Shyam Gopal Charitable Trust v. DIT(Exmp.)

290 ITR 99High Court2007#8951 most cited

What is Shyam Gopal Charitable Trust v. DIT(Exmp.) authority for?

A penalty under section 272A(2)(e) is not leviable for failure to file returns within the stipulated time if the assessee acted upon the advice of its chartered accountant and had a bona fide belief that filing returns was not required. The assessee must be given an opportunity to explain why the penalty should be waived, especially where civil consequences arise.

12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2014 to 2023.

Also referred to as

Shyam Gopal Charitable Trust v. DIT(Exmp.) · section 272A · section 273B · reasonable cause · chartered accountant advice · failure to file returns