Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa

83 ITR 26Supreme Court of India1972#134 most cited

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

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

502

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

Also referred to as

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

Sections most often in play

Section 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

The DCIT(OSD) Range-1, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Corrtech International Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 1129/AHD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 14ASection 26(1)(iii)

…h. In any case, late filing of TDS returns is merely a technical or venial breach which does not warrant levy of penalty u/s 272 of the Act. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa – 83 ITR 26 (SC). Thus, the Ld. AR submitted that the issue is cover in favour of the assessee in decision of Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Kiri Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT wherein it is held that penalty u/s 272A is not warranted. Thus, the Ld. AR prayed that the penalty be deleted. 60. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the penalty order and order of the CIT(A). 61…

Corrtech International Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., (OSD) Range-1, Ahmedabad

ITA 2652/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 14ASection 26(1)(iii)

…h. In any case, late filing of TDS returns is merely a technical or venial breach which does not warrant levy of penalty u/s 272 of the Act. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa – 83 ITR 26 (SC). Thus, the Ld. AR submitted that the issue is cover in favour of the assessee in decision of Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Kiri Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT wherein it is held that penalty u/s 272A is not warranted. Thus, the Ld. AR prayed that the penalty be deleted. 60. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the penalty order and order of the CIT(A). 61…

The DCIT(OSD) Range-1, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Corrtech International Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 2578/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 14ASection 26(1)(iii)

…h. In any case, late filing of TDS returns is merely a technical or venial breach which does not warrant levy of penalty u/s 272 of the Act. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa – 83 ITR 26 (SC). Thus, the Ld. AR submitted that the issue is cover in favour of the assessee in decision of Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Kiri Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT wherein it is held that penalty u/s 272A is not warranted. Thus, the Ld. AR prayed that the penalty be deleted. 60. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the penalty order and order of the CIT(A). 61…

The DCIT(OSD)Range-1, Ahmedabad vs. Corrtech International Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 1871/AHD/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 14ASection 26(1)(iii)

…h. In any case, late filing of TDS returns is merely a technical or venial breach which does not warrant levy of penalty u/s 272 of the Act. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa – 83 ITR 26 (SC). Thus, the Ld. AR submitted that the issue is cover in favour of the assessee in decision of Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Kiri Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT wherein it is held that penalty u/s 272A is not warranted. Thus, the Ld. AR prayed that the penalty be deleted. 60. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the penalty order and order of the CIT(A). 61…

Corrtech International Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., (OSD)Range-1, Ahmedabad

ITA 1785/AHD/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 14ASection 26(1)(iii)

…h. In any case, late filing of TDS returns is merely a technical or venial breach which does not warrant levy of penalty u/s 272 of the Act. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa – 83 ITR 26 (SC). Thus, the Ld. AR submitted that the issue is cover in favour of the assessee in decision of Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Kiri Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT wherein it is held that penalty u/s 272A is not warranted. Thus, the Ld. AR prayed that the penalty be deleted. 60. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the penalty order and order of the CIT(A). 61…

B.R Charitable Trust, Jammu vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption)- Ward, Jammu

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 21/ASR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 139Section 250Section 272ASection 272A(2)(e)Section 272BSection 4C

…d u/s 272B. 4.3 After the thoughtful consideration we are in the opinion that there is a reasonable cause for filing return in delay by 182 days.We relied on the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ofHindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa, [1972] 83 ITR 26 held as follow: - "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 I.T.A. No.21/Asr/2019 5 Assessment Year: 2012-13 conduct contumacious or disho…

Mangi Lal Kandoi, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 322/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, Addl. CIT
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 245D(4)Section 271A

…ii) CIT vs Ravail Sincjh & Co. (2002) 173 CTR (P&H) 429. (iv) Laxmi Platers vs ACIT ITAT, Ahmedabad 'B' Third Member Bench (2001 73 TTJ (Ahd) 171. (v) CIT vs Bengal Galvanising Works (1987) 165 ITR 249 (Cal) (vi) Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) 9. Other favourable case laws – (i) National Textiles vs CIT 249 ITR 125 (Guj.) It is not enough for the purpose of penalty that the amount in question has been assessed as income (ii) S.P.Goel vs DCIT 82 ITD 85 (Bom) Mere entry on a loose sheet of paper does not indicate undisclosed income unless circumstantial evidence in the form of extra…

