Director of Enforcement v. MCTM Corpn. (P) Ltd.

2 SCC 471Reported decision1996#9503 most cited

What is Director of Enforcement v. MCTM Corpn. (P) Ltd. authority for?

Mens rea is not an essential element for imposing a penalty for the breach of a civil obligation. The levy of penalty attaches if the provisions of law are contravened, regardless of the defaulter's guilty intention.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Director of Enforcement v. MCTM Corpn. (P) Ltd. · penalty · breach of civil obligation · mens rea · guilty intention · FERA 1947 · section 23(1)(a) · section 10

Judgments citing Director of Enforcement v. MCTM Corpn. (P) Ltd.

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 5 Kolkata vs. Ram Awatar Dhoot

The appeal is partly allowed and the substantial questions of

ITAT/21/2025HC Calcutta07 Mar 2025

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Dated : 7Th March, 2025. Appearance:

Section 10(38)Section 2Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…reme Court had taken note of the statutory provisions namely, Section 271(1)(c) and Section 276-C referred to the decisions in Chairman, SEBI vs. Shriram Mutual Fund & Another, (2006) 5 SCC 361, Director of Enforcement vs. MCTM Corporation (P) Ltd. (1996) 2 SCC 471, Gujarat Travancore Agency vs. CIT, (1989) 3 SCC 52 and held that the explanations appended to Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act entirely indicates the element of strict liability on the assessee for concealment or for giving inaccurate particulars while filing return. It was further held that the judgment in Dilip N. Shroff vs. CIT, (200…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Circle-1, Bengaluru vs. Rashtrotthana Parishat, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1666/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017=18

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra CIT-D.RFor Respondent: Sri Prakash Shridhar Hegde, CA
Section 11Section 11(6)Section 250Section 270ASection 274

…vations are reproduced below for ease of reference- “33. This Court in a catena of decisions has held that mens rea is not an essential element for imposing penalty for breach of civil obligations : (a) Director of Enforcement v. MCTM Corpn. (P.) Ltd. [1996] 2 SCC 471 (SCC pp. 478 & 480-81, paras 8 & 12-13) "8. It is thus the breach of a ‘civil obligation’ which attracts ‘penalty’ under section 23(1)(a), FERA, 1947 and a finding that the delinquent has contravened the provisions of section 10, FERA, 1947 that would immediately attract the levy of ‘penalty’ under section 23, irrespective of the fact whether the c…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -3, Kolkata vs. M/S. Itc Limited

Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated

ITA/125/2018HC Calcutta27 Jun 2024

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI,HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ

…om 2139 : (2013) 256 CTR 252 (Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, [paras 25 and 28] ; IX. (1972) 4 SCC 124 (M/s. Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Calcutta) [paras 1 to 4] ; X. (1969) 2 SCC 471 (Ahmed G.H. Ariff & Ors. Vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Calcutta); [para 8]; Page 46 of 77 XI. AIR 1959 SC 498 (Rameshwar Proshad Khandelwal & Ors. Vs. Commissioners, Land Reforms & Jagirs, Madhya Bharat & Ors.); Submission on behalf of the respondent:- 12. Sri J. P. Khaitan, learned senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Nila…

Shri. H. K. Satish vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/5658/2021HC Karnataka02 Dec 2022

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice M.G.S.Kamal

…ioner and Others, reported in ILR 2011 KAR 2460. 3) Mohinder Singh Gill and Anr. Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Ors., reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405 4) State of Punjab and Anr. Vs. Gurdial Singh and Ors., reported in (1980) 2 SCC 471 5) Mrs.Behroze Ramyar Batha Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in I.L.R. 1991 KAR 3556 6) A.V.Venkateswaran, Collector of Customs, Bombany Vs. Ramchand Sobhral Wadhwani and Anr., reported in AIR 1961 SCC 1506 (V 48 C 282) 7) Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd., Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Companies District I, Calcutta and A…

Shiv Raj Gupta vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Delhi IV

C.A. No.-012044-012044 - 2016Supreme Court22 Jul 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

…he above aspects are seldom borne in mind in many cases and second appeals are entertained and/or disposed of, without conforming to the above discipline.” This statement of the law was followed in Dnyanoba Bhaurao Shemade v. Maroti Bhaurao Marnor (1999) 2 SCC 471 (See paragraph 10). A recent decision of this Court in Biswanath Ghosh v. Gobinda Ghosh (2014) 11 SCC 605 has reiterated these principles in paragraph 16 as follows: 14 “16. Section 100 of the Code lays down the provision with regard to the second appeal which reads as under: “100.Second appeal.—(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided…

The Commissioner of Income Tax- IV vs. M/s. Prabhat Agri Bio Tech P Ltd

ITTA/459/2015HC Telangana06 Apr 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd

ITA/586/2014HC Delhi11 Sept 2014
Section 10Section 13Section 2Section 2(7)Section 8(2)

…ITA No. 586/2014 Page 1 of 16 $~26. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 586/2014 Date of decision: 11th September, 2014 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Sr.Standing Counsel. versus M/S THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Respondent Through Mr. Mayank Nagi & Mr. Tarun Singh, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO SANJIV K…

CIT vs. Fortis Financial Service

ITA/244/2011HC Delhi05 Jul 2012

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 13

…ITA 243/2011 Page 1 of 12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA Nos. 243/2011 & 244/2011 Reserved on: 18th April, 2012 % Date of Decision: 5th July, 2012 Commissioner of Income Tax-IV ....Petitioner Through Mr. N.P. Sahni, Sr. Standing Counsel. Versus Fortis Financial Services Ltd. …Respondents Through Mr. M.S. Syali, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mayank Negi, Ms…

CIT vs. Fortis Financial Service

ITA - 243 / 2011HC Delhi05 Jul 2012
Section 13

…ITA 243/2011 Page 1 of 12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA Nos. 243/2011 & 244/2011 Reserved on: 18th April, 2012 % Date of Decision: 5th July, 2012 Commissioner of Income Tax-IV ....Petitioner Through Mr. N.P. Sahni, Sr. Standing Counsel. Versus Fortis Financial Services Ltd. …Respondents Through Mr. M.S. Syali, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mayank Negi, Ms…

Commissioner of Income Tax-IV

ITA/243/2011HC Delhi05 Jul 2012
Section 13

…ITA 243/2011 Page 1 of 12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA Nos. 243/2011 & 244/2011 Reserved on: 18th April, 2012 % Date of Decision: 5th July, 2012 Commissioner of Income Tax-IV ....Petitioner Through Mr. N.P. Sahni, Sr. Standing Counsel. Versus Fortis Financial Services Ltd. …Respondents Through Mr. M.S. Syali, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mayank Negi, Ms…

Dilip N. Shroff vs. Joint Commnr. of Income Tax, Mumbai &Anr

The appeal is allowed

C.A. No.-002746-002746 - 2007Supreme Court18 May 2007
For Respondent: Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr

…http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 26 CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2746 of 2007 PETITIONER: Dilip N. Shroff RESPONDENT: Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/05/2007 BENCH: S.B. Sinha & P.K. Balasubramanyan JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2746 OF 2007 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.26831 of 2004] S.B. SINHA, J : 1. Leave granted. 2. The Appellant herein is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. It is an HUF. For the assessment year 1998-99, an income of Rs.30,80,030/- was declared by it, inter alia, showing a long term ca…

Director of Enforcement v. MCTM Corpn. (P) Ltd. (2 SCC 471) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax