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 371,127 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 273BSection 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 273section 273bsection 272asection 271esection 271csection 271bsection 271fsection 271dsection 271(1)(b)section 271aalevy of penaltysection 271a

Judgments citing Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa

M/S. Chintels India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3793/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasstt. Year: 2008-09 Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Asstt. Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Chandra Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271(1)

…provisions. Ld. DR prayed for total confirmation of penalty relying on orders of lower authorities. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material 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 basis of reasons given in o…

M/S. Chintels India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3792/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasstt. Year: 2008-09 Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Asstt. Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Chandra Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271(1)

…provisions. Ld. DR prayed for total confirmation of penalty relying on orders of lower authorities. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material 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 basis of reasons given in o…

M/S. Chintels India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3791/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasstt. Year: 2008-09 Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Asstt. Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Chandra Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271(1)

…provisions. Ld. DR prayed for total confirmation of penalty relying on orders of lower authorities. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material 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 basis of reasons given in o…

Anilkumar Shroff, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result this appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2015/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Kumar Yadav
Section 10Section 271

…belief of the assessee cannot be held to be contumacious warranting levy of penalty u/s. 271 (1) C. For this proposition we place reliance upon the decision of a larger bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of a Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa 83 ITR 26 6. In the background of aforesaid discussion and precedent we set aside the order’s of authorities below and delete the levy of penalty. In the result this appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed Order pronounced in the Open Court on 16.03.2017 RAVISH SOOD SHAMIM YAHIYA JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Anil Kumar Shroff ITA no.2015/Mum./2…

Abhilasha C.H.S. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result this appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5652/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Kumar Yadav
Section 271Section 80Section 80P

…is also exempt u/s. 80P cannot be said to be contumacies so as to warrant levy of penalty u/s. 271 (1) (C) of I.T. Act. Our this view is fortified by the decision of a larger bench of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orrisa 83 ITR 26. 6. Accordingly we set aside the order of authorities below and delete the levy of penalty. In the result this appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 16.03.2017 RAVISH SOOD SHAMIM YAHIYA JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Abhilasha C.H.S. Ltd., ITA no.5652/Mum./2013 MUMBAI, DATED: 16.03.2017 Copy of…

The Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Jaipur vs. Jdit(I & Ci), Jaipur

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

ITA 133/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2017AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri P.P. Meena (CIT)
Section 133(6)Section 272A(2)(c)

…ssessee including the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Superintending Engineer, P.W.D., Udaipur (supra), wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held as under:- “The Apex Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26 has observed that 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 disregard of its obligatio…

Kavita K. Salian, Mumbai vs. ITO 20(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result this appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 6149/MUM/2013[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2017AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Kumar Yadav
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…ita K. Salian ITA no.6149/Mum./2013 This is totally against the exposition of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petro product. Furthermore we note that a larger bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan steel Ltd vs State of Orissa 83 ITR 26 had expounded that penalty need not be levied if the conduct of the assessee is not found to be contumacious. In the facts and circumstances of this case in our considered opinion the assessee's conduct is not contumacious to warrant levy of penalty. 7. Accordingly in the background of aforesaid discussion and precedent's we set aside the order's o…

DCIT, CC-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Trans Freight Containers Ltd., Mumbai

In the result this appeal by the revenue is stands dismissed

ITA 2337/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sanjay Garg

For Respondent: Shir. Mihir Shah
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 50c

…be contumacious so as to warrant levy of Trans Freight Containers Ltd. ITA No. 2337/Mum. /2016 penalty. This proposition is also supported by the decision rendered by the larger bench of Hon’ble apex court in the case of Hindustan steel Ltd vs state of Orissa 83 ITR 26. 9. In the background of aforesaid discussion and precedents we do not find any infirmity in the order of learned CIT-A. Accordingly we uphold the same. In the result this appeal by the revenue is stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 24.02.2017 SANJAY GARG SHAMIM YAHIYA JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 24 .02.…

Vishal M. Chhabria, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 11(1), Mumbai

In the result this appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2762/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri. Darshan Gandhi
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 274(1)(c)

…er more the conduct of the assessee cannot be held to be contumacious so as to warrant levy of penalty. This proposition is also supported by the decision rendered by the larger bench of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan steel Ltd vs state of Orissa 83 ITR 26. The decision of apex court in the case of Dharmendra Textile referred by Ld. CIT-A does not support the case of revenue at all. 9. In the background of aforesaid discussion and precedents we set aside the order of authorities below & delete the penalty. Vishal M. Chhabria ITA No. 2762/Mum. /2015 In the result this appeal by the assessee stands a…

