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.

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 519)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Lucknow vs. Scooters India Limited, Lucknow

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 266/LKW/2019[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Oct 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…os.265 to 270/Lkw/2019 Assessment Years:2002-03 to 2007-08 10 has considered this case law and has dealt with similar arguments of the Department from para 37 to 39, which for the sake of completeness are reproduced below: 37. In “Dilip N. Shroff Vs. JCIT”, 291 ITR 519 (SC), it has been held that section 271(1)(c) of the Act is in two parts. Whereas the first part refers to concealment of income, the second part refers to furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof. 'Concealment of income' and 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars' are different. 38. In “Ashok Pai vs. CIT”, 292 ITR 11 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Lucknow vs. Scooters India Limited, Lucknow

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 265/LKW/2019[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Oct 2021AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…os.265 to 270/Lkw/2019 Assessment Years:2002-03 to 2007-08 10 has considered this case law and has dealt with similar arguments of the Department from para 37 to 39, which for the sake of completeness are reproduced below: 37. In “Dilip N. Shroff Vs. JCIT”, 291 ITR 519 (SC), it has been held that section 271(1)(c) of the Act is in two parts. Whereas the first part refers to concealment of income, the second part refers to furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof. 'Concealment of income' and 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars' are different. 38. In “Ashok Pai vs. CIT”, 292 ITR 11 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme…

ITO, Ward-4(2)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S.Rushabh Vatika, Rajkot

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

ITA 3431/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash Singh, CIT DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…v) There is no case by AO as to which and how "inaccurate particulars of income" were furnished, when all facts and figures were disclosed and reasons for adopting 20% profit rate were elaborately explained, none of which are negatived by the AO [Dilip Shroff 291 ITR 519 SC] (v) Further, Expl. 5A to Sec. 271(l)(c) does not get attracted since there was no search proceedings u/s 132 of the Act in case of respondent. [Decision of Bombay HC in case of Rajkumar Gulab Badgujar in Tax appeal no. 897-898-901-907- 914/2016 dated 08-01-2019]” 10. It appears from the entire set of facts that the quantum was finalized by t…

Hcl Technologies Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3702/DEL/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Aug 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 10Section 10ASection 271(1)

…Assessing Officer, still no penalty could be levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. For this proposition he cited the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Private Limited 322 ITR 158 (SC) and Dilip N. Shroff 291 ITR 519 (SC). 9. Per contra while placing reliance on the orders of the authorities below, learned DR submitted that it was pointed out by theTribunal in the quantum appeal that the lapses committed by the assessee in this matter are not inadvertent mistakes, but a design with the sole purpose of extending the period of exemption u/s. 10 of the Act and…

M/S Sandeep Steel, Mumbai vs. ACIT 17 (3), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 7946/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Menon

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

…IT v/s Vision Research Management (P) Ltd., [2015] 63 taxmann.com 8 (Lucknow) (Trib.); iii) Prem Chand v/s ACIT, [2014] 52 taxmann.com 95 (Chandigarh) (Trib.); iv) CIT v/s PHI Seeds India Ltd., [2008] 301 ITR 0013 (Del); and v) Dilip N. Shroff v/s JCIT [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC). 7. The learned Departmental Authorities has not brought any cogent material to prove otherwise warranting interference at the instance of the Revenue. In this view of the matter, we are of the 6 M/s. Sandeep Steel considered view that the learned CIT(A) was indeed not justified in confirming the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer, a…

ITO-28(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Sharwansinghatar Singh Chatarsingh Chundawat, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5779/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Menon

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 69C

…IT v/s Vision Research Management (P) Ltd., [2015] 63 taxmann.com 8 (Lucknow) (Trib.); iii) Prem Chand v/s ACIT, [2014] 52 taxmann.com 95 (Chandigarh) (Trib.); iv) CIT v/s PHI Seeds India Ltd., [2008] 301 ITR 0013 (Del); and v) Dilip N. Shroff v/s JCIT [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC). 7. The learned Departmental Authorities has not brought any cogent material to prove otherwise warranting interference at the instance of the Revenue. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the learned CIT(A) was indeed justified in deleting the penalty, as there was no concealment of income on the part of the asses…

