How many judgments cite New Sorathia Engineering Co. v. CIT?

90 judgments on BharatTax cite New Sorathia Engineering Co. v. CIT (282 ITR 642), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does New Sorathia Engineering Co. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 271(1)(c), Section 274, Section 133A, Section 143(3), Section 250, Section 10(2A).

New Sorathia Engineering Co. v. CIT

282 ITR 642High Court2006#1253 most cited

What is New Sorathia Engineering Co. v. CIT authority for?

To levy a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), the Assessing Officer must clearly specify whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars, and an ambiguous or unspecified charge renders the penalty invalid.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

New Sorathia Engineering Co. v. CIT · section 271(1)(c) · section 274 · specific charge penalty · concealment of income · furnishing inaccurate particulars · penalty invalidity · non-application of mind · deletion of penalty · levy of penalty

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274 Section 133A Section 143(3)Section 250 Section 10(2A)Section 115JB Section 142(1)

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

deletion of penalty section 271(l)(c)furnishing inaccurate particulars of income furnishing inaccurate particulars penalty under section 271(1)(c)concealment of income penalty u/s 271(1)(c)section 274 non-application of mind section 271(1)levy of penalty change of opinion

Judgments citing New Sorathia Engineering Co. v. CIT

DCIT 19(3), Mumbai vs. Wadhwa Constructions, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4470/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Section 2Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ,‘ जी’’,म ुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘G’ MUMBAI श्री जोगगन्दय स िंह, न्मायमक दस्म एवुं श्री मनोज कुमार अग्रवाल, रेखा दस्म, के भक्ष Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2008-09 DCIT-19(3) M/s. Wadhwa Constructions बनाम/ Room No.305, 3rd Floor, 425/A, Vasukamal, Piramal Chambers, 14th Road, Bandra (West) Vs. Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai – 400 050 Mumbai – 400 012 ( याजस्व /Revenue) (यनधाारयती /Assessee) PAN. No.AAAFW6792M याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by Ms. Anupama Singla – DR यनधाारय…

Sh. Navneet Jhanb, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 756/DEL/2016[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jul 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri P.K.Bansal

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…unless there is a specific charge being levied on the assesee, I am of the view no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be imposed on the assessee. My aforesaid view is duly supported by the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of New Sorathia Engg. Co. vs. CIT 282 ITR 642 (Gujarat), Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has also taken the similar view in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565. Since it is not discernible from the order passed by the AO for which specific charge the penalty has been imposed u/s 271(1)(c), I therefore delete the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3 5.…

Super Growth Construction Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4784/DEL/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jul 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri P.K.Bansal

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Pratap Mall, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…unless there is a specific charge being levied on the assesee I am of the view no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be imposed on the assessee. My aforesaid view is duly supported by the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of New Sorathia Engg. Co. vs. CIT 282 ITR 642 (Gujarat), Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has also taken the similar view in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565. Since it is not discernible from the order passed by the AO for which specific charge the penalty has been imposed u/s 271(1)(c), I therefore delete the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. In…

M/S. Meerut Agro Chemical Industries Ltd., Meerut vs. ACIT, Meerut

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

ITA 2476/DEL/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Mr. Raj Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)

…in the present case, the Assessing Officer did not record his satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings in the assessment order. In support of this contention he placed reliance upon the decision in the case of New Sorathia Engineering Co. V/s CIT(2006) 282 ITR 642 (Guj) 6. Ld. Departmental Representative controverted the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee and he relied upon the orders of the revenue authorities. 7. We have heard both the counsels and perused the orders passed by the Revenue authorities. For the sake of convenience, we are reproducing the para no. 5 & 7 at page no. 1 an…

D.B. Properties P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 9(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA N0

ITA 6339/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6339/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) D B Properties Private The Addl. Commissioner बनाम/ Limited, Of Income Tax, V. Db House, Yashodham, Range -9(1), Gen. A.K. Vaidya Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, Goregaon (East), Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 063. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaccd5197L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Ajitkumar Srivastava