Krishna Kumar Gupta, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 819/JPR/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Feb 2017AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Tanuj Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai, DCIT- DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…relied on following case laws to this effect. 1. Cement Marketing Co. of India Ltd. vs. Asstt. CST (1980) 124 ITR 15 (SC) 2. Motilal Padampati Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. vs. State of U.P> (1979), 118 ITR 326 (SC) 3. Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1972)83 ITR 26 (SC) 4. CIT vs. R.K. Golecha 173 ITR 423 (Raj.) 5. Dilip N Shroff vs. JCIT (2007) 291 ITR 519 (SC) 6. CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts pvtltd (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) 7. Price Waterhouse Coopers (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC) 8. CIT vs. Hiralal Doshi (ITA No. 2331/2013 dated 9-02-2016 (Bom) Hence, taking into consideration all the facts,…

M/S. Cosmos Fiber Glass Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3486/DEL/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu

For Appellant: DR. RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, ADV. &For Respondent: SH. F.R. MEENA, SR. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…he penalty u/s 271(1)(c). This is clearly not the intendment of legislature. 10.3 I 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…

DCIT 8(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Vinamra Universal Traders P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 2018/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain Dy. C.I.T. – 8(3)(2) M/S. Vinamra Universal Room No. 615, 6Th Floor Traders Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Jai Centre, 1St Floor Mumbai 400020 34, P. D’Mello Rd., Opp. Red Gate Mumbai 400009 Pan – Aaccv5090J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. S. Padmaja & Shri S.K. PodarFor Respondent: Shri Vijaya Mehta & Shri Govind Javeri
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 94(7)

…ed. For the same, they relied upon the decision given in the case of 124 ITR 15 - Cement Marketing Co. of India Ltd. (SC), 168 ITR 705 (SC) (Sir Shadilal Sugar & Gen, Mills Ltd. v/s. CIT), 211 ITR 35 (Orissa High Court), Hindustan Steel v/s. State of Orissa - 83 ITR 26 (SC), CIT vs. Smt. Bimladevi Sharma - 192 ITR 482 (Parna), CIT vs Bombay Pipe Traders - 213 ITR 282 (Born), ACIT vs. Kalpaka Baxar - 46 ITD 221 - ITAT Cochin Bench, Addl. CIT vs. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. 1986 (157) - ITR 0822 DEL, 181 ITR 410 (MP) (1990) 6 M/s. Vinamra Universal Traders Pvt. Ltd. J.K. Jajoo vs. CIT, 190 ITR 402 (All) (…

Jaikrishna D Pathak, Mumbai vs. CIT(A) 24, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 945/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Bhuvaneswari ShankarFor Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Ojha
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271E

…der : "6. I have carefully considered the conspectus of this matter and facts on record. No loss of revenue has occurred in this case and the genuineness of the transaction has not been doubted. The apex court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26 had long ago settled the law that penalty is not to be ordinarily imposed unless the party either acted deliberately in defiance of law and was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest or acted 8 M/s. Jaikrishna D Pathak Vs.CIT(A)24 in conscious disregard of its obligations. Penalty will also not be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so.…

Abdul Amzad Ali Khan, Khurda vs. I, Khurda

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

ITA 40/CTK/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack03 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year : 2009-2010

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 271BSection 44A

…t in the return of income filed by the assessee and, therefore, the assessee is not exigible to penalty u/s.271B of the Act. My above view finds support from the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) whereby Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:- "Even if a minimum penalty is prescribed, the authority competent to impose the penalty will be justified in refusing to impose penalty when there is a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act or were the breach flows from a bona fide belief that the offender is not liable to act…

Mohit Diamonds P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2998/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 2998/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08,) M/S. Mohit Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. Acit 5(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Bc-7011, Bharat Diamond Bourse, M.K. Road, बनाम/ G-Bolck, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 020 Vs. Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacm2843A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri B.V. JhaveriFor Respondent: Miss. Anupama Singh
Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 2998/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08,) M/s. Mohit Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. ACIT 5(1), Aayakar Bhavan, BC-7011, Bharat Diamond Bourse, M.K. Road, बनाम/ G-Bolck, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 020 Vs. Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AAACM2843A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri B.V. Jhaveri ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Miss. Anupama Singh सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 06/09/2016 Dat…

