Gujarat Travancore Agency v. CIT

177 ITR 455Supreme Court of India1989#13611 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2022.

Judgments citing Gujarat Travancore Agency v. CIT

Amrutlal Chhaganlal Tanna, Jamnagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 253/RJT/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot14 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 253/Rjt/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2009-2010

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(a)Section 271(1)(b)

…d to Rs. 10,000/- as against Rs. 50,000/- confirmed by the learned CIT(A). The grounds of appeal of the assessee are thus partly allowed. 8.1 The principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat Travancore agency versus CIT reported in 177 ITR 455 are on a different proposition. It was held therein by the Lordship that the element of men-rea is not necessary while imposing the penalty under section 271(1)(a) of the Act. There was no issue decided about the quantum of the penalty whether it is to be levied for each and every default committed by the assessee for non-compliance of the notice…

Noormamad Hasan Khafi, Jamnagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 290/RJT/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedअपील सं./Ita No.290/Rjt/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Shri Noormamad Hasam Khafi, I.T.O., Nr. Nagnath Gate, Vs. Ward-2(2), Gomtipur, Jamnagar. Jamnagar.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Pratap Singh, C.I.T. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

…d to Rs. 10,000/- as against Rs. 50,000/- confirmed by the learned CIT(A). The grounds of appeal of the assessee are thus partly allowed. 8.1 The principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat Travancore agency versus CIT reported in 177 ITR 455 are on a different proposition. It was held therein by the Lordship that the element of men-rea is not necessary while imposing the penalty under section 271(1)(a) of the Act. There was no issue decided about the quantum of the penalty whether it is to be levied for each and every default committed by the assessee for non-compliance of the notice…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - Delhi-2 vs. Bechtel India Ltd

Appeals are disposed of

ITA/283/2016HC Delhi12 May 2016

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

For Respondent: Mr. Lav Dhawan, Advocate
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 276C

…ble mental state, including the element of mens rea, on the part of the accused. The Supreme Court in Sasi Enterprises v. ACIT, has categorically held that once the statutory presumption under Section 278E is triggered, the burden shifts to the 7 (1989) 177 ITR 455 (SC) Dgitally Signed By:NITIN KAIN Signing Date:19.07.2025 18:03:44 Signature Not Verified CRL.L.P. 280/2016 & other connected matters Page 16 of 18 accused to disprove the existence of a wilful default. In other words, the onus lies on the assessee to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that th…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-1 vs. Rajiv Gupta

Appeals are disposed of

ITA/281/2016HC Delhi02 May 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

For Respondent: Mr. Lav Dhawan, Advocate
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 276C

…ble mental state, including the element of mens rea, on the part of the accused. The Supreme Court in Sasi Enterprises v. ACIT, has categorically held that once the statutory presumption under Section 278E is triggered, the burden shifts to the 7 (1989) 177 ITR 455 (SC) Dgitally Signed By:NITIN KAIN Signing Date:19.07.2025 18:03:44 Signature Not Verified CRL.L.P. 280/2016 & other connected matters Page 16 of 18 accused to disprove the existence of a wilful default. In other words, the onus lies on the assessee to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that th…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-1 vs. Rajiv Gupta

Appeals are disposed of

ITA/280/2016HC Delhi02 May 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

For Respondent: Mr. Lav Dhawan, Advocate
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 276C

…ble mental state, including the element of mens rea, on the part of the accused. The Supreme Court in Sasi Enterprises v. ACIT, has categorically held that once the statutory presumption under Section 278E is triggered, the burden shifts to the 7 (1989) 177 ITR 455 (SC) Dgitally Signed By:NITIN KAIN Signing Date:19.07.2025 18:03:44 Signature Not Verified CRL.L.P. 280/2016 & other connected matters Page 16 of 18 accused to disprove the existence of a wilful default. In other words, the onus lies on the assessee to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that th…

M/S Bharat Furnishing Co vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/34/2002HC Delhi12 Aug 2014
Section 271(1)(a)

…y for an assessee to file original return within the stipulated time. It is apparent that the assessee by not filing the return did not want benefit of carry forward of loss. 10. Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat Travancore Agency Vs. C.I.T (1989) 177 ITR 455 has held that question of mens rea does not arise or require consideration when we examine the question of penalty under Section 271 (1)(a) of the Act. Penalty is a civil liability and is imposed upon infraction of law when conditions stipulated in the provision are satisfied. Mens rea is not an requirement to impose penalty under Section…

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…