How many judgments cite Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa?

502 judgments on BharatTax cite Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa (83 ITR 26), spanning 2011 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 273B, Section 142(1), Section 271(1)(b), Section 272A(1)(d), Section 143(2), Section 143(3).

Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa

83 ITR 26Supreme Court of India1972#134 most cited

What is Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa authority for?

An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation results from quasi-criminal proceedings. Penalty is not ordinarily imposed unless the party acted deliberately in defiance of law, was guilty of contumacious or dishonest conduct, or acted in conscious disregard of their obligation.

502

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 371,239 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Hindustan Steel Ltd v State of Orissa · 83 ITR 26 SC · levy of penalty · quasi-criminal proceedings · statutory obligation default · deliberate defiance · contumacious conduct · dishonest conduct · conscious disregard · section 271(1)(c) · section 272A · section 273B

Sections most often in play

Section 273B Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Issues it is cited on

section 273 section 273b section 272a section 271e section 271c section 271b section 271f section 271d section 271(1)(b)section 271aa levy of penalty section 271a

Judgments citing Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa

M/S Bnk Investments, Chandigarh vs. JCIT (TDS), Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1385/CHANDI/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan SinghFor Respondent: Shri Yogender Mittal,Sr.DR

Section 206ASection 272A(2)(k)

…es and so the contention of the Ld. Counsel that in the absence of loss to revenue, the penalty imposed has to be cancelled is without any merits. 5.7 The Ld. Counsel has relied upon the judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Hindustan Steel Ltd. (83 ITR 26) to support his view that the default was only of technical and venial in nature and the penalty should be imposed judiciously and has a bonafide belief that penalty is not leviable and flows from a bonafide belief that it is not liable. In the instant case, the penalty has been levied for not filing the TDS returns in time and the Assessing Office…

Manish Dhirajlal Popat, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 35(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as above

ITA 6871/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…d, we find that the assessee’s case that the same was voluntarily offered has considerable cogency. The assessee’s conduct cannot be said to be contumacious to warrant levy of penalty. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Vs. State of Orissa Vs. (83 ITR 26) had held that authority may not levy penalty if conduct of the assessee is not found to be contumacious. Hence with regard to penalty levied on addition interest on savings bank account, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and deleted the same. 13. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as above. Order has…

Shilpi Mehra, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 26(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5378/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 269SSection 271Section 271DSection 273BSection 275

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Amarjit Singh (JM) I.T.A. No. 5378/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2012-13) Shilpi Mehra ITO 26(3)(3) Vs. C/o. Jayesh Sanghrajka & Mumbai. Co. LLP, Chartered Accountants, Unit No. 405 Hind Rajasthan Centre D.S. Phalke Road, Dadar(E) Mumbai-400 014. PAN : ATFPS9865H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Harshvardhan Datar Department by Shri Ashish Kumar Date of Hearing 3.1.2019 Date of Pronouncement 27.3.2019 O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM) : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT(A) dat…

The Haldhar Foods(P) Ltd., Ferozpur Cantt vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-III(5), Ferozpur

In the result, the appeal i

ITA 59/ASR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. N.S.Saini & Sh. N.K.Choudhry

For Appellant: Sh. P.N. Arora (Ld. Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Yashender Garg (Ld. DR)

Section 250(6)Section 271Section 271BSection 44A

…furnished by the assessee to substantiate its claim that there was reasonable cause for failure to get the books of accounts audited as per provisions of section 44AB of the Income Tax Act 1961. iv) The case of M/s. Hindustan Steel Ltd., State of Orissa (1972)83 ITR 26: (1983)144 ITR 259(P&H) referred to in by the assessee also does not help the assessee as facts of these cases are different from that of assessee. In the instant case, the assessee failed to prove that there was ITA Nos.59 & 60 /Asr/2018 4 (A.Ys.2012-13 & 2013-14) Haldar Foods (P) Ltd. vs. ITO reasonable cause for failure to get its accounts a…

Shreeji Construction, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-30(3), Mumbai

In the result, assesse appeal is allowed

ITA 5400/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Asish Kumar

Section 271(1)(c)

…5400 & 5401/Mum/2017 Shreeji Construction adhoc disallowances is sustained only for non-appearance of suppliers before the AO. No contumacious conduct is attributable to the assesse. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd vs. State of Orissa 83 ITR 26 has expounded that the authorities can decline to levy of penalty if the conduct of the assessee is bonafide and has been not found to be contumacious. 13. In the facts and circumstances of the case in our considered opinion the assessee’s case doesn’t deserve the rigours of penalty under section 271(1)(c). Accordingly, we set aside the order’s…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Master Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1092/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. Karan Kumra, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1092/DEL/2016 A.Y. : 2011-12 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF VS. M/S MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE INCOME TAX, PVT. LTD. CENTRAL CIRCLE-04, NEW 509, INTERNATIONAL TRADE DELHI TOWER, (ERSTWHILE CC-25, NEW NEHRU PLACE, DELHI) NEW DELHI – 110 019 ROOM NO. 331, ARA CENTRE, (PAN: AAECM2740C) JHANDEWALAN EXTN., NEW DELHI (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) Revenue by : Mr. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR. Assessee by : Sh. Karan Kumra, CA ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM The Revenue has filed this Appeal agai…

