Shri T. Ashok Pai v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

7 SCC 162Supreme Court of India2007#6847 most cited
17

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2022.

Judgments citing Shri T. Ashok Pai v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3 vs. MS. MINU BAKSHI

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/57/2021HC Delhi12 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 164Section 271(1)(c)

…y whenever the assessee declares a higher income in his return filed under Section 153A in comparison to the original return filed under Section 139(1). 14. The Supreme Court held, in Shri T. Ashok Pai v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore (2007) 7 SCC 162, that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not to be mandatorily imposed. In other words, the levy of penalty under this provision is not automatic. This view has been reiterated in Union of India v. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills, (2009) 13 SCC 448 to say that for there to be a levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c), the conditions laid…

GAGAN ASHOK KHEMKA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 21(1), MUMBAI

ITA 458/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodshri Gagan Ashok Khemka Asst. Cit, Circle-21(1) 101 Kapadia Apartment, C-10, 6Th Floor, S.V. Road, Vile Parle West, Bandra Kurla Complex Vs. Mumbai – 400 056 Bandra East, Mumbai – 400 051 Pan – Adtpk4224E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Narayan Atal, A.R Respondent By: Shri V. Vinod Kumar, D.R Date Of Hearing: 03.03.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.03.2020

For Appellant: Shri Narayan Atal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…Shri Gagan Ashok Khemka Vs. ACIT, Circle-21(1) 1 ITA No. 458/Mum/2015 A.Y. 2010-11 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountant Member and Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member Shri Gagan Ashok Khemka Asst. CIT, Circle-21(1) 101 Kapadia Apartment, C-10, 6th Floor, S.V. Road, Vile Parle West, Bandra Kurla Complex Vs. Mumbai – 400 056 Bandra East, Mumbai – 400 051 PAN – ADTPK4224E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Narayan Atal, A.R Respondent by: Shri V. Vinod Kumar, D.R Date of Hearing: 03.03.2020 Date of Pronouncement: 04.03.2020 O R D E R PER RAVISH…

DEEPAK JATIA ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 940/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri N. K. Pradhan, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 940 To 943/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2013-14) बिधम/ Deepak Jatia Dcit-Central Circle-1(1) Room No.903, 9Th Floor, Old Marathon Innova, „A‟ Wing, Vs. 7Th Floor, Off. G. K. Marg, Cgo Bldg, Annexure, M.K. Lower Parel, Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400020. 400013. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adxpj8701D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Narendra Singh Jang Pangi (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, (Jm): The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 47, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed.

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala (AR)For Respondent: Shri Narendra Singh Jang Pangi
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 27Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…uch disclosure of income was a consequence of the search conducted on the assessee, there was concealment of income which attracted Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 11. The Supreme Court held, in Shri T. Ashok Pai v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore (2007) 7 SCC 162, that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not to be mandatorily imposed. In other words, the levy of penalty under this provision is not automatic. This view has been reiterated in Union of India v. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills, (2009) 13 SCC 448 to say that for there to be a levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c), the conditions laid out t…

D.C.I.T. - 12(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MOVIDA INDIA PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 640/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Sooddcit-12(3)(2), M/S Movida India Private Limited Room No.147B, 1St Floor, 903, Shreenath Chs Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Liberty Garden, Malad (W), Vs. Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 064

For Appellant: Smt. Jothilakshmi Nayak, D.RFor Respondent: Ms. Dinkle Hariya, A.R
Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

…course of the assessment proceedings cannot on a standalone basis automatically lead to levy of penalty under Sec.271(1)(c). Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri T. Ashok Pai Vs. CIT Banglore (2007) 7 SCC 162 (SC). In the aforesaid case, it was observed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court that unless and until there is some evidence to show or some circumstances found from where it can be gathered that there was an intention or desire on the part of the assessee to hide or conceal the income so as to avoid imposition of tax thereon, penalty under Sec.271(1)(c) ca…

SANJEEV JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6886/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

…uch disclosure of income was a consequence of the search conducted on the assessee, there was concealment of income which attracted Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 11. The Supreme Court held, in Shri T. Ashok Pai v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore (2007) 7 SCC 162, that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not to be mandatorily imposed. In other words, the levy of penalty under this provision is not ITA Nos. 6880 to 6886 & 7139/Del/2018 10 automatic. This view has been reiterated in Union of India v. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills, (2009) 13 SCC 448 to say that for there to be a levy of penalty under Se…

SANJEEV JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6885/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

…uch disclosure of income was a consequence of the search conducted on the assessee, there was concealment of income which attracted Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 11. The Supreme Court held, in Shri T. Ashok Pai v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore (2007) 7 SCC 162, that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not to be mandatorily imposed. In other words, the levy of penalty under this provision is not ITA Nos. 6880 to 6886 & 7139/Del/2018 10 automatic. This view has been reiterated in Union of India v. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills, (2009) 13 SCC 448 to say that for there to be a levy of penalty under Se…

SANJEEV JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6884/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

…uch disclosure of income was a consequence of the search conducted on the assessee, there was concealment of income which attracted Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 11. The Supreme Court held, in Shri T. Ashok Pai v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore (2007) 7 SCC 162, that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not to be mandatorily imposed. In other words, the levy of penalty under this provision is not ITA Nos. 6880 to 6886 & 7139/Del/2018 10 automatic. This view has been reiterated in Union of India v. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills, (2009) 13 SCC 448 to say that for there to be a levy of penalty under Se…

SANJEEV J AIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6883/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

…uch disclosure of income was a consequence of the search conducted on the assessee, there was concealment of income which attracted Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 11. The Supreme Court held, in Shri T. Ashok Pai v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore (2007) 7 SCC 162, that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not to be mandatorily imposed. In other words, the levy of penalty under this provision is not ITA Nos. 6880 to 6886 & 7139/Del/2018 10 automatic. This view has been reiterated in Union of India v. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills, (2009) 13 SCC 448 to say that for there to be a levy of penalty under Se…

