Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Shell Oil Storage Co. Ltd., 163 ITR, 496 (Cal.) 2. CIT v. Late G.D. Naidu & Others come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 14A, Section 260A, Section 271(1)(c), Section 35ABB.

Shell Oil Storage Co. Ltd., 163 ITR, 496 (Cal.) 2. CIT v. Late G.D. Naidu & Others

Q: How many judgments cite Shell Oil Storage Co. Ltd., 163 ITR, 496 (Cal.) 2. CIT v. Late G.D. Naidu & Others?

17 judgments on BharatTax cite Shell Oil Storage Co. Ltd., 163 ITR, 496 (Cal.) 2. CIT v. Late G.D. Naidu & Others (124 ITR 15), spanning 2010 to 2025.

124 ITR 15Supreme Court of India1980#6507 most cited

What is Shell Oil Storage Co. Ltd., 163 ITR, 496 (Cal.) 2. CIT v. Late G.D. Naidu & Others authority for?

Deliberate understatement of income by an assessee, who is aware of their financial affairs, is presumed under Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c). A bona fide explanation, supported by disclosed material facts, can provide a defence against penalty.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Cement Marketing Company of India vs. Asst. CST · Section 271(1)(c) · Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) · concealment of income · furnishing inaccurate particulars · deliberateness · bona fide explanation · penalty for concealment

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 14A Section 260A Section 271(1)(c)Section 35ABB

Issues it is cited on

furnishing inaccurate particulars concealment of income capital expenditure section 271(1)commissioner (appeals)section 271 section 271(1)(c)section 27 company section 14 india business

Judgments citing Shell Oil Storage Co. Ltd., 163 ITR, 496 (Cal.) 2. CIT v. Late G.D. Naidu & Others

ACIT, Circle- 26(2), New Delhi vs. Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Earlier Knwon As Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), New Delhi

ITA 8079/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 1999-2000 Vs. M/S. Vodafone West Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Thereafter Merged With New Delhi Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacf1190P (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/S. Vodafone Idea Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Earlier Known As Vodafone New Delhi Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacb2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Sh. Anil Chachra, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Department By Sh. Vijay B. Basanta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.03.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm These Revenue’S Appeals Ita No.7658/Del/2018 & 8079/Del/2018 For Assessment Years 1999-2000 & 2007-08

Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 1999-2000 Vs. M/s. Vodafone West Ltd. ACIT, Circle-26(2), (thereafter merged with New Delhi Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi PAN: AAACF1190P (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/s. Vodafone Idea Ltd. ACIT, Circle-26(2), (earlier known as Vodafone New Delhi Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi PAN: AAACB2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Ass…

ACIT, Circle-26(2), New Delhi vs. Vodafone West Ltd., (Thereafter Merged With Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), New Delhi

ITA 7658/DEL/2018[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 1999-2000

Section 271(1)(c)

Sri Harikuttan T, Kayamkulam vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2, Alleppey

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

ITA 885/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember Harikuttan T. The Income Tax Officer (2) 1, Edayilaveetil Tharayil Aayakar Bhavan Njakkanal P.O., Pathiyoor Vs. Alappuzha Co0Llectorate Kayalmulam 690533 Alappuzha 688011 [Pan:Alrpt7536J] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri M.S. Venkitachalam, Ca Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing:08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement:03.11.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By Assessee Challenging The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Vide Order Dated 17/02/2022, By The First Appellate Authority, Being The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nfac [Cit(A)] Vide It’S Order Dated 06.07.2022. 2.1 The Brief Background Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Retired Defence Personnel, Is A Registered Money Lender Under The Kerala Money Lenders Act (Kml Act), Lending Money On Interest Against Mortgage Of Loan. For The Relevant Year He Returned, Besides Pension, Income From This Business At Rs.2,05,691. On Verification, It Was Found By The Assessing Officer (Ao) That The Assessee Was Maintaining Six Bank Accounts, I.E., Three Each With Two Banks, Being South Indian Bank (Sib) & State Bank Of India (Sbi). Transactions With The Former Were Undisclosed. The Reason Explained Was That The Gold Pawned By His Customers With Him For Availing Loan, Was In Turn Mortgaged With This Bank To Source Funds For Further Lending. These