Dr. Sunil Khosla, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 182/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishia.Y. : 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 54F

…e the penalty u/s 271(1)(c). This is clearly not the intendment of legislature. 7.3 We further place reliance from the Apex Court decision rendered by a larger Bench comprising of three of their Lordships in the case of Hindustan Steel vs. State of Orissa in 83 ITR 26 wherein it was held that “An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal proceedings, and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of…

Alok Ranjan Dash, Prop: M/S. Dash Communications, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward-5(3), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 198/CTK/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack06 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri Biraja Keshari Kanungo, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

Section 44A

…efinitely due to a reasonable cause and the case is covered under the provisions of section 273B of the Act. 12. It is well settled principle of law as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs State of P a g e 7 | 9 Orissa, 83 ITR 26(SC), that penalty proceedings are quasi- criminal in nature and it must be brought on record by the Assessing Officer that the assessee has deliberately acted in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contemptuous or dishonest but in the reasoning given by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order, nothing has been mentioned. Therefore, I a…

Alok Ranjan Dash, Prop: M/S. Dash Communications, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward-5(3), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 139/CTK/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack06 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri Biraja Keshari Kanungo, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

Section 44A

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Smt. Sravanthi Koduru, New Delhi

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6796/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Shiv Mahajan, CA, Ms. Jyoti Saxena, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar Dora, Sr.DR

Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

…unit was not habitable. 6.1 Further, it is also a settled law that penalty is not automatically leviable in each and every case where the quantum addition has been confirmed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa 83 ITR 26, had laid down the position of law by holding that the Assessing Officer is not bound to levy penalty automatically simply because the quantum addition has been sustained. Also in case of CIT v. Khoday Eswara (83 ITR 369) (SC), incidentally reported in same ITR Volume, it is held that penalty cannot be levied solely on basis of reasons given in…

M/S. Rambhojo'S, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

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

ITA 991/JPR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT)

Section 119Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 271A

…conduct contumacious or dishonest, or has not acted in conscious disregard of its obligation, penalty cannot be levied. In this regard, attention was drawn towards the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Hindustan Steels Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa, 83 ITR 26 (SC) wherein it was held as under: “An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal proceeding and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged, either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disrega…

Suresh Dutt Malhotra, Panipat vs. ACIT, Panipat

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2575/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Adv., Shri V. Rajkumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Sr. DR

Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(ii)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54BSection 54F(1)

…ificate of Tehsildar was incorrect. It was prayed that the penalty deserved to be upheld. 5.0 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa 83 ITR 26, had laid down the position of law by holding that the Assessing Officer is not bound to levy penalty automatically simply because the quantum addition has been sustained. Also in case of CIT v. Khoday Eswara (83 ITR 369) (SC), incidentally reported in same ITR Volume, it is held that penalty cannot be levied solely on 6 Assessment year 2007-08…

DCIT, Cir-3(2), Port Blair vs. Andaman & Nicobar State Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Port Blair

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 576/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2012-13 Dcit, Circle-3(2), Mb- V/S. Andaman & Nicobar State 210, Shaidpur, Port Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Blair-74416 Ma Road, Phoenix Bay, Port Blair-744101 [Pan No.Aaajt 1043 Q] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Saurbh Kumar, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant None ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 15-11-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 30-11-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 Kolkata’S Order Dated 09.12.2016 Passed In Case No.1775/Cia-1/Circle-3(2)P.B/2014-15 Reviving Assessing Officer’S Action Imposing Penalty Of ¤56,31,415/- In Proceeding U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Case Called Twice. None Appears At Assessee’S Behest. It Is Accordingly Proceed Ex Parte Against Assessee In The Instant Case. 2. The Revenue’S Sole Substantive Ground Pleaded In This Instant Appeal Seeks To Revive The Assessing Officer’S Action Imposing Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of ₹56,31,415/- In His Order Dated 26.08.2015 As Reversed In The Cit(A)’S Order Under Challenge As Follows:- “I Have Considered The A.O'S Finding & Perused The Written Submission Along With The Assessment Order. The A.O. Had Impose The Penalty Under Section

Section 271(1)(c)Section 36

…difference of opinion but nothing to do with the concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income, The Appellant has also relied upon the judgemtn of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa 83 ITR 26, wherein it was held that the Assessing Officer is not bound to levy penalty automatically simply because the quantum addition has been sustained. Also in case of CIT v. KhodayEswara (83 ITR 369)(SC) reported in same ITR Volume, it is held that Penalty cannot be levied solely on basis of reasons given in original order of assessment. The hon'ble Su…

