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.

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 26)

Rani Grover, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT (TDS) RG 3, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for all three assessment years are allowed

ITA 6334/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah (AR)For Respondent: Shri K.C. Kanojia (DR)

Section 197Section 253Section 272ASection 272A(2)(k)

…) that the breach of provisions by the assessee by filing the quarterly statements with certain delay was a technical or venial breach of law only. Keeping in view the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v State of Orissa 83 ITR 26 (SC) and the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Harsiddh Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CI?T 244 ITR 417 (Guj), we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Therefore, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.” 6. In the present case neither the order of AO nor ld. C…

Rohit Lalit Sanghavi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG (3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 5252/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Ms. Rutuja N. PawarFor Respondent: Shri. Nitin Waghmode

Section 206Section 271Section 271ASection 271BSection 271CSection 271DSection 271ESection 271FSection 271GSection 271H

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri. Rohit Lalit Sanghavi. The ACIT Range (3), (Prop. Of Lalit Kalamandir), Mumbai. Swadeshi Market, 48 Hammi Gaili, Kalbadevi Road, Vs. Mumbai- 400 002. PAN:- AAGPS3917E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Ms. Rutuja N. Pawar. Respondent by : Shri. Nitin Waghmode. Date of Hearing: 19/07/2016 Date of Pronouncement: 28/09/2016 O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM This appeal has been filed by the assessee against order dated 15/05/2014 passed by the Ld. CIT(Appe…

Durgapur Steel Peoples, Coopertative Bank Ltd, Burdwan vs. D.I.T (Intelligence & Criminal Investigation), Kolkata

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

ITA 1322/KOL/2013[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Sept 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

Section 271Section 271FSection 285B

…hold that the assessee knew or ought to have known the correct law and comply therewith, even though, in fact, he was not aware of the provisions. 7. It is well established by the decision of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26 that the liability to pay penalty does not arise merely upon proof of default in complying with the statutory requirements and an order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation being the result of a quasi-criminal proceeding, will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law…

Korpus Financial Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT C C 44, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4324/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shir Rajendra & Shri Shri C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta Nos.4324 To 4328/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Korpus Financial The Dcit, C.C.-44, बनाम/ Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Vs. 16,Gundecha Chambers, N.M. Road,Fort, Mumbai-400 023 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aacck 4562A .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Manjunatha Swamy

For Appellant: Shri NeelkanthFor Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271BSection 271FSection 273

…ay was on account of reasonable grounds and does not warranted levy of penalty u/s. 271B r.w. Sec. 273. 5.1. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd., Vs State of Orissa (83 ITR 26) submits that levy of penalty is not automatic. The Assessing Officer has the discretion to impose penalty and such discretion is to be exercised judiciously and no penalty should be imposed where there is a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that here there is a reasonable cause within…

M/S. M.G. Contractors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Faridabad

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

ITA 7034/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. P.C. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. DAM Kanunjna, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…be placed on the decision of Hon‟ble Hyderabad Bench in the case of K. Dheedar Ahmed reported in 97 ITD 240(Hyd) wherein the Hon‟ble Bench after referring to the decision of Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs State of Orrisa reported in 83 ITR 26(SC) has held that “at least in some exceptional cases, discretion vested in the officer should be used to drop proceedings”. A reference can also be made to the decision of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Maya Rani Reported in 92 ITR 394(Del), wherein it has been held by the Jurisdictional High Court that word „may‟ used in section 2…

DCIT, Central Circle - XI, Kolkata vs. Shri Harish Kumar Sarawgi, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1496/KOL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A Nos. 1222 To 1226/Kol/2011 Assessment Years: 2003-04 To 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri D. S. Damle, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…he statements recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act. 6 ITA No.1222-1226/Kol/2011 & ITA No.1496-1499/K/2011, AY 2003-04-2007-08 Harish Kumar Sarawgi 5.2. The ld AR argued that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindusthan Steel vs State of Orissa reported in 83 ITR 26 (SC) had held that penalty should not be levied on an assessee merely because a statute contains a provision for levy of penalty. Unless the conduct of an assessee is contumacious or unless the deliberateness is involved in assessee’s act of defiance of a statutory provision, penalty should not be imposed. The ld AR further stated that the Hon’ble…