SANJEEV J AIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6882/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

…uch disclosure of income was a consequence of the search conducted on the assessee, there was concealment of income which attracted Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 11. The Supreme Court held, in Shri T. Ashok Pai v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore (2007) 7 SCC 162, that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not to be mandatorily imposed. In other words, the levy of penalty under this provision is not ITA Nos. 6880 to 6886 & 7139/Del/2018 10 automatic. This view has been reiterated in Union of India v. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills, (2009) 13 SCC 448 to say that for there to be a levy of penalty under Se…

RISHABH BUILDWELL P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6881/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

…uch disclosure of income was a consequence of the search conducted on the assessee, there was concealment of income which attracted Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 11. The Supreme Court held, in Shri T. Ashok Pai v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore (2007) 7 SCC 162, that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not to be mandatorily imposed. In other words, the levy of penalty under this provision is not ITA Nos. 6880 to 6886 & 7139/Del/2018 10 automatic. This view has been reiterated in Union of India v. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills, (2009) 13 SCC 448 to say that for there to be a levy of penalty under Se…

RISHABH BUILDWELL P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6880/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

…uch disclosure of income was a consequence of the search conducted on the assessee, there was concealment of income which attracted Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 11. The Supreme Court held, in Shri T. Ashok Pai v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore (2007) 7 SCC 162, that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not to be mandatorily imposed. In other words, the levy of penalty under this provision is not ITA Nos. 6880 to 6886 & 7139/Del/2018 10 automatic. This view has been reiterated in Union of India v. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills, (2009) 13 SCC 448 to say that for there to be a levy of penalty under Se…

PR. CIT -8 vs. SAMTEL INDIA LTD.

ITA/43/2017HC Delhi09 Jul 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

Section 260ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…n that needs to be answered is whether penalty is automatically levied when the assessee makes a claim of write off which consequently reduces the tax incidence to be borne by the assessee. Shri T. Ashok Pai v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore [(2007) 7 SCC 162], ITA 43/2017 Page 5 of 8 held that penalty can only be levied in a case where the essentials of section 271(1)(c) are met. Quoting from a previous authority, the Supreme Court held that: “It is implicit in the word 'concealed' that there has been a deliberate act on the part of the assessee. The meaning of the word 'concealment' as…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-19 vs. SHRI NEERAJ JINDAL

ITA/464/2016HC Delhi09 Feb 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 260Section 263Section 264Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…cally whenever the assessee declares a higher income in his return filed under Section 153A in comparison to the original return filed under Section 139(1). 14. The Supreme Court held, in Shri T. Ashok Pai v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore (2007) 7 SCC 162, that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not to be mandatorily imposed. In other words, the levy of penalty under this provision is not automatic. This view has been reiterated in Union of India v. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills, (2009) 13 SCC 448 to say that for there to be a levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c), the conditions laid…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-19 vs. SHRI ANKUR AGGARWAL

ITA/465/2016HC Delhi09 Feb 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 260Section 263Section 264Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…cally whenever the assessee declares a higher income in his return filed under Section 153A in comparison to the original return filed under Section 139(1). 14. The Supreme Court held, in Shri T. Ashok Pai v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore (2007) 7 SCC 162, that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not to be mandatorily imposed. In other words, the levy of penalty under this provision is not automatic. This view has been reiterated in Union of India v. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills, (2009) 13 SCC 448 to say that for there to be a levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c), the conditions laid…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-19 vs. SHRI ANKUR AGGARWAL

ITA/466/2016HC Delhi09 Feb 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 260Section 263Section 264Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…cally whenever the assessee declares a higher income in his return filed under Section 153A in comparison to the original return filed under Section 139(1). 14. The Supreme Court held, in Shri T. Ashok Pai v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore (2007) 7 SCC 162, that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not to be mandatorily imposed. In other words, the levy of penalty under this provision is not automatic. This view has been reiterated in Union of India v. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills, (2009) 13 SCC 448 to say that for there to be a levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c), the conditions laid…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. BALA KAUL

Appeal is dismissed

ITA - 329 / 2009HC Delhi28 May 2009
Section 36(2)

…down that the Tribunal is the final fact finding Authority and its decision is alterable only if it is perverse [See CIT vs- Mukundray K. Shah, [2007] 290 ITR 433(SC)], CIT vs- P. Mohankala, (2007) 6 SCC 21 and T. Ashok Pai vs- CIT, Bangalore, (2007) 7 SCC 162 which precedents prescribe that only palpably perverse conclusions pertaining to the factual matrix should be interfered with by the High Court. The concurrent findings of the CIT(A) as well as the ITAT are not, in our opinion, perverse. Hence, we find no reason to delve further into their correctness. No substantial question of l…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI IV vs. D.S.PROMOTERS & DEVELOPERS P. LTD.

The Appeal is dismissed but with no orders as to costs

ITA/654/2008HC Delhi01 May 2009

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAMAJIT SEN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

Section 22Section 260ASection 28

…bstantial questions of law. A similar appreciation of law is to be found in Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax –vs- M.N. Moni, ITA No.654/2008 Page 4 of 9 (2007) 10 SCC 584 decided by a Three-Judge Bench. In T.Ashok Pai –vs- CIT, Bangalore, (2007) 7 SCC 162 their Lordships have held that the High Court should not ordinarily disturb the finding by the ITAT on questions of fact and a question of law would arise, if at all, only after accepting the findings of fact to be correct. In Sir Shadi Lal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. –vs- CIT, Delhi, (1987) 4 SCC 722 it has been opined that the High Court o…