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Venkitachalam, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 270ASection 274Section 37(1)

…uch as it is the assessee, in the intimate know of his affairs, who nevertheless returns a lower income, and brought forth specifically per Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, is thus presumed (Cement Marketing Company of India vs. Asst. CST [1980] 124 ITR 15 (SC)). Saving is, further, provided for a bona fide explanation which is substantiated by disclosure of material facts or difference of estimate based duly disclosed material (s. 270A(6)). Further still, an immunity from penalty is provided u/s. 270AA(1) of the Act on application by the assessee within 30 days of the assessment, where the assessee…

Manpreet Singh Bhullar, Parwanoo vs. ITO, Parwanoo

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 923/CHANDI/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Jan 2020AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Surinder Babbar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Sudershan, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

…arose out of the order of the Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any illegality and no substantial question of law arises in the appeal and the same is dismissed in limine.—Cement Marketing Co. of India Ltd. vs. Asstt. CST & Ors. (1980) 124 ITR 15 (SC) relied on. (Para 7) In CIT v. Harsha N. Biliangady (Dr.) (2016) 133 DTR 223 (Kam.)(HC), it has been held that -Quantum appeal is admitted by High Court on substantial question of law hence addition itself becomes debatable, hence the levy of penalty was held to be not justified. [S. 54, 54F, 260A] The Assessee claimed deduction under section…

Advance Power Display Systems Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5168/MUM/2015[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2018AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A ”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM ITA No.5168/Mum/2015 & 5169/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year :1997-98 & 2003-04) M/s. Advance Power Display Vs. DCIT – 8(1) Systems Ltd., Room No.210/260, A, 2nd Floor, Unit No. 08, SDF-I, Seepz Andheri (East) Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 096 M.K.Road Mumbai – 400 020 PAN/GIR No. AAACA5970G Appellant) Respondent) .. Assessee by Shri. Y.P.Trivedi & Ms. Usha Dalal Revenue by Shri V. Vidyadhar Date of Hearing 05/03/2018 Date of Pronouncement 19/03/2018 आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): These are the appea…

Krishna Kumar Gupta, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 819/JPR/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Tanuj Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai, DCIT- DR

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

…st year of the assessee claiming such deduction u/s 24(b) of the Act. It is also noticed that during the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee relied on following case laws to this effect. 1. Cement Marketing Co. of India Ltd. vs. Asstt. CST (1980) 124 ITR 15 (SC) 2. Motilal Padampati Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. vs. State of U.P> (1979), 118 ITR 326 (SC) 3. Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1972)83 ITR 26 (SC) 4. CIT vs. R.K. Golecha 173 ITR 423 (Raj.) 5. Dilip N Shroff vs. JCIT (2007) 291 ITR 519 (SC) 6. CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts pvtltd (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) 7. Price Waterhouse Coopers (P)…

DCIT 8(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Vinamra Universal Traders P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 2018/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain Dy. C.I.T. – 8(3)(2) M/S. Vinamra Universal Room No. 615, 6Th Floor Traders Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Jai Centre, 1St Floor Mumbai 400020 34, P. D’Mello Rd., Opp. Red Gate Mumbai 400009 Pan – Aaccv5090J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. S. Padmaja & Shri S.K. PodarFor Respondent: Shri Vijaya Mehta & Shri Govind Javeri

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 94(7)

…A.O. at Rs.40,24,40,614/-. The assessee then pleaded that even this estimate of disallowance u/s.14A has varied at all levels and hence penalty u/s. 271(l)(c) in their case should not be levied. For the same, they relied upon the decision given in the case of 124 ITR 15 - Cement Marketing Co. of India Ltd. (SC), 168 ITR 705 (SC) (Sir Shadilal Sugar & Gen, Mills Ltd. v/s. CIT), 211 ITR 35 (Orissa High Court), Hindustan Steel v/s. State of Orissa - 83 ITR 26 (SC), CIT vs. Smt. Bimladevi Sharma - 192 ITR 482 (Parna), CIT vs Bombay Pipe Traders - 213 ITR 282 (Born), ACIT vs. Kalpaka Baxar - 46 ITD 221 - ITAT Cochin B…

