Mrf, Samrat Chowk, Nanded Road, Latur - 413512 Pan :Aevpg3770N . . . . . . . अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1, Latur. . . . . . . . ""यथ" / Respondent "ारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri M. K. Kulkarni Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing :16/08/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement :16/08/2022 आदेश / Order Per G.D. Padmahshali, Am; The Appellant Assessee Preferred The Present Appeal Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Aurangabad [Forshort “Cit(A)”] Dt.07/05/2019 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 [For Short “The Act”] Which In Turn Originated From The Order Of Penalty [For Short “Po”] Dt 29/06/2017 Passed By The Income Tax Officer [For Short “Ao”] U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2012-13. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 13

For Appellant: Shri M. K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

….Yr.: 2012-13 particulars of income” referred into section 271(1)(c) of the Act signifies two distinct connotations, and the said proposition can be witnessed from the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Dilip N Shroff Vs JCIT” reported at 291 ITR 519 (SC), and “Ashok Paid Vs CIT” reported at 292 ITR 11. In the light of aforesaid judicial precedents, it is imperative on the part of Ld. AO to make the assessee aware in the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act as to which one of the two limbs is alleged against him for the purposes of imposition of penalty and unless it is made awar…

Ptc Energy Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle- 19(2), New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee is Allowed

ITA 1998/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Sh. Sanat Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…Notice. Further submitted that, the Ld. A.O has issued the notice without striking off irrelevant limb and specifying the charge for which the notice was issued. By relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N Shroff reported in 291 ITR 519 submitted that, due to issuance of defective penalty notice, the entire penalty proceedings is vitiated. 5. Per contra, the Ld. DR relying on the orders of the Lower Authorities justified the same and submitted that the appeal is deserves to be dismissed. 6. We have heard the Counsel for the assessee and Ld. DR, perused the material on record a…

The Tamilnadu Circle Postal Cooperative Bank Ltd. (1031), Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncc-12(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3002/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3002/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. The Tamilnadu Circle Postal Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Cooperative Bank Ltd. (1031), Income Tax, 18/19, Postal Bank, Jahangir Street, Non Corporate Circle 12(1), Second Line Beach, Chennai 600 001. Greams Road, Chennai 600 006. [Pan:Aaaat4900D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Rajagopalan, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Mrs. L. Jancy Elizabeth Rani, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.06.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 13, Chennai, Dated 21.08.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09 Challenging Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri S. Rajagopalan, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. L. Jancy Elizabeth Rani, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)

…er, it was pointed out that in order to expose the assessee to penalty, unless the case is strictly covered by the provision, the penalty provision cannot be invoked. By referring to the decisions in the case of Dilip N.Shroff vs. Joint CIT reported in [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC), and in the case of Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textiles Processors reported in [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court pointed out that the explanation must be preceded by a finding as to how and in what manner the assessee had furnished the particulars of his income and to impose penalty, element of mens rea was essential. Exp…

Atul A. Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 11, Mumbai

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

ITA 295/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Baskaran B.R. () & Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…a common show cause notice for all the impugned years without striking off the irrelevant portion in the show cause notice, in the light of the decisions relied upon by the Ld.AR in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs DCIT (supra) and Dilip N Shroff vs JCIT 291 ITR 519 (SC), both, the jurisdictional High Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court treats omnibus show-cause notices as betraying non application of mind and disapproves of the practice, to be particular, of issuing notices in printed form without deleting or striking off the inapplicable parts of that generic notice. In a plethora of judgements pertain…

Atul A. Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 11, Mumbai

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

ITA 294/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Baskaran B.R. () & Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…a common show cause notice for all the impugned years without striking off the irrelevant portion in the show cause notice, in the light of the decisions relied upon by the Ld.AR in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs DCIT (supra) and Dilip N Shroff vs JCIT 291 ITR 519 (SC), both, the jurisdictional High Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court treats omnibus show-cause notices as betraying non application of mind and disapproves of the practice, to be particular, of issuing notices in printed form without deleting or striking off the inapplicable parts of that generic notice. In a plethora of judgements pertain…

Atul A. Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 11, Mumbai

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

ITA 293/MUM/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Baskaran B.R. () & Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…a common show cause notice for all the impugned years without striking off the irrelevant portion in the show cause notice, in the light of the decisions relied upon by the Ld.AR in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs DCIT (supra) and Dilip N Shroff vs JCIT 291 ITR 519 (SC), both, the jurisdictional High Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court treats omnibus show-cause notices as betraying non application of mind and disapproves of the practice, to be particular, of issuing notices in printed form without deleting or striking off the inapplicable parts of that generic notice. In a plethora of judgements pertain…

Atul A. Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 11, Mumbai

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

ITA 292/MUM/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Baskaran B.R. () & Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…a common show cause notice for all the impugned years without striking off the irrelevant portion in the show cause notice, in the light of the decisions relied upon by the Ld.AR in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs DCIT (supra) and Dilip N Shroff vs JCIT 291 ITR 519 (SC), both, the jurisdictional High Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court treats omnibus show-cause notices as betraying non application of mind and disapproves of the practice, to be particular, of issuing notices in printed form without deleting or striking off the inapplicable parts of that generic notice. In a plethora of judgements pertain…

Atul A. Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 11, Mumbai

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

ITA 291/MUM/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Baskaran B.R. () & Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…a common show cause notice for all the impugned years without striking off the irrelevant portion in the show cause notice, in the light of the decisions relied upon by the Ld.AR in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs DCIT (supra) and Dilip N Shroff vs JCIT 291 ITR 519 (SC), both, the jurisdictional High Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court treats omnibus show-cause notices as betraying non application of mind and disapproves of the practice, to be particular, of issuing notices in printed form without deleting or striking off the inapplicable parts of that generic notice. In a plethora of judgements pertain…

