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 371,112 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 Enrice Enterprises Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1168/CHNY/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh –
Section 132Section 271Section 271ASection 274

…i) of Explanation (c) to section 271AAB. 15. The learned Commissioner ought to have seen that penalty cannot be levied merely because an amount taxed as income as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26(SC) and decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Escorts Finance Ltd. (2009) 226 CTR (Del) 105. For these and other grounds that may be rendered at the time of hearing it is most humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to allow the appellants appeal and thus render justice. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, M/s…

M/S Enria Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT. Central Circle - 3(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1167/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh –
Section 2Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(9)

…antum of inflated expenditure year wise. 12. The learned Commissioner ought to have seen that penalty cannot be levied merely because an amount taxed as income as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26(SC) and decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Escorts Finance Ltd. (2009) 226 CTR (Del) 105. For these and other grounds that may be rendered at the time of hearing it is most humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to allow the appellants appeal and thus render justice. ITA Nos.1166 & 1167/Chny/2023 :: 4 :: 3. The brief facts…

M/S Enrice Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1166/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh –
Section 2Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(9)

…antum of inflated expenditure year wise. 12. The learned Commissioner ought to have seen that penalty cannot be levied merely because an amount taxed as income as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26(SC) and decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Escorts Finance Ltd. (2009) 226 CTR (Del) 105. For these and other grounds that may be rendered at the time of hearing it is most humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to allow the appellants appeal and thus render justice. ITA Nos.1166 & 1167/Chny/2023 :: 4 :: 3. The brief facts…

M/S.Enrica Enterprises Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1165/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271ASection 274

…been made in the assessment proceedings. 10. The learned Commissioner ought to have seen that penalty cannot be levied merely because an amount taxed as income as held by HonTDle Supreme Court in the case of M/s Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26(SC) and decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Escorts Finance Ltd. (2009) 226 CTR (Del) 105. For these and other grounds that may be rendered at the time of hearing it is most humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to allow the appellants appeal and thus render justice. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, M/s…

M/S Enrica Enterprises Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1164/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271ASection 274

…been made in the assessment proceedings. 10. The learned Commissioner ought to have seen that penalty cannot be levied merely because an amount taxed as income as held by HonTDle Supreme Court in the case of M/s Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26(SC) and decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Escorts Finance Ltd. (2009) 226 CTR (Del) 105. For these and other grounds that may be rendered at the time of hearing it is most humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to allow the appellants appeal and thus render justice. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, M/s…

Surya Pratap Singh, Meerut vs. ITO Ward-2(5), Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3106/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyasurya Pratap Singh, Vs. Ito, Ward 2 (5), Ka-138, Galaxy Ganga, Meerut. Ganga Nagar, Meerut – 250 001 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Aiaps1956P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R.K. Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.02.2024 Date Of Order : 06.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(b)

…but the notices were sent to the old address. 4. Upon careful consideration, I am of the opinion that in the interest of justice, penalty in this regard is not sustainable. In this regard, I rely upon the decision of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa 83 ITR 26 for the proposition if the assessee’s conduct is not found to be contumacious the authority may not levy penalty. In the background of the aforesaid, I set aside the orders of the authorities below and delete the penalty levied. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 6th day of March, 2…

Bhalchandra P. Dalvi, Ghahtkopar, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 27 (1) (2), Vashi, Navi Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2492/MUM/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalebhalchandra P. Dalvi, Vs. Ito-Ward 27(1)(2), 1, Hemalaya Society, It-Office, Vashi Milind Nagar, Near Railway Station Sungrace English Building, School,Ghatkopar(W), Navimumbai-400705. Mumbai-400084. Pan/Gir No. : Aampd3092P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Dinesh R.Shah & Shri B.R.Vyas.Ar Respondent By : Shri.Ashokkumarambastha,Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.01.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/Sec271D & U/Sec250 Of The Act. 1. The Learned Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax 27(1) Erred In Levying Penalty U/S 271D Amounting To Rupees 24,50,000/- Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Fifty Thousand As Well As Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Erred In Confirming The Same. Bhalachandra P. Dalvi.Mumbai. 2.1 The Appellant Has Received Rupees 18,50,000/- Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Fifty Thousand Cash Against Sale Of Flat & Rs.6,00,000/- Amount Raised From Lenders Which Amount Was Less Than Rupees Twenty Thousand Out Of Rupees Six Lakhs, Rupees Four Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand Is Already Taxed As Income & Balance Loans Are Accepted As Genuine & Each Loans Less Than Rs.20,000/- Considering Above Facts & Circumstances No Penalty U/S 271D Can Be Levied & Same Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri. Dinesh R.Shah & ShriFor Respondent: Shri.AshokKumarAmbastha,Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271D