The Mantola Co-Operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 204/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri L.P.Sahu & Smt. Beena A. Pillaithe Mantola Cooperative Vs. Ito, Ward 38(4), Thrift & Credit Society Ltd., New Delhi 541, Mantola Pahae Ganj, New Delhi Gir / Pan :Aaajt1976A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesd Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 271Section 57Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(i)

…rt as well as jurisdictional High Court where it has been held that penalty could not be levied on bona fides wrong claims. Some of the judgments plays in the paper book by the Ld. AI are as under: a) Cement Marketing Company of India Ltd vs. ACIT reported in 124 ITR 15 (SC); b) CIT vs. AT & T communication service India Pvt. Ltd., reported in 342 ITR 257 (Del); c) CIT vs. Societex reported in 259 CTR 325 (Del); d) CIT vs. Tudor Knitting works Pvt. Ltd., reported in 366 ITR 236 (P&H); On the contrary the Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by the authorities below and submitted that assessee had wrongly claimed…

Shridhar Jaguste, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 20(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4346/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri C.N.Prasad, Jm Income Tax Appeal No.4346/Mum/2014 ( Assessment Year : 2009-2010) Mr. Shridhar Jaguste, C-247, Vs. Dcit, Circle-20(3), Mumbai Oshiwara Industrial Centre, Opp.Oshiwara Bus Depot, Of Link Road, Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400104 Pan/Gir No. : Aacpj 4338 A /Assessee By : None /Revenue By : Shri N.Sathya Moorthy Date Of Hearing : 21/10/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/10/2016 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N.Sathya Moorthy

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

…nitial stage) for his verification so that assessee could have reconciled the interest and tax deducted therefrom. In the written submissions, he placed reliance on the decision of the Apex court in the case of Cement Marketing Company of India Ltd. v. ACIT, [124 ITR 15] for the proposition that the returned income cannot be said to be false unless there is amount of deliberateness in it. But where the assessee does not include a particular item under bona fide belief that he is not liable so to include it, it would not be right to condemn the return as a false return inviting imposition of penalty. Unless filing…

Thakkar Popatlal Velji Sales Ltd., Panvel vs. DCIT, Central Circle 25, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5795/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Thakkar Popatlal Velji Acit, Sales Ltd. Central Circle-25, 4Th Floor, बनाम/ Office No.2, Neel Presidency, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Opp. Telephone Exchange, Dr. M. K. Road, Panvel, Raigad, Mumbai-400020 Maharashtra-410206 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aabct7939D "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Manish Sanghvi Shri B.D. Naik-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 25/08/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: आदेश / O R D E R Per Joginder Singh () The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The By The Impugned Order Dated 20/06/2013 Of The Ld. First Appellate Authority

Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…d principle of law that if there is difference of opinion on a particular issue, then it cannot be a case of concealment for which the ratio laid down in CIT vs Garg Engineering Company (235 ITR 452, 454)(All.) and Cement marketing of India Ltd. Vs Asst. CST (124 ITR 15, 18)(SC) supports our view. Even otherwise, when two views are possible, which favours the assessee has to be adopted. This proposition is supported by the ratio laid down in CIT vs Vegetable Products Ltd. 88 ITR 192 (SC), CIT vs Kohinoor Flour Mills (99 ITR 54, 65-66)(Guj.), Addl. CIT vs Bihar Textiles (100 ITR 253, 257)(Pat.) and Harigopal Singh…

Karamjit Singh Dhanjal, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 290/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: : Smt. Diva Singh & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. V.R. Sachdev, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Sulekha Verma, CIT/DR