Atul A. Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 11, Mumbai

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

ITA 290/MUM/2016[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Baskaran B.R. () & Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…a common show cause notice for all the impugned years without striking off the irrelevant portion in the show cause notice, in the light of the decisions relied upon by the Ld.AR in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs DCIT (supra) and Dilip N Shroff vs JCIT 291 ITR 519 (SC), both, the jurisdictional High Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court treats omnibus show-cause notices as betraying non application of mind and disapproves of the practice, to be particular, of issuing notices in printed form without deleting or striking off the inapplicable parts of that generic notice. In a plethora of judgements pertain…

Atul A. Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 11, Mumbai

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

ITA 289/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Baskaran B.R. () & Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…a common show cause notice for all the impugned years without striking off the irrelevant portion in the show cause notice, in the light of the decisions relied upon by the Ld.AR in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs DCIT (supra) and Dilip N Shroff vs JCIT 291 ITR 519 (SC), both, the jurisdictional High Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court treats omnibus show-cause notices as betraying non application of mind and disapproves of the practice, to be particular, of issuing notices in printed form without deleting or striking off the inapplicable parts of that generic notice. In a plethora of judgements pertain…

Raj Kumari Maheshwari, Jaipur vs. Dy CIT, CC-II, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 125/JPR/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Jun 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri R. K. Bhatra (C.A.)For Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a
Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…o hide or conceal the income so as to avoid the imposition of tax thereon. In the view of above there was neither concealment nor the assessee furnished the inaccurate particulars of income. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dilip N. Shroff Vs. JCIT (2007) 291 ITR 519 held that before penalty can be levied u/s 271 (1) (c) the entirety of circumstances must reasonably point to conclusion that assessee had consciously concealed his particulars of income or had furnished inaccurate particulars thereof Both the expressions "concealment of income" and `furnishing of inaccurate particulars" indicate some deliberatio…

Raipur Securities and Investment Limited, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Raipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issue

ITA 164/RPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaiआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 164/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Raipur Securities & Investment Ltd. Mig 21, Indravati Colony, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaccr4419F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Puja Bajaj, ARFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…has furnished inaccurate particulars. Again in the penalty order, the AO concluded vide para no. 6 that the appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and consequently concealed particulars of income. 2. As held in Dilip N. Shroff vs JCIT (2007) 291 ITR 519, 551 (SC) and Sachin Arora vs ITO in ITA no. 118/Agra/2015 order dated 19.12.2017, it is a settled position that the term "concealment" and "furnishing inaccurate particulars" are different and distinct, having different and separate meanings. It is also settled that the two terms are not interchangeable and one cannot be replaced by the other. I…

DCIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Surat vs. J K Paper Limited, Surat

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 181/SRT/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) D.C.I.T. M/S J.K. Paper Ltd. Circle-1(1)(2), P.O. Central Pulp Mill, Vs. Surat. Fort Songadh, Surat. Pan : Aaact 6305 N Appellant Respondednt

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 145ASection 254(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292BSection 40aSection 80I

…Account, this is not the case of concealment of income or inaccurate particular merely because of difference of opinion as held by various judicial pronouncements including the judgment of Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Diiip N Shroff Vs. JCIT reported in 291 ITR 519. He also contended that there was no tax leakage as on one hand income is treated as revenue receipt in the impugned order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act and on the other hand, depreciation has been allowed by A.O on enhanced project cost in order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act for A.Y 2015-16. The assessee also relied on the case law of Hon’ble Supr…

M/S. Shubham Industries, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 8, Pune

ITA 1887/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1887/Pun/2018 निर्ाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shubham Industries, The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S.R.G.Bhilare & Co., Vs Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune. Chartered Accountants, Plot No.9, Jatan Niwas, Off Pune Satara Road, Ruturaj Soc., Pune - 411037 Pan: Abxfs 9255 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav - Dr Date Of Hearing 11/01/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 08/04/2022

Section 133Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA No.1887/PUN/2018 निर्ाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shubham Industries, The Deputy Commissioner of M/s.R.G.Bhilare & Co., Vs Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune. Chartered Accountants, Plot No.9, Jatan Niwas, Off Pune Satara Road, Ruturaj Soc., Pune - 411037 PAN: ABXFS 9255 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav - DR Date of hearing 11/01/2022 Date of pronouncement 08/04/2022 आद…

M/S Nirani Sugars Limited, Mudhol vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2, Belgaum

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

ITA 126/PAN/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji01 Apr 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 123/Pan/2018 Assessment Year: 2001-02

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…ion of law, and after taking into consideration, the relevant decision of various High Courts as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court, holding as under: “Question No. 3: What is effect of Supreme Court's decision in Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT [2007] 161 Taxman 218/291 ITR 519 (SC), on issue of non-application of mind when irrelevant portions of printed notices are not struck off ? ■ In Dilip N. Shroff, case (supra) for the Supreme Court, it is of 'some significance that in the standard Pro-forma used by the Assessing Officer in issuing a notice despite the fact that the same postulates that inappropriate words and par…

M/S Nirani Sugars Limited, Mudhol vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2, Belgaum

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

ITA 125/PAN/2018[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji01 Apr 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 123/Pan/2018 Assessment Year: 2001-02

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…ion of law, and after taking into consideration, the relevant decision of various High Courts as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court, holding as under: “Question No. 3: What is effect of Supreme Court's decision in Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT [2007] 161 Taxman 218/291 ITR 519 (SC), on issue of non-application of mind when irrelevant portions of printed notices are not struck off ? ■ In Dilip N. Shroff, case (supra) for the Supreme Court, it is of 'some significance that in the standard Pro-forma used by the Assessing Officer in issuing a notice despite the fact that the same postulates that inappropriate words and par…