…(T) 345 Mumbai. 11. Dillu Cine Enterprises (P) Ltd Vs. ACIT, [2002] 80 ITD 484 12. Karnataka Ginning & Pressing factors Vs. JCIT, [2001] 77 ITD 478 (Mumbai) 13. CIT Vs. Speedways Rubber (P) Ltd, [2010] 326 ITR 31 14. Hindusthan Steel Ltd Vs. State of Orissa, 83 ITR 26. 15. OMEC Engineeris Vs. CIT, 294 ITR 599 16. CIT Vs. Mudhav Enterprises (P) Ltd, 356 ITR 588, Guj 8. We find that the assessing officer in the asseseement order U/sec143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act has made addition of cash loans below Rs.20,000/-each aggregating to Rs.6,00,000/- as unexplained cash deposits u/sec 68 of the Act of Rs. 4,75,000/- and…

ITO, Ward-2, Kancheepuram vs. Shri R. Dhinagharan (HUF), Kancheepuram

ITA 3329/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manjunatha. Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3329/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Income Tax Officer, Shri R. Dhinagharan (Huf), Ward-2, Kanchipuram. Vs. 18, Gem Nagar, Sevilimedu, Kanchipuram – 631 502. [Pan: Aanhr-6593-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.12.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.12.2023 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271Section 271D

…s not demonstrated any such reason before the CIT(A), nor has the learned CIT(A) required it to furnish such vital evidence for establishing reasonable cause. (ii)The CIT(A) has also relied on the case of Hindustan Steel Limited Vs State of Orissa reported in 83 ITR 26 (1972). At the outset, it may be stated that the above citation is concerned with provisions of Orissa Sales Tax. Further, in the said ruling, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had noted the following: "Under the Act penalty may be imposed for failure to register as a dealer: s.9(1) read with s.25(J)(a) of the Act. But the liability to pay penalty does not…

Farman Khan, Chaksu vs. Income-Tax Officer Ward 7(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 590/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CITa
Section 269Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

…the prescribed modes to discourage black money generation.” 6. Apparently, the CIT(A) overlooked the overriding provisions of section 273B of the Act and the applicable decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa, 83 ITR 26 (Supreme Court):- “For failure to register as a dealer: section 9(1), read with section 25(1)(a) of the Act. But the liability to pay penalty does not arise merely upon proof of default in registering as a dealer. An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal proceeding, and penalty will…

The Mannarkkad Rural Service Co Operative Bank Ltd., Mannarkkad vs. Income Tax Officer, Palakkad

In the result, the assessee’s appeal and stay application are dismissed

ITA 871/COCH/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Sivadas Chettoor, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 271BSection 273BSection 44ASection 80P

…e audit report as due to the sudden, i.e., without notice, resigning of the Auditor in August, 2012, causing dislocation of work. The same was found satisfactory by the Hon'ble Court. Its observation, alluding to Hindustan Steel Ltd vs. State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26 (SC), that the explanation was not malafide and there was no conscious disregard of it’s statutory obligation by the assessee, is in that context, and is to be therefore read accordingly and not divorced there-from. Independent of it, reference to the decision in Hindustan Steels Ltd. (supra) would amount overlooking the clear provisions of section…

Satyendra L Nahata, Nagpur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 218/NAG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur13 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripotefinancial Year : 2011-12 Satyendra L Nahata, The Commissioner Of C/O. Arihant Sales V Income Tax(Tds), Corporation, Bapurao Gall S Nagpur Blick, Nikalas Mandir, Nagpur – 440032. Pan: Aagpn1404M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Rishi Kumar Bisen – Dr Date Of Hearing 30/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13/11/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Under Section 272A(2)(F) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Passed By Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Tds), Nagpur On 26.06.2018 For The F.Y. 2011-12. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under : “1) The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Levying Penalty U/S. 272A(2)(F) Of Rs.86,838/- Towards Non Submission Of Form 15G / 15H. Satyendra L Nahata [A]

Section 272A(2)(f)

…।आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ायपीठ नागपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH : : NAGPUR [VIRTUAL HEARING AT PUNE] BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Financial Year : 2011-12 Satyendra L Nahata, The Commissioner of C/o. Arihant Sales V Income Tax(TDS), Corporation, Bapurao Gall s Nagpur Blick, Nikalas Mandir, Nagpur – 440032. PAN: AAGPN1404M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Rishi Kumar Bisen – DR Date of hearing 30/08/2023 Date of pronouncement 13/11/2023 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This is an appeal fil…

Hari Narain Parwal, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result,the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 273/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (C.A.)&For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 271A

…he facts and circumstances of the particular case judicially. The fact that the minimum is prescribed does not mean that penalty must necessarily be imposed in every case falling within sub-s (1). Shah, acting CJ said in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v State of Orissa 83 ITR 26. Even if a minimum penalty is prescribed, the authority competent to impose the penalty will be justified in refusing to impose penalty. The discretion of the A.O. to levy or not to levy a penalty is still preserved by this section, it must be exercised judicially and on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. Recently the ITAT Kolkata B…