Mangi Lal Kandoi, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 321/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar ( Adv.)For Respondent: Ms. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)a
Section 127Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…ii) CIT vs Ravail Sincjh & Co. (2002) 173 CTR (P&H) 429. (iv) Laxmi Platers vs ACIT ITAT, Ahmedabad 'B' Third Member Bench (2001 73 TTJ (Ahd) 171. (v) CIT vs Bengal Galvanising Works (1987) 165 ITR 249 (Cal) (vi) Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) 4. Other favourable case laws – (i) National Textiles vs CIT 249 ITR 125 (Guj.) It is not enough for the purpose of penalty that the amount in question has been assessed as income (ii) S.P.Goel vs DCIT 82 ITD 85 (Bom) Mere entry on a loose sheet of paper does not indicate undisclosed income unless circumstantial evidence in the form of extra…

Mangi Lal Kandoi, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 320/JPR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar ( Adv.)For Respondent: Ms. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)a
Section 127Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…ii) CIT vs Ravail Sincjh & Co. (2002) 173 CTR (P&H) 429. (iv) Laxmi Platers vs ACIT ITAT, Ahmedabad 'B' Third Member Bench (2001 73 TTJ (Ahd) 171. (v) CIT vs Bengal Galvanising Works (1987) 165 ITR 249 (Cal) (vi) Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) 4. Other favourable case laws – (i) National Textiles vs CIT 249 ITR 125 (Guj.) It is not enough for the purpose of penalty that the amount in question has been assessed as income (ii) S.P.Goel vs DCIT 82 ITD 85 (Bom) Mere entry on a loose sheet of paper does not indicate undisclosed income unless circumstantial evidence in the form of extra…

Mangi Lal Kandoi, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 319/JPR/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar ( Adv.)For Respondent: Ms. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)a
Section 127Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…ii) CIT vs Ravail Sincjh & Co. (2002) 173 CTR (P&H) 429. (iv) Laxmi Platers vs ACIT ITAT, Ahmedabad 'B' Third Member Bench (2001 73 TTJ (Ahd) 171. (v) CIT vs Bengal Galvanising Works (1987) 165 ITR 249 (Cal) (vi) Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) 4. Other favourable case laws – (i) National Textiles vs CIT 249 ITR 125 (Guj.) It is not enough for the purpose of penalty that the amount in question has been assessed as income (ii) S.P.Goel vs DCIT 82 ITD 85 (Bom) Mere entry on a loose sheet of paper does not indicate undisclosed income unless circumstantial evidence in the form of extra…

Jice Academy for Excellence Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 704/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Nulvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

…p), decision of Tribunal Indore Bench in the case of Mohan Karkare (51 TTJ 599 (Indore), decision of Tribunal Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Shrepak Enterprises , 60 TTJ 199 (Ahd) and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steels Ltd., 83 ITR 26 (SC), we are of the opinion that the assessee's case is fully covered by the proposition of law, laid down in the aforesaid decisions and consequently, following these decisions, cancel the penalty. 39. In the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we, after following the decision relied upon by the counsel, cancel the penalty imposed in…

Vrindavan Tubes Ltd., Meerut vs. ACIT, Circle-26(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 5425/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2015-16 Vrindavan Tubes Ltd., Vs. Acit, C/O Kashyap & Co., Circle-26(2), 114, Citi Centre, New Delhi. B.B. Road, Meerut. Pan: Aaccv2294C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.S. Kashyap, Fca Revenue By : Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.08.2022 Order Per C.M. Garg, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.04.2019 Of The Cit(A)-9, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Read As Under:- “1. That On Facts & In Law Notice U/S 274 R.W.S 271(1)( C) Of The Act Is Not Maintainable. Ld. Ao Has Given Notice Without Specifying Whether There Is Concealment Of Income Or Assessee Has Furnished Inaccurate Particulars Of Income. The Notice U/S 274 R.W.S 271(1)(C) Is Void Ab Initio. 2. That On Facts & In Law Imposing The Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C ) For Rs. 77,47,664/- Is Totally Wrong, Unjustified & Illegal. The Appellant Had Never Furnished Any Inaccurate Particulars Or Concealed Income At Any Stage Of Assessment Proceedings As Well As In Penalty Proceedings. The Penalty Imposed U/S 271(1)(C) Ought To Be Deleted In Full.”

