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 371,084 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

Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation - 2 vs. Pacific Consultants International Inc

ITA/458/2015HC Delhi27 Jan 2016

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

Section 260ASection 271

…V K I I * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 15-20. + ITA 455/2015 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION - 2 Appellant Through: Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Advocate. versus P/^CIFIC CONSULTANTS INTERNATIONAL INC Respondent Through: Mr.Gautam Jain, Advocate with Mr. Piyush Kumar Kamal, Advocate. With + ITA 456/2015 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERANATIONAL TAXATION - 2 Appellant Through: Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Advocate. versus P-^CIFIC CONSULTANTS INTERNATIONAL INC Respondent Through: Mr.Gautam Jain, Advocate with Mr. Piyush Kumar Kamal, Advocate. With + ITA 457/2015 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, I…

Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation - 21 vs. Pacific Consultants International Inc

ITA/460/2015HC Delhi27 Jan 2016

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

Section 260ASection 271

…V K I I * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 15-20. + ITA 455/2015 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION - 2 Appellant Through: Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Advocate. versus P/^CIFIC CONSULTANTS INTERNATIONAL INC Respondent Through: Mr.Gautam Jain, Advocate with Mr. Piyush Kumar Kamal, Advocate. With + ITA 456/2015 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERANATIONAL TAXATION - 2 Appellant Through: Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Advocate. versus P-^CIFIC CONSULTANTS INTERNATIONAL INC Respondent Through: Mr.Gautam Jain, Advocate with Mr. Piyush Kumar Kamal, Advocate. With + ITA 457/2015 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, I…

Commissioner of Income Tax, Interanational Taxation - 2 vs. Pacific Consultants International Inc

ITA/456/2015HC Delhi27 Jan 2016

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

Section 260ASection 271

…V K I I * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 15-20. + ITA 455/2015 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION - 2 Appellant Through: Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Advocate. versus P/^CIFIC CONSULTANTS INTERNATIONAL INC Respondent Through: Mr.Gautam Jain, Advocate with Mr. Piyush Kumar Kamal, Advocate. With + ITA 456/2015 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERANATIONAL TAXATION - 2 Appellant Through: Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Advocate. versus P-^CIFIC CONSULTANTS INTERNATIONAL INC Respondent Through: Mr.Gautam Jain, Advocate with Mr. Piyush Kumar Kamal, Advocate. With + ITA 457/2015 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, I…

Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation - 2 vs. Pacific Consultants International Inc

ITA/512/2015HC Delhi27 Jan 2016

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

Section 260ASection 271

…V K I I * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 15-20. + ITA 455/2015 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION - 2 Appellant Through: Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Advocate. versus P/^CIFIC CONSULTANTS INTERNATIONAL INC Respondent Through: Mr.Gautam Jain, Advocate with Mr. Piyush Kumar Kamal, Advocate. With + ITA 456/2015 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERANATIONAL TAXATION - 2 Appellant Through: Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Advocate. versus P-^CIFIC CONSULTANTS INTERNATIONAL INC Respondent Through: Mr.Gautam Jain, Advocate with Mr. Piyush Kumar Kamal, Advocate. With + ITA 457/2015 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, I…

Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation -2 vs. Pacific Consultants International Inc

ITA/457/2015HC Delhi27 Jan 2016

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

Section 260ASection 271

…V K I I * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 15-20. + ITA 455/2015 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION - 2 Appellant Through: Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Advocate. versus P/^CIFIC CONSULTANTS INTERNATIONAL INC Respondent Through: Mr.Gautam Jain, Advocate with Mr. Piyush Kumar Kamal, Advocate. With + ITA 456/2015 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERANATIONAL TAXATION - 2 Appellant Through: Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Advocate. versus P-^CIFIC CONSULTANTS INTERNATIONAL INC Respondent Through: Mr.Gautam Jain, Advocate with Mr. Piyush Kumar Kamal, Advocate. With + ITA 457/2015 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, I…

Pravinchandra I. Patel, Mumbai vs. DCIT 22(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7062/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2015AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Mitesh J. ThakkarFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandiyan
Section 271(1)(c)

…age, the assessee has conceded the mistake. It appears that it was a bonafide mistake for which no penalty should have been imposed u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. Reliance can be placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steels Ltd., 83 ITR 26. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 15/12/2015. (AMARJIT SINGH) (R.C.SHARMA) न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER ऱेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER भुंफई Mumbai; ददनांक Dated 15/12/2015 प्र.कु.मभ/pkm, नन.स/ PS आदेश की प्रनिलऱपप अग्रेपषि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीराथी / The Appellant 1…

ITO (TDS), Rohtak vs. The Executive Engineer, Jhajjar

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 6491/DEL/2013[2010-11 (F.Y. 2009-10)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2015

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 6491 To 6494/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Income Tax Officer, Tds Vs The Executive Engineer, Rohtak Panchayati Raj, Jhajjar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Rtkpo1586E Assessee By : Sh. Naveen Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S. K. Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2015 Order Per Bench:

For Appellant: Sh. Naveen Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. K. Jain, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139ASection 272B

…r by filing the wrong PANs. It was stated that the PANs were corrected after ascertaining the same from the respective deductees. The reliance was place on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26. 6. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee deleted the penalties by observing in para 4 of the impugned order as under: “4. I have considered the issue and the written submission. From the facts, it is evident that the appellant filed TDS correction statement immediately on receipt of show cause ITA Nos. 6491 to 6494/De…