Bitthal Das Parwal, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result,the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 272/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (C.A.)&For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 271A

…he facts and circumstances of the particular case judicially. The fact that the minimum is prescribed does not mean that penalty must necessarily be imposed in every case falling within sub-s (1). Shah, acting CJ said in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v State of Orissa 83 ITR 26. Even if a minimum penalty is prescribed, the authority competent to impose the penalty will be justified in refusing to impose penalty. The discretion of the A.O. to levy or not to levy a penalty is still preserved by this section, it must be exercised judicially and on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. Recently the ITAT Kolkata B…

Jafar Khan, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2, Sikar

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 518/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

…for this reason the notices issued by the AO could not be complied with. There appears to be no malafide intention in not complying with the notices. Therefore, in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa, 83 ITR 26 (SC), we delete the penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA Nos. 516 & 517/JP/2023 are allowed for stastistical purposes and appeal in ITA No. 518/JP/2023 is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30/10/2023. ¼lanhi xkslkbZ½ ¼ jkBkSM+ d…

Jafar Khan, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2, Sikar

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 517/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

…for this reason the notices issued by the AO could not be complied with. There appears to be no malafide intention in not complying with the notices. Therefore, in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa, 83 ITR 26 (SC), we delete the penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA Nos. 516 & 517/JP/2023 are allowed for stastistical purposes and appeal in ITA No. 518/JP/2023 is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30/10/2023. ¼lanhi xkslkbZ½ ¼ jkBkSM+ d…

Jafar Khan, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2, Sikar

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 516/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

…for this reason the notices issued by the AO could not be complied with. There appears to be no malafide intention in not complying with the notices. Therefore, in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa, 83 ITR 26 (SC), we delete the penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA Nos. 516 & 517/JP/2023 are allowed for stastistical purposes and appeal in ITA No. 518/JP/2023 is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30/10/2023. ¼lanhi xkslkbZ½ ¼ jkBkSM+ d…

Greenwoods Govt. Officers Welfare Society, Noida vs. DCIT Circle 52(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 609/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri S.D. Srivastava, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 270A

…as to whether addition made in the quantum proceedings actually represents under-reporting of income on the part of the assessee and whether it is a fit case to impose the penalty. The decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel vs. State of Orissa, 83 ITR 26 (SC) was relied upon. It was emphasised that the assessee surrendered and offered interest income after paying tax by filing revised return. Several decisions in support were cited. It was urged that the impugned penalty on account of under reporting of income in consequence of misreporting is unlawful and liable to be quashed. 7. On the issue rai…

Smt. Purnima Sharma, Gwalior vs. ITO., Ward-2(2), Gwalior

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 321/AGR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2009-10]

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 271BSection 288Section 44A

…urse of assessment proceedings. Hence, in our considered opinion, the assessee should not be visited with the rigours of penalty in this case. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa 83 ITR 26 (SC) has held that authority may not levy penalty if the assessee’s conduct is not found to be contumacious. In the present case, on the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the assessee’s conduct was not contumacious, hence, we set-aside the orders of the authorities below and delete the penalty. 9. In the result, the appeal of the…

Tapi Jwil Jv, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-62(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4873/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6722/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 4873/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Tapi Jwil Jv, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O C. S. Anand, Adv., Ward-62(4), 104, Pankaj Tower, 10, L.S.C. New Delhi Savita Vihar, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadat3744J Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Anand, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

For Appellant: Sh. C. S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, CIT-DR
Section 271GSection 40A(2)(b)Section 928BSection 92D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. C. M. Garg, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 6722/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 ITA No. 4873/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Tapi JWil JV, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/o C. S. Anand, Adv., Ward-62(4), 104, Pankaj Tower, 10, L.S.C. New Delhi Savita Vihar, Delhi-110092 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AADAT3744J Assessee by : Sh. C. S. Anand, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 18.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 16.10.2023 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present…

Tapi Jwil Jv, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-62(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6722/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6722/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 4873/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Tapi Jwil Jv, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O C. S. Anand, Adv., Ward-62(4), 104, Pankaj Tower, 10, L.S.C. New Delhi Savita Vihar, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadat3744J Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Anand, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

For Appellant: Sh. C. S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, CIT-DR
Section 271GSection 40A(2)(b)Section 928BSection 92D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. C. M. Garg, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 6722/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 ITA No. 4873/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Tapi JWil JV, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/o C. S. Anand, Adv., Ward-62(4), 104, Pankaj Tower, 10, L.S.C. New Delhi Savita Vihar, Delhi-110092 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AADAT3744J Assessee by : Sh. C. S. Anand, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 18.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 16.10.2023 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present…