Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa

64 ITR 664Reported decision1967#11166 most cited
10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2022.

Judgments citing Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa

SMT. AMITA RAJVEDI,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, ALLAHABAD

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

ITA 67/ALLD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad25 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

…ble to be deleted in all fairness as well as in the facts and circumstances of the case. That in this regard the assessee reply upon following decisions including the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Limited v. State of Orissa (83 ITR 36) where it was held that order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of quasi criminal proceeding and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately. The said order of Hon'ble Supreme Court was followed by various ITAT benches and copies of those decisions are enclos…

SMT. AMITA RAJVEDI,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, ALLAHABAD

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

ITA 66/ALLD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad25 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

…ble to be deleted in all fairness as well as in the facts and circumstances of the case. That in this regard the assessee reply upon following decisions including the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Limited v. State of Orissa (83 ITR 36) where it was held that order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of quasi criminal proceeding and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately. The said order of Hon'ble Supreme Court was followed by various ITAT benches and copies of those decisions are enclos…

SMT. AMITA RAJVEDI,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, ALLAHABAD

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

ITA 65/ALLD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad25 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

…ble to be deleted in all fairness as well as in the facts and circumstances of the case. That in this regard the assessee reply upon following decisions including the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Limited v. State of Orissa (83 ITR 36) where it was held that order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of quasi criminal proceeding and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately. The said order of Hon'ble Supreme Court was followed by various ITAT benches and copies of those decisions are enclos…

SMT. AMITA RAJVEDI,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, ALLAHABAD

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

ITA 64/ALLD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad25 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

…ble to be deleted in all fairness as well as in the facts and circumstances of the case. That in this regard the assessee reply upon following decisions including the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Limited v. State of Orissa (83 ITR 36) where it was held that order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of quasi criminal proceeding and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately. The said order of Hon'ble Supreme Court was followed by various ITAT benches and copies of those decisions are enclos…

ITO 14(1)3, MUMBAI vs. ASHOKKUMAR M PARIKH, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4986/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 55(2)(a)

…e provisions of the Act or where the breach flows from a bona fide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute. Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa - (1972),83 ITR 26,29 (SC) Indra & Co. v. Union of India - (1967) 64 ITR 664, 667 (Raj) CIT v. Smt. Veerawali - (1976) 104 ITR 679 (Ori) The word “may” in section on 271`(1) indicates that the authority concerned has a discretion either to levy penalty or not to levy a penalty, for this proposition reliance was placed on following pronouncements. CIT vs. Maya Rani Punj – (1973) 92 ITR 394 (Del) Poorna Biscuit Factory v. CI…

ITO 14(1)3, MUMBAI vs. BHARATKUMAR M PARIKH, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4985/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 55(2)(a)

…e provisions of the Act or where the breach flows from a bona fide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute. Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa - (1972),83 ITR 26,29 (SC) Indra & Co. v. Union of India - (1967) 64 ITR 664, 667 (Raj) CIT v. Smt. Veerawali - (1976) 104 ITR 679 (Ori) The word “may” in section on 271`(1) indicates that the authority concerned has a discretion either to levy penalty or not to levy a penalty, for this proposition reliance was placed on following pronouncements. CIT vs. Maya Rani Punj – (1973) 92 ITR 394 (Del) Poorna Biscuit Factory v. CI…

ASHOKKUMAR MANEKLAL PARIKH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 14(1)(3),

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3709/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 55(2)(a)

…e provisions of the Act or where the breach flows from a bona fide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute. Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa - (1972),83 ITR 26,29 (SC) Indra & Co. v. Union of India - (1967) 64 ITR 664, 667 (Raj) CIT v. Smt. Veerawali - (1976) 104 ITR 679 (Ori) The word “may” in section on 271`(1) indicates that the authority concerned has a discretion either to levy penalty or not to levy a penalty, for this proposition reliance was placed on following pronouncements. CIT vs. Maya Rani Punj – (1973) 92 ITR 394 (Del) Poorna Biscuit Factory v. CI…

BHARTKUMAR MANEKLAL PARIKH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 14(1)(3),

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3708/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 55(2)(a)

…e provisions of the Act or where the breach flows from a bona fide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute. Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa - (1972),83 ITR 26,29 (SC) Indra & Co. v. Union of India - (1967) 64 ITR 664, 667 (Raj) CIT v. Smt. Veerawali - (1976) 104 ITR 679 (Ori) The word “may” in section on 271`(1) indicates that the authority concerned has a discretion either to levy penalty or not to levy a penalty, for this proposition reliance was placed on following pronouncements. CIT vs. Maya Rani Punj – (1973) 92 ITR 394 (Del) Poorna Biscuit Factory v. CI…

ASHOKKUMAR MANEKLAL PARIKH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 14(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 179/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 55(2)(a)

…e provisions of the Act or where the breach flows from a bona fide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute. Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa - (1972),83 ITR 26,29 (SC) Indra & Co. v. Union of India - (1967) 64 ITR 664, 667 (Raj) CIT v. Smt. Veerawali - (1976) 104 ITR 679 (Ori) The word “may” in section on 271`(1) indicates that the authority concerned has a discretion either to levy penalty or not to levy a penalty, for this proposition reliance was placed on following pronouncements. CIT vs. Maya Rani Punj – (1973) 92 ITR 394 (Del) Poorna Biscuit Factory v. CI…

BHARATKUMAR MANEKLAL PARIKH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 14(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1250/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 55(2)(a)

…e provisions of the Act or where the breach flows from a bona fide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute. Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa - (1972),83 ITR 26,29 (SC) Indra & Co. v. Union of India - (1967) 64 ITR 664, 667 (Raj) CIT v. Smt. Veerawali - (1976) 104 ITR 679 (Ori) The word “may” in section on 271`(1) indicates that the authority concerned has a discretion either to levy penalty or not to levy a penalty, for this proposition reliance was placed on following pronouncements. CIT vs. Maya Rani Punj – (1973) 92 ITR 394 (Del) Poorna Biscuit Factory v. CI…