ITO, Faridabad vs. M/S Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd., Faridabad

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

ITA 2915/DEL/2011[2009-10 (F.Y. 2008-09)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2015

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd., Tds Ward, Faridabad 12/4, Mathura Road, Faridabad (Pan: Aaacm1432F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. Dr Respondent By : Sh. Deepak Chopra & Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advocates Date Of Hearing: 08.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2015 Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M.: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Dated 14.03.2011 Passed For The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Revenue Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: I. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Facts & Law In Deleting The Penalty As Tax Deductor Continued Deducting The Tax, But Failed To Deposit The Same Into The Central Govt. Account Within The Stipulated Time. Ii. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Finding Of Ld. Cit(A) Deleting The Penalty On The Ground That The Tax Deductor Was Ignorant Of Indian Tax Laws Is Not Correct As It Took The Tax Deductor More Than One Year To Understand & Comply With The Indian Tax Laws. Iii. That The Appellant Craves For The Permission To Add, Delete Or Amend The Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows:

For Appellant: Sh. P. DAM Kanunjna, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Deepak Chopra & Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advocates
Section 201

…us, the levy of penalty under section 221 (1) is subject to the satisfaction of the AO and reasonable cause for non compliance. The learned counsel has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Oris sa (83 ITR 26), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held 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 consciou…

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)

…penalty when there is a technical or venial breach of the 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 Pu…

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)

…penalty when there is a technical or venial breach of the 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 Pu…

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)

…penalty when there is a technical or venial breach of the 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 Pu…

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)

…penalty when there is a technical or venial breach of the 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 Pu…

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)

…penalty when there is a technical or venial breach of the 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 Pu…

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)

…penalty when there is a technical or venial breach of the 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 Pu…

M/S. Machintorg (India) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 5453/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. K.C. Singhal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54FSection 54G

…Ltd.(ITA No. 93/Del/12 (Tri-Delhi). (vii). CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., 322 ITR 158(SC) (viii). Chandra Pal Bagga v. ITAT (2003) 128 Taxman 632. (ix). Dilip N. Shroff vs. JCIT (2007) 291 ITR 519 (SC) (x). Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (83 ITR 26 SC) (xi). CIT v. Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd., 327 ITR 510 (Del.). 4. The learned DR relied upon the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that from the findings recorded by the learned AO, the appellant has furnished no cogent reply as why a penalty be not imposed. The appellant relied on the fact that since this was a bona fide belief t…

Sankar Datta, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle -54, Kolkata

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

ITA 870/KOL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Sept 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Uday Kr. Sarkar, Addl.CIT
Section 271BSection 273BSection 28Section 44A

…dit u/s 44AB of the Act. We further note that the assessee’s conduct cannot be said to be contumacious to warrant levy of penalty. In this regard we draw support from the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd vs State of Orissa 83 ITR 26 (SC) which 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 disregard of it…

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)

…x Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal, for short), which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 8th June, 2001. Before the Tribunal, the assessee had placed reliance on judgment of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Limited Vs. State of Orissa, (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC). Tribunal rejected the contention that the return for the earlier assessment year 1983-84 was revised and as a result of the revision, the income of the assessment year 1984-85 underwent a change. It was held that this could not be established. Further, the appellant- assessee’s submission that they were in a dilemma and that there w…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Makino Asia Pvt Ltd

ITA/340/2007HC Karnataka25 Sept 2013

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 260Section 271(1)(c)Section 72

…consideration and proceeded to hear the appeal on merits: “(1) Whether the Appellate Authorities were justified in setting aside the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act based on the judgment in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa (S.C.) 83 ITR 26 without taking into consideration the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer? (2) Whether the assessee furnished either inaccurate particulars or concealed the income while filing the return of income for the Assessment year 2002-03, as contemplated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, so as to attract levy of penalty under th…

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Arcotech Ltd (Formerly Sks Ltd.)

The appeal is disposed of

ITA/71/2013HC Delhi12 Sept 2013
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 43B

…nd reassessment proceedings. The explanation cannot be called to be false or bogus, therefore, we delete the penalty, keeping in view the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts (supra) and in the case of Hindustan Steels 83 ITR 26(SC).” (emphasis supplied) 8. Before we examine the aforesaid observations and the contentions of the parties, for the sake of clarity, we would like to mention that during the re-assessment proceedings the respondent’s loss was reduced by Rs.5,98,74,592/- on account of the following additions/disallowances:- 1. Depreciation on plant…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Bpl Sanyo Finance Ltd

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is

ITA/652/2006HC Karnataka11 Sept 2013

Bench: The Tribunal Was Arising From The Order Dated 4Th June 2004 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Bangalore (For Short “The

Section 115JSection 133Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…im made. It is the case of the revenue, in the present case that the information/particulars furnished in the return of Income filed for the assessment year 2002-03 was inaccurate. 26. In Hindustan Steel Limited vs. State of Orissa, [1972] 83 ITR 26, the Supreme Court was dealing with similar provisions as is 271(1)(c) in Orissa Sales Tax Act namely Section 25(1)(a) while dealing with this provision, the Supreme Court made the following observations, which read thus: “Whether penalty should be imposed for failure to perform a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the autho…