Harish Kumar Sarawgi, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - XI, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1222/KOL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A Nos. 1222 To 1226/Kol/2011 Assessment Years: 2003-04 To 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri D. S. Damle, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…he statements recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act. 6 ITA No.1222-1226/Kol/2011 & ITA No.1496-1499/K/2011, AY 2003-04-2007-08 Harish Kumar Sarawgi 5.2. The ld AR argued that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindusthan Steel vs State of Orissa reported in 83 ITR 26 (SC) had held that penalty should not be levied on an assessee merely because a statute contains a provision for levy of penalty. Unless the conduct of an assessee is contumacious or unless the deliberateness is involved in assessee’s act of defiance of a statutory provision, penalty should not be imposed. The ld AR further stated that the Hon’ble…

Glassworks Trading P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 44, Mumbai

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

ITA 6502/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Ra0 & Shri C.N. Prasad, आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta Nos. 6502 & 6503/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/S. Glassworks Trading The Dcit, Central Circle-44, बनाम/ Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 16, Gundecha Chambers, Mumbai-400 020 N.M. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 023 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcg 6227H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Shri Rajiv Khandelwal ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Airiju Jaikaran

For Appellant: Shri NeelkanthFor Respondent: Shri Airiju Jaikaran

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

…submitted that there were 8 assessees in the group and total 55 search assessments were in progress hence there was minor delay in submission of the details. The assessee placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan (83 ITR 26) submitted that penalty is not leviable for technical and venial breach and there is no willfull attempt to not comply with the notices. . 3. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the Assessing Officer rejecting the explanation of the assessee and by observing that the assessee miserably failed to comply with the notices issued from time t…

Korpus Financial Services P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 44, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 4640/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Nidhi Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Santanu Kumar Saikia

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)

…ion of principle of natural justice on the part of the Revenue. It is noted that the Tribunal in the aforesaid order dated 18/02/2016 has made an elaborate discussion on identical fact including the decision from Hon’ble Apex Court in M/s Hindustan Steel Ltd. 83 ITR 26 and the case of the assessee Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust vs ADIT 115 TTJ 419 (Del.). If we exclude the Saturday and Sunday, falling within the given time in the notice, time taken for dispatch and delivery of the notice hardly two or three days left with the assessee. It is noted that the ld. A…

Korpus Financial Services P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 44, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 4639/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Nidhi Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Santanu Kumar Saikia

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)

…ion of principle of natural justice on the part of the Revenue. It is noted that the Tribunal in the aforesaid order dated 18/02/2016 has made an elaborate discussion on identical fact including the decision from Hon’ble Apex Court in M/s Hindustan Steel Ltd. 83 ITR 26 and the case of the assessee Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust vs ADIT 115 TTJ 419 (Del.). If we exclude the Saturday and Sunday, falling within the given time in the notice, time taken for dispatch and delivery of the notice hardly two or three days left with the assessee. It is noted that the ld. A…

Korpus Financial Services P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 44, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 4638/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Nidhi Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Santanu Kumar Saikia

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)

…ion of principle of natural justice on the part of the Revenue. It is noted that the Tribunal in the aforesaid order dated 18/02/2016 has made an elaborate discussion on identical fact including the decision from Hon’ble Apex Court in M/s Hindustan Steel Ltd. 83 ITR 26 and the case of the assessee Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust vs ADIT 115 TTJ 419 (Del.). If we exclude the Saturday and Sunday, falling within the given time in the notice, time taken for dispatch and delivery of the notice hardly two or three days left with the assessee. It is noted that the ld. A…

Korpus Financial Services P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 44, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 4637/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Nidhi Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Santanu Kumar Saikia

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)

…ion of principle of natural justice on the part of the Revenue. It is noted that the Tribunal in the aforesaid order dated 18/02/2016 has made an elaborate discussion on identical fact including the decision from Hon’ble Apex Court in M/s Hindustan Steel Ltd. 83 ITR 26 and the case of the assessee Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust vs ADIT 115 TTJ 419 (Del.). If we exclude the Saturday and Sunday, falling within the given time in the notice, time taken for dispatch and delivery of the notice hardly two or three days left with the assessee. It is noted that the ld. A…