Havistha Steel Fab P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. TRO (TDS) RG 1, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 341/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Havistha Steel Fab P. Ltd., Addl. Commissioner Of It 302, Oxford, Swapana Nagari, (Tds), Range-1, Yogi Hills, Vs. Mumbai Mulund, Mumbai - 400080 Pan: Aaach6987Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri M. Subramanian, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar Soni, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2016 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Soni, D.R
Section 272A(2)(k)

…tion the penalty was deleted in the 3 M/s. Havistha Steel Fab P. Ltd. case of Rajasthan Tribal Area Development Cooperative Federation Ltd. (supra) by following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (83 ITR 26) holding as under: “4. After considering the submission from both the sides, and having gone through the orders of the lower authorities, we have noticed that there is no default on the part of the appellant either in deducting the tax at source or in depositing the same into Govt. account. This fact has not been disputed even by the learned Depart…

Raza Paper Mart, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT (TDS) RG 3, Mumbai

In the result, these three appeals are allowed

ITA 3790/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Raza Paper Mart, Addl. Cit (Tds) Rg 3 Shop No.3, Opp. Atlanta बनाम/Vs. Mumbai- Indl. Estate, G.M. Link, Rd, Ett Bhatti Geregaon (E) Mumbai-400063 (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No. Mumr19395F Appellant By Shri Bhupendra Shah (Ar) Revenue By Shri B.S. Bist (Dr) सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: 31/10/2016

Section 272ASection 272A(2)Section 272A(2)(k)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,D,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI "ी संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"वनी तनेजा, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member, and Shri Ashwani Taneja, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Raza Paper Mart, Addl. CIT (TDS) RG 3 Shop No.3, Opp. Atlanta बनाम/Vs. Mumbai- Indl. Estate, G.M. Link, RD, ETT Bhatti Geregaon (E) Mumbai-400063 (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No. MUMR19395F Appellant by Shri Bhupendra Shah (AR) Revenue by Shri B.S. Bist (DR) सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hea…

Powertel India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 8(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6384/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. R.C.Sharma & Sh. Pawan Singh

Section 143(3)Section 253Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 37(1)

…he ld AR of the assessee further relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in UOI Vs Rajasthan spinning and weaving Mills (2009) 23 DTR 158, CIT versus Reliance Petro Product Private Limited 322 ITR 158 and Hindustani Steel Ltd Versus the State of Orissa 83 ITR 26. On the other hand the learned DR for the revenue strongly supported the order of authorities below. We have considered the rival contention of the ld AT for the parties and 4. considered the material available on record. The assessee furnished all the particulars of income all the details in the return of income. Since the assessee was not allowed…

Turbo Travels India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT (TDS) RG 3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4961/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4961/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/S Turbo Travels India Pvt. The Additional बनाम/ Ltd., Commissioner Of Income V. 105, Doctor House, Tax – (Tds), Pedder Road, Range 3, Mumbai -400026. 10 Th Floor, Smt. K.G. Mittal Ayurvedic Hospital Bldg., Charni Road, Mumbai – 400002. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact 4767 G .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande
Section 2Section 200(3)Section 272ASection 272A(2)(k)

…nt and the assessee has not benefitted from this technical breach in filing TDS return late with the Department. In support, the ld. Counsel placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa,(1972) 83 ITR 26(SC). The learned counsel also relied upon Hon’ble Gujarat High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Harsiddh Construction (P) Ltd., (2000) 244 ITR 417(Guj.) and also the decision of the ITAT, Chandigarh Bench in the case of Corporation Bank v. JCIT in ITA No. 161/Chd/2015 , whereby the facts were identical and the penalty was deleted. The ld. Couns…

Meriton Infotech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1250/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No. 1250/Del/2012 (Assessment Year-2007-08)

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

…e has claimed for increasing authorised capital was deleted relying on the following judgments: (i) Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT(A) 348 ITR 306 (ii) CIT(A) Vs. Societex ITA No. 1190/2011 Delhi High Court (iii) Hindustan Steel Vs. State of Orissa 83 ITR 26 (SC) 8. The Ld. DR relied on the order of the CIT(A). 9. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. It is pertinent to note that the assessee never concealed or filed inaccurate particulars. After knowing that there was mistake on part of the Chartered Accountant, the assessee rectified the same. A revised statement of assessable inc…