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd., reported in 322 ITR 158(SC). The assessee company also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of New Sorathia Engineering Co. v. CIT 282 ITR 642(Guj.) ITA 6339/Mum/2012 6 The AO, however, rejected the submissions of the assessee company and held that since this issue has come to light during the assessment proceedings and the assessee company withdrew the claim as this case was selected for scrutiny assessment otherwise the assessee company had no intention to offer this income to tax.…

Suresh M. Bajaj, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 6101/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Malhotra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Robin Rawal, Senior DR

Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…the particulars of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income. This itself proves that the AO is not sure what fault has been committed by the assessee. Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of New Sorathia Engineering Co. v. CIT [2006] 282 ITR 642 (Guj) has clearly laid down that it is incumbent upon the AO to state whether penalty is being levied for concealment of particulars of income or whether any inaccurate particulars of income had been furnished by the assessee. In the absence of clear-cut finding being given by the AO, Hon’ble High Court declared the order passed for levying th…

Rajinder Prashad Palliwal, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 4170/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Robin Rawal, Senior DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 54B

Jeet Construction Co., Meerut vs. ACIT, Meerut

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

ITA 5339/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhua.Y. : 2006-07 Jeet Construction Co., Vs. Acit 314, Arvind Puri, Circle-1, Meerut Meerut (Pan : Aaafj6441J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. & Sh. V. Raja Kumar, Adv. Department By : Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

…en initiated. In such circumstances, the penalty as levied by the AO in terms of his order dated 29.12.2008 in ab initio invalid, illegal and must be quashed. Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon the following citations:- a) New Sorathia Engg. Co. (2006) 282 ITR 642 (Guj) b) Manu Engg. Works (Supra) (1980) 122 ITR 306 (Guj) c) Chennakesava Pharmaceuticals (2012) 349 ITR 196 (AP) d) Whiteford India Ltd. (2013) 38 Taxman.com 15 Finally, he stated that penalty in dispute has been levied by the AO and wrongly confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is in violation of principles of natural justice, in as much as, without…

Sri Deo Kumar Saraf, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle-49, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 199/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Oct 2015AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri S. M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Alok Kr. Nag, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

…iting a line in the assessment order that penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated is not sufficient. For this, first he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court decision in the case of New Sorathia Engineering Co. Vs. CIT (2006) 282 ITR 642 (Guj), wherein Hon’ble High Court has held that the penalty order and the order of CIT(A) showed that no clear cut finding in respect to satisfaction is reached whether penalty is being levied for concealment of particulars of income by the assessee or whether any inaccurate particulars of income has been furnished by the assessee and there shoul…

Sh. Ashwani Jain, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2422/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08 Ashwani Jain, A-92, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Gujrawalan Town, Part-1, Income Tax, Circle-20(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Pan: Aahpj3505G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : S/Sh. Rakesh Gupta & Tarun Kumar, Advocates Respondent By : Sh. K.K. Jaiswal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.09.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2015 Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Xxii, New Delhi, Dated 31.12.2012 Passed For The Assessment Year 2007-08. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: I. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of Ld. Ao In Levying Penalty Of Rs.6,23,046/- & That Too Without Assuming Jurisdiction As Per Law & Without Considering The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & The Impugned Penalty Order Being Illegal & Void Ab-Initio. Ii. That In Any Case & In Any View Of The Matter, Action Of Ld. Cit(A) In Not Quashing The Penalty Order Framed By Ld. Ao Is Beyond Jurisdiction & Without Considering The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & The Impugned Penalty Order Being Illegal & Void Ab-Initio & The Impugned Penalty Order Has Been Framed Without Considering The Submissions/Evidences Of The Assessee & Without Providing Any Adverse

For Appellant: S/sh. Rakesh Gupta & Tarun Kumar, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Sh. K.K. Jaiswal, DR

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

…with the department and avoid unnecessary litigation on this issue. There was no evidence brought by the Revenue supporting this addition. The appellant relied on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of New Sorathia Engineering Co. Vs. CIT, 282 ITR 642 (Guj.) and on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of T. Ashok Pai Vs. CIT, 292 ITR 11 (SC) and Dilip N. Shroff Vs. CIT, 291 ITR 519 (SC). The Assessing Officer had brushed aside the explanation furnished by the assesee and proceeded to levy the penalty of Rs. 6,23,046/- vide his order dated 30th June, 2010. Aggrieved by this order…