ACIT, Circle-9(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Golkunda Diamonds & Jewellery Limited, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5507/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti SatheFor Respondent: Shri T.S. Khalsa

Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…IT v/s Vision Research Management (P) Ltd., [2015] 63 taxmann.com 8 (Lucknow) (Trib.); iii) Prem Chand v/s ACIT, [2014] 52 taxmann.com 95 (Chandigarh) (Trib.); iv) CIT v/s PHI Seeds India Ltd., [2008] 301 ITR 0013 (Del); and v) Dilip N. Shroff v/s JCIT [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC). 7. The learned Departmental Authorities has not brought any cogent material to prove otherwise warranting interference at the instance of the Revenue. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the learned CIT(A) was indeed justified in deleting the penalty, as there was no concealment of income on the 9 Golkunda Diamon…

Income Tax Officer-9(3)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Goldstar Jewellery India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5466/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T.S. Khalsa

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…IT v/s Vision Research Management (P) Ltd., [2015] 63 taxmann.com 8 (Lucknow) (Trib.); iii) Prem Chand v/s ACIT, [2014] 52 taxmann.com 95 (Chandigarh) (Trib.); iv) CIT v/s PHI Seeds India Ltd., [2008] 301 ITR 0013 (Del); and v) Dilip N. Shroff v/s JCIT [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC). 6. The learned Departmental Authorities has not brought any cogent material to prove otherwise warranting interference at the instance of the Revenue. In this view of the matter, we are of the 9 Goldstar Jewellery India Pvt. Ltd. considered view that the learned CIT(A) was indeed justified in deleting the penalty, as there was no concealm…

DCIT(Central)-2, Indore vs. M/S Kalyan Toll Highway Pvt.Ltd, Indore

ITA 85/IND/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 Dcit(Central)-2 M/S. Kalyan Toll Highway Pvt. Ltd. Indore Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Revenue ) Vs. P.A. No. Aadck9401F Appellant By Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Ajay Tulsiyan, Ca Date Of Hearing: 21.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M:

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

…specific limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act under which it has been initiated. When the notice does not specify the charge for levy of penalty, it has been held that the penalty cannot be levied. The Hon'ble Supreme court in Dilip N. Shroff Vis JCIT (2007) 291 ITR 519 (SC), has observed that while issuing the notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271, in the standard format, the Assessing Officer should delete the inappropriate words or paragraph, otherwise, it may indicate that the Assessing Officer himself was not sure as to whether he had proceeded on the basis that the assessee had concealed his income or had fu…

Rajmata Jijabai Co.Op.Hsg. Soc. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Warad 15 (1)(3) Now ITO Ward 26 (2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6694/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 6694/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2007-08) Rajmata Jijabai Co-Op Hsg. The Income Tax Officer, Society Ltd. Ward, Mumbai फनाभ/ 28, Veena Beena, Gurunank Road, Bandra West, Vs. Mumbai-400 050 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aaaar2683R अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Shri M. Subramanian, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Shri Bharat Andhale, Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 26.07.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 26.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-38, Mumbai [In Short Cit(A)], In Appeal No. Cit(A)-38/Ito.15(1)(3)/It.10814/2014-15 Vide Dated 24.07.2019. The Assessment Was Framed By The Income Rajmata Jijabai Co-Op Hsg. Society Ltd.; Ay 07-08 Tax Officer, Ward 15(1)(3), Mumbai (In Short Ito/ Ao) For The A.Y. 2007-08 Vide Order Dated 27.12.2010 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’). The Penalty Is Levied By Ito, Ward 15(1)(3), Mumbai Under Section 271(1)(C) Vide Order Dated 26.03.2014. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Levying The Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act. For This, Assessee Has Raised The Following Ground No.1:-

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian, ARFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale, DR

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “D” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष एविं श्री ए रयपऔय यहभान, रेखा दस्म के भक्ष BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आमकय अऩीर िं./ ITA No. 6694/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2007-08) Rajmata Jijabai Co-op Hsg. The Income Tax Officer, Society Ltd. Ward, Mumbai फनाभ/ 28, Veena Beena, Gurunank Road, Bandra West, Vs. Mumbai-400 050 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./PAN No. AAAAR2683R अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant by : Shri M. Subramanian, AR प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent…