Orissa 83 ITR 26 C.I.T. v. Eli Lilly & Co. (India) (P) Ltd. 178 Taxman 505 (SC) C.I.T v. Superintending Engineer, P.W.D

260 ITR 641High Court2003#17510 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 272A(1)(d)Section 273B Section 274

Judgments citing Orissa 83 ITR 26 C.I.T. v. Eli Lilly & Co. (India) (P) Ltd. 178 Taxman 505 (SC) C.I.T v. Superintending Engineer, P.W.D

ANGURI DEVI KHANDELWAL (RADHA MOHAN KHANDELWAL (LEGAL HEIR),JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 390/JPR/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No. 390/JPR/2025 निधर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2018-19 Smt.Anguri Devi Khandelwal Shri Radha Mohan Khandelwal (Legal Heir) 674, Khandaka Mansion, Bordi Ka Rasta Kishanpole Bazar, Jaipur – 302 001 बनाम Vs. The DCIT Circle-4 Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AIHPK 4203 A अपीलार्थी / Appellant निधर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Rohan Sogani, CA राजस्व की ओरसे

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT-DR

Section 272A(1)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 273B

…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." 5.2 Relying on the above decision, in CIT vs. Superintending Engineer, PWD [2003] 260 ITR 641 (Raj), the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court held that :- “7 Thus, the penalty under s. 272A(2)(c) cannot be levied in a routine manner. The discretion vested with the authority is to be exercised judiciously on consideration of all the relevant circumstances. A bona fide breach cannot lead to a penalty under s. 272A(2)(c).” 5.3 Very recently Hon’ble…

SAHARA INDIA FINANCIAL CORPN. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is dismissed

ITA 3510/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Satyen Sethi, Adv. and Shri A.T. Panda, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjog Kapoor, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 272ASection 272A(1)(c)Section 273B

…e following cases :- Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa 83 ITR 26 C.I.T. v. Eli Lilly & Page 14 of 29 ITA Nos.- 3510 & 3511/Del/2012 Sahara India Financial Corpn. Ltd. Co. (India) (P) Ltd. 178 Taxman 505 (SC) `C.I.T. v. Superintending Engineer, P.W.D. 260 ITR 641 (Raj.) C.I.T. v. Jagdish Prasad Choudhary 211 ITR 472 (Pat.) (F.B.) Azadi Bachao Andolan v. Union of India 252 ITR 471 In all the above mentioned judgment, it has been held that the penalty is not automatic if there are good and sufficient reasons for any failure. There is no justification in levying penalty. The appellant would also like t plac…

SAHARA INDIA FINANCIAL CORPN. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is dismissed

ITA 3511/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Satyen Sethi, Adv. and Shri A.T. Panda, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjog Kapoor, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 272ASection 272A(1)(c)Section 273B

VISA CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES,THANE vs. ADDL CIT TDS RG, THANE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 4177/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am Visa Chemical Industries Addl. Cit Tds Rg S-6 Ratnamanjuah Industries Quareshi Manison, Gokhale Compound, Naupada Vs. Rd, Naupada Thane-400602 Thane-400602 Pan No.Aacfv2308L Appellant .. Respondent .. Shri M Subramanian, Ar Assessee By Revenue By .. Shri Pradeep Kumar Singh, Dr .. Date Of Hearing 18-05-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 26-05-2017 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 200(3)Section 272A(2)(K)Section 272A(2)(k)

…al act or willful act to attract a Page 4 of 6 Visa Chemical Industries (A.Y:2009-10) quasi-criminal, imposition of penalty. The assessee has relied on the decisions of the honorable High Court of Rajasthan in the case of CIT v. Superintending Engineer [2003] 260 ITR 641/131 Taxman 596 and the decision of ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Royal Metal Printers (P.) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2010] 37 SOT 139 and the decision of ITAT, Cuttack Bench in the case of Garrision Engineer (I) R & D, (supra) wherein it has been clearly held that for such technical or venial breach supported by reasonable cause, penalty under sec.…

THE BRANCH MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. JDIT(I & CI), JAIPUR

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

ITA 133/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2017AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri P.P. Meena (CIT)

Section 133(6)Section 272A(2)(c)

…015, wherein the Hon’ble ITAT has held that when there is a reasonable cause for non- compliance of notice, the penalty could not be leviable. Reliance was also placed on the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Superintending Engineer, P.W.D., Udaipur, (2003), 260 ITR 641 (Raj), wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that the discretion to levy the penalty U/s 272A(2)(c) of the Act is vested with the authority which has to exercise the same judiciously on considering of all relevant facts and circumstances. A bonafide breach cannot lead to levy of penalty. 4. On the other hand, the ld CIT DR has vehemently sup…