For Appellant: Shri P.S. Kashyap, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 43B

…T(A) upheld the AO’s order. 4. The ld. Counsel of the assessee reiterated the written submissions dated 23.05.2022 and submitted that in view of the judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd., vs. State of Orissa, reported in 83 ITR 23 (SC) and in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (2010) 3 Taxmann.com 47; the order of ITAT Delhi Bench dated 11.03.2022 in ITA No.6165/Del/2018; and the order of the ITAT Pune Bench dated 30.11.2010 in ITA No.471/PN/2007, penalty on account of disallowance u/s 43B of the Act is not leviable u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ld. Counsel also drew…

ACIT Cent.Cir-2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1568/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Smt. Shailja Rai, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay Mehta
Section 12ASection 131Section 250Section 269SSection 271D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1569/Mum/2021 (A.Y. 2015-16) ACIT, CC-2(1), 804, 8th Floor, Old CGO Building, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ...... Assessee Vs. M/s Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust, A-791, Bandra Reclamation, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400050. PAN: AAATL1398Q ..... Respondent Assessee by : Smt. Shailja Rai, CIT-DR Respondent by : Sh. Vijay Mehta Date of hearing : 31/05/2022 Date of pronouncement : 30/08/2022 ORDER PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: These appeals by the Revenue are directed agains…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 10(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Lyka Labs Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2934/MUM/2019[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit – 10(2)(1) Vs. M/S. Lyka Labs Ltd., 5Th Floor, Room No. Ground Floor, Spencer 509, Aayakar Bhavan, Bldg, 30, Forjett Street. Churchgate, Grant Road(West), Mumbai -400036. Mumbai -400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl0820G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt.Shailja Rai. Cit Dr Respondent By : Shri .Jayesh Dadia. Ar Date Of Hearing 28.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -17, Mumbai Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Smt.Shailja Rai. CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri .Jayesh Dadia. AR
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 55(2)

…nue and to avoid legitimate tax payable by resorting to subterfuges or other illicit transactions not accounted for by him. The judicial guidelines for levy of penalty have been laid down by the Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC), and followed in large number of Lyka Labs Ltd., Mumbai. cases. The fact that no penalty for concealment is leviable in cases of two views being possible has been well-settled by some of the judgments of Courts including Durga Kamal Rice Mills vs. CIT (2003) 183 CTR (Cal) 223 in which the assessee pleaded that-"First, the amount shown in the o…

Jsw Energy Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Transfer Pricing) 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1223/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Us Is A Public Company Engaged In The Business Of Generation Of Power & Operation & Maintenance Of The Power Plants, As Also Other Allied Activities. During The Course Of Its Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Made A Reference Under Section 92Ca(1), For Determination Of The Arm‟S Length Price Of The International Transactions & Specified Domestic Transaction Entered Into By The Assessee With Its Associated Enterprises (Aes), To The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Assessment Year 2014-15 Page 2 Of 17

Section 271GSection 92CSection 92D

…whether there are any real inconsistencies or factual errors in the explanation and whether, in a real-life situation, assessee‟s explanation may hold good. As observed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd Vs State of Orissa [(1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC)], "an order imposing a penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of 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 to its obligations." Hav…

The Rewari Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Rewari vs. Directorate of Income Tax (I & Ci), Rewari

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

ITA 4846/DEL/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Md. Gayasuddin Ansari
Section 271Section 271FSection 285