Section 143(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

…tified. Identical ratio was laid down in the case of Hari Gopal Singh Vs CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 {P&H) and CIT Vs SSP P. Ltd (2008) 302 ITR 43 (P&H). 7 ITA No.290/Del./2014 The Supreme Court in the case of Cement Marketing Co. of India Ltd Vs Asst. CST (1980) 124 ITR 15 has held that unless the filing of an inaccurate return is accompanied by a guilty mind, penalty could not be imposed. It has been further held that the return could not be "false" unless there is an element of deliberateness in it.” 4. The ld. DR on the other hand relied on the order of the lower authorities. He submitted that the Assessing Offic…

ADIT - 3(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Linklaters (Formerly Known As Linklater & Paines), Mumbai

ITA 7085/MUM/2005[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2016AY 2000-2001

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chauhan-DR

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…अिधकरण, ‘एल’ खंडपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई आयकर आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI “L” BENCH सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"", लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं राम लाल नेगी एवं राम लाल नेगी राम लाल नेगी, , , , "याियक सद"य राम लाल नेगी "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Ram Lal Negi,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.ITA No.7081/Mum/2005,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-1996-97 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" ADIT-(IT)…

ITO 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Ready Mix Concrete Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1731/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1731/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) I.T.O. 1(3)(1) M/S. Ready Mix Concrete बनाम/ Room No. 541, Aayakar Ltd. Vs. 4Th Floor, 32-34, Veer, Bhavan, Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccr2563G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D.H.ShahFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar

Section 271(1)(c)

…me. 10. Industrial Development Bank of India Ltd. vs Dy. CIT 42 SOT 325: A legal claim per se, right or wrong, cannot amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 3 Assessment Year: 2005-06 11. Cement Marketing Co. of India Ltd vs Ast. CST 1980 124 ITR 15 SC CIT v. Ahmed Tea Co. (P) Ltd. (1978) 113 ITR 74 (Gau) Adl. CIT v. Sawan Motor Stores 109 ITR 660 (AP) Unless the filing of return is accompanied by a guilty mind, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be levied. 12. Veejay Service Station V Asst. CIT 112 TTJ 824 (Delhi): Where assessee had disclosed complete facts before AO and it had adopted a particul…

Kanchenjunga Advertising Pvt Ltd

ITA/944/2011HC Delhi13 Jan 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 138Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)

…ck by the assessee, cannot invite penalty on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Reference in this connection may be made to the following judgments:- 1. Cement Marketing Co. of India Ltd. v. Asst. Commissioner of Sales Tax, (1980)124 ITR 15 (SC) 2. ITO v. Burmah Shell Oil Storage & Distributing Co. of India Ltd. (1987)163 ITR 496 (Cal) 3. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1986)157 ITR 822 (Del) 4. CIT v. G.D.Naidu ( 1987) 165 ITR 63 (Madras) ITA No.944/2011…

M/s. De vs. ons Pvt. Ltd

ITA/296/2006HC Delhi29 Nov 2010

Section 133(6)Section 271

…ssee. Reference may be made in this connection to the following judgments: 1. ITO vs. Burmah Shell Oil Storage Co. Ltd., 163 ITR, 496 (Cal.) 2. CIT vs. Late G.D. Naidu & Others, 165 ITR 63 (Mad.) 3. Cement Marketing Co. of India Ltd. ACIT, 124 ITR 15 (SC).” 12. The learned Senior counsel for the appellant was also at pains to point out that as regards the second issue, viz., addition of ` 36,17,980/- as well, contradictory findings had been rendered by the ITAT in its order dated 4th February, 2004 passed in quantum proceedings and its order dated 29th July, 2005 passed i…

M/S De vs. Ons Pvt Ltdvs.Commissioner of Income Tax &

ITA - 367 / 2004HC Delhi19 Nov 2010

Section 133(6)Section 271

M/s. De vs. ons Pvt. Ltd

ITA/367/2004HC Delhi19 Nov 2010

Section 133(6)Section 271