Jayanti Dalmia, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3926/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar BindalFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Rana, CIT DR

Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)

…formation exchange. In view of this the reliance by the Ld. authorized representative on this decision is incorrect. e. In the end the assessee has placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M/s Hindustan steel Ltd versus state of Orissa 83 ITR 26 (SC). We have carefully considered the rival contentions with respect to the applicability of this decision. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that an order-imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi- criminal proceedings and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted…

The Board of Control for Cricket in India, Mumbai vs. ACIT (TDS) 2, Mumbai

In the result , the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1999/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1999/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) बिाम/ The Board Of Control For Acit (Tds) 2 Cricket In India, R.No. 701, 7 Th Floor, Wankhede Stadium, Smt. K.G. Mittal V. “D” Road, Churchgate, Ayurvedic Hospital Mumbai 400020 Bldg., Charni Road, Mumbai-400002 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaatb0186A (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Nitesh Joshi Shri. Anil Sathe Revenue By : Shri. D.G Pansari , Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.10.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 1999/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Date 10.01.2017 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-60, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2011-12, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Penalty Order Dated 16.12.2011 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 272A(2)(K) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2011-12. I.T.A. No.1999/Mum/2017

For Appellant: Shri. Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri. D.G Pansari , DR

Section 200(3)Section 206Section 272Section 272A(2)Section 272A(2)(k)Section 273B

…on period. Even otherwise, default committed by the assessee was technical and venial for which no penalty should have been imposed. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26 . 4.1 There is no dispute that the quarterly statements were filed, of course, late by certain days. There is also no dispute that the tax was deducted and was paid to the credit of Government in time. I find substance in the above submissions of Shri R.N. Shukla, learned counsel for the assessee that quarterly statements could not be filed for the…

Dr. Prakash D.Samant, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 3(2), Mumbai

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed

ITA 1166/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhdr. Prakash D. Samant Dcit, Cc-3(2) 1St Floor, Sundara Narayan Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, Niwas, Padmavati Road, Opp. Iit Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Gate, Powai, Mumbai-400076. Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaeps0065P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Hari S. Raheja (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Love Kumar (Dr)

For Appellant: Shri Hari S. Raheja (AR)For Respondent: Shri Love Kumar (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 253Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 275Section 45

…Furthermore the conduct of assessee cannot be held to be contumacious so as to warrant levy of penalty. This proposition is supported by the decision rendered by the larger bench of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of the Hindustan Steel Ltd versus state of Orissa 83 ITR 26.” 7. Further the coordinate bench in Indian Extraction Ltd (supra) on similar facts held as under: “ 6. Having heard both the sides, we find merits in the arguments of the assessee for the regions that the infection provided under section 50C for computation of capital gain cannot be extended to the provisions of section 271(1)(c) so as to 5 I…

District Excise Office, Rajasthan Sarkar, Excise Department, Karauli vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-TDS, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 547/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri K.C. Meena (Addl.CIT)

Section 200(3)Section 272(2)(K)Section 272A(2)(K)Section 272A(2)(k)

…mistake of the assessee shall be regarded as an explanation U/s ITA 547/JP/2018_ 4 District Excise Office Vs JCIT 273B of the Act. The ld AR has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) as well as the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Rajasthan Tribal Area Development Cooperative Federation Ltd. Vs ITO 60 TTJ 427 (JP Trib) and submitted that when the assessee has otherwise complied the statutory obligation and non-filing of quarterly statement is only a technical default, which is due to inad…

M/S. Haryana Distillery Ltd., Haryana vs. JCIT, Karnal

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 1643/DEL/2015[2011-12 (F.Y. 2010-11)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2018

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Yadav, Sr. D.R

Section 200(3)Section 272A(2)(k)

…nalty for any venial or technical breach of provisions. Bonafide mistake and plausible reasons cause penalty proceedings to be dropped. The assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd., vs. State of Orissa 83 ITR 26 (SC). The belated filing of the Forms has not caused any damage or detriment to the Revenue. The taxes by way of TCS/TDS have been duly deducted and deposited in time and details have been duly given to the deductee. So, no loss is caused to the Revenue. In the absence of details furnished by 5 ITA.Nos.1642 & 1643/Del./2015 M/s. Haryana Distillery…

M/S. Haryana Distillery Ltd., Haryana vs. JCIT, Karnal

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 1642/DEL/2015[2010-11 (F.Y. 2009-10)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2018

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Yadav, Sr. D.R

Section 200(3)Section 272A(2)(k)

M/S.Robust Transportation Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3195/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani KumarFor Respondent: Shri R. P. Meena

Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

…isconduct on the part of the assessee. Hence, it was submitted that no penalty is leviable in its case. The assessee has relied on various case laws including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26 (SC), the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC), and the case of Price Water House Coopers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata -1(2012) (25 Taxman.com 400, SC). 7. However, the A.O. was not satisfied. He noted that during the assessment proceedings it was noticed that the…