Korpus Financial Services P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 44, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 4636/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Nidhi Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Santanu Kumar Saikia

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)

…ion of principle of natural justice on the part of the Revenue. It is noted that the Tribunal in the aforesaid order dated 18/02/2016 has made an elaborate discussion on identical fact including the decision from Hon’ble Apex Court in M/s Hindustan Steel Ltd. 83 ITR 26 and the case of the assessee Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust vs ADIT 115 TTJ 419 (Del.). If we exclude the Saturday and Sunday, falling within the given time in the notice, time taken for dispatch and delivery of the notice hardly two or three days left with the assessee. It is noted that the ld. A…

Korpus Financial Services P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 44, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 4635/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Nidhi Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Santanu Kumar Saikia

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)

…ion of principle of natural justice on the part of the Revenue. It is noted that the Tribunal in the aforesaid order dated 18/02/2016 has made an elaborate discussion on identical fact including the decision from Hon’ble Apex Court in M/s Hindustan Steel Ltd. 83 ITR 26 and the case of the assessee Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust vs ADIT 115 TTJ 419 (Del.). If we exclude the Saturday and Sunday, falling within the given time in the notice, time taken for dispatch and delivery of the notice hardly two or three days left with the assessee. It is noted that the ld. A…

Korpus Financial Services P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 44, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 4634/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Nidhi Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Santanu Kumar Saikia

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)

…ion of principle of natural justice on the part of the Revenue. It is noted that the Tribunal in the aforesaid order dated 18/02/2016 has made an elaborate discussion on identical fact including the decision from Hon’ble Apex Court in M/s Hindustan Steel Ltd. 83 ITR 26 and the case of the assessee Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust vs ADIT 115 TTJ 419 (Del.). If we exclude the Saturday and Sunday, falling within the given time in the notice, time taken for dispatch and delivery of the notice hardly two or three days left with the assessee. It is noted that the ld. A…

Harikishan Dass Ramkishan, Kolkata vs. I.T.O WD - 45(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as stated above

ITA 1887/KOL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri P.M.Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri B.C. Jain, FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Snehtpal Datta, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 197A(2)Section 263Section 272A(2)(f)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA Before : Shri P.M.Jagtap, Accountant Member and Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member I.T.A No. 1887/Kol/2013 A.Y : 2007-08 Harikishan Dass Ramkishan Vs. I.T.O Ward 45(4), Kolkata PAN: AACFH 0436M (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant/assessee : Shri B.C. Jain, FCA, ld.AR For the Respondent/department: Shri Snehtpal Datta, JCIT, Sr.DR Date of Hearing: 07-06-2016 Date of Pronouncement: 05-08-2016 ORDER SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM This appeal of the assessee against the order dated 21-05-2013 of the CIT, Kolkata-IV, Kolkata confirming…

Malda District Central Co Operative Bank Ltd, Malda vs. D.I.T (I&Ci), Kolkata

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

ITA 956/KOL/2013[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Aug 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT

Section 271Section 271FSection 285B

…old that the assessee knew or ought to have known the correct law and comply therewith, even though, in fact, he was not aware of the provisions. 7. It is well established by the decision of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26 that the liability to pay penalty does not arise merely upon proof of default in complying with the statutory requirements and an order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation being the result of a quasi-criminal proceeding, will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law…

Shah Pratap Industries P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 44, Mumbai