…IT (2007) ITR 519 SC mere omission or negligence would not constitute a deliberate act. 4. The CIT(A) has erred in law & in fact by not consider the land mark decision given by Apex court in proper manner in Hindustan Steel Limited Vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) that Penalty can be levied only if assessee acted deliberately, i.e. mens rea, 3 The Rewari Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. guilty mind is essential before penalty and in our case appellant is a District Central coop, bank managed and controlled by Haryana Govt, and a Govt, institution can’t be acted deliberately or guilty mind.” 3. Brief facts of…

Ts Realtech Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Range -76, New Delhi

The appeals are allowed

ITA 4942/DEL/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 4940/Del/2019, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No. 4941/Del/2019, A.Y. 2015-16 Ita No. 4942/Del/2019, A.Y. 2017-18 T.S. Realtech Private Vs. Acit, Limited Range-76 E-26, Panchsheel Park New Delhi New Delhi – 110017 Pan : Aadck3222C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133ASection 194CSection 196Section 271Section 271C

…ty is not leviable. No penalty on technical or venial ground. i) There being no escapement of tax, as HUDA has fulfilled all its tax obligations, No penalty can be levied. 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 wherein it was held that where facts are clearly disclosed in the return, penalty cannot be levied merely because an amount is not allowed or taxed as income. j) One single penalty order passed for all 3 years FY 2013-14, FY 2014-15 & 6 ITA No. 4940 &…

Ts Realtech Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Range -76, New Delhi

The appeals are allowed

ITA 4941/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 4940/Del/2019, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No. 4941/Del/2019, A.Y. 2015-16 Ita No. 4942/Del/2019, A.Y. 2017-18 T.S. Realtech Private Vs. Acit, Limited Range-76 E-26, Panchsheel Park New Delhi New Delhi – 110017 Pan : Aadck3222C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133ASection 194CSection 196Section 271Section 271C

…ty is not leviable. No penalty on technical or venial ground. i) There being no escapement of tax, as HUDA has fulfilled all its tax obligations, No penalty can be levied. 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 wherein it was held that where facts are clearly disclosed in the return, penalty cannot be levied merely because an amount is not allowed or taxed as income. j) One single penalty order passed for all 3 years FY 2013-14, FY 2014-15 & 6 ITA No. 4940 &…

Ts Realtech Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Range -76, New Delhi

The appeals are allowed

ITA 4940/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 4940/Del/2019, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No. 4941/Del/2019, A.Y. 2015-16 Ita No. 4942/Del/2019, A.Y. 2017-18 T.S. Realtech Private Vs. Acit, Limited Range-76 E-26, Panchsheel Park New Delhi New Delhi – 110017 Pan : Aadck3222C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133ASection 194CSection 196Section 271Section 271C

…ty is not leviable. No penalty on technical or venial ground. i) There being no escapement of tax, as HUDA has fulfilled all its tax obligations, No penalty can be levied. 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 wherein it was held that where facts are clearly disclosed in the return, penalty cannot be levied merely because an amount is not allowed or taxed as income. j) One single penalty order passed for all 3 years FY 2013-14, FY 2014-15 & 6 ITA No. 4940 &…

Sudhir Mahamunkar, Thane vs. ITO 26(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1381/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleshri Sudhir Mahamunkar V. Income Tax Officer – 26(3)(3) 41/12, Vijay Vilas, Vijay Vilas Road Pratyakshkar Bhavan G.B. Road Kavesar, Thane (W) C-11, Room No. 505, 5Th Floor Mumbai - 400615 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Ajdpm2653F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Purvi Agarwal Department By : Shri B.K. Bagchi

For Appellant: Ms. Purvi AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Shri Sudhir Mahamunkar v. Income Tax Officer – 26(3)(3) 41/12, Vijay Vilas, Vijay Vilas Road Pratyakshkar Bhavan G.B. Road Kavesar, Thane (W) C-11, Room No. 505, 5th Floor Mumbai - 400615 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400051 PAN: AJDPM2653F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Ms. Purvi Agarwal Department by : Shri B.K. Bagchi Date of Hearing : 31.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 21.06.2022 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This appeal…