In the result, all above seven appeals filed the Assessee are allowed

ITA 4643/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & C.N. Prasadआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.Ita.S./4643To4649/Mum/2014 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 To 2011-2012 वष" M/S. Shah Pratap Industries Pvt. Dcit, Cc-44 Room No.656, 6Th Floor, Ltd. 16, Gundecha Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road Vs. Nm Road, Fort Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400 023. Pan:Aaacs5494D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By:- Shri Sanjeev Kashyap-Dr Assessee By: Ms. Nidhi Patel सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26.07.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 03.08.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम, 1961 अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" क" धारा धारा धारा केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आदेश ( 1 ) 254 Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am - अनुसार Challenging The Order,Dtd.13.05.14,Of The Cit(A)-38,Mumbai, The Assessee Has Filed Appeals For The Above Mentioned Seven Ay.S.As The Issue Involved In All The Appeals Are Common,So We Are Disposing Them Off By A Consolidated Order. Effective Goa For All The Years Is Upholding The Levy Of Penalty,Imposed By The Ao,U/S.271(1)(B) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Ms. Nidhi PatelFor Respondent: - Shri Sanjeev Kashyap-DR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(b)

…t that assessment order was framed u/s 143(3) and not u/s 144, and therefore, it was not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(b). In support of her arguments, she relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Hindustan Steel Ltd. 83 ITR 26 and judgment of Honb’le Delhi Bench ITAT in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhavan Trust vs. ADIT 115 TTJ 419 (Del.) In nutshell she submitted that the penalty order passed by the AO was unfair and factually incorrect, unjustified and contrary to law and facts, and therefore, penalty levied by the AO should be deleted. 3.2. Per…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Air Liquide North Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 736/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhua.Y. : 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. A Srinivasa Rao, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271C

…ult in double taxation. The matter is supported by the decision of jurisdictional high court in the case of Woodward. Governor India Ltd. Vs CIT (2002) 253 ITR 745 Del and that of the Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26(SC). The assessee was under a bonafide belief that since he has been hit under the provisions of section 40(a)(i), he need not deposit the tax so deducted. However as his financial position improved he did deposit the TDS alongwith the interest thereon. Copy of challan 6 evidencing the payment of TDS is enclosed for reference. 8. Further, in t…

DCIT (TDS), Gurgaon vs. The Sonipat Central Co-Op Bank Ltd., Sonepat

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 706/DEL/2015[2011-12 (F.Y. 2010-11)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Aug 2016

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhua.Y. : 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. A Srinivasa Rao, Sr. DR

Section 1Section 133ASection 194ASection 197ASection 201(1)Section 206A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC-3”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER A.Y. : 2011-12 DCIT(TDS), GURGAON vs. THE SONIPAT CENTRAL COOP BANK LIMITED, TIKA RAM ROAD, SONIPAT (HARYANA) (PAN: RTKT01805G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Department by : Sh. A Srinivasa Rao, Sr. DR Assessee by : Sh. Gautam Jain, CA Date of Hearing : 11-07-2016 Date of Order : 02-08-2016 O R D E R PER H.S. SIDHU, JM This appeal is filed by the Revenue is directed against the Order dated 25.11.2014 of the Ld. CIT(A)-, Rohtak relevant to assessment year 2010-11 on the following grounds:- “1. That the…

Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa

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

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa

Rani Grover, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT (TDS) RG 3, Mumbai

Rohit Lalit Sanghavi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG (3), Mumbai

Durgapur Steel Peoples, Coopertative Bank Ltd, Burdwan vs. D.I.T (Intelligence & Criminal Investigation), Kolkata

Korpus Financial Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT C C 44, Mumbai

M/S. M.G. Contractors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Faridabad

DCIT, Central Circle - XI, Kolkata vs. Shri Harish Kumar Sarawgi, Kolkata

Harish Kumar Sarawgi, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - XI, Kolkata

Glassworks Trading P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 44, Mumbai

Korpus Financial Services P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 44, Mumbai

Korpus Financial Services P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 44, Mumbai

Korpus Financial Services P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 44, Mumbai

Korpus Financial Services P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 44, Mumbai

Korpus Financial Services P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 44, Mumbai

Korpus Financial Services P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 44, Mumbai

Korpus Financial Services P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 44, Mumbai

Harikishan Dass Ramkishan, Kolkata vs. I.T.O WD - 45(4), Kolkata

Malda District Central Co Operative Bank Ltd, Malda vs. D.I.T (I&Ci), Kolkata

Shah Pratap Industries P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 44, Mumbai

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Air Liquide North Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

DCIT (TDS), Gurgaon vs. The Sonipat Central Co-Op Bank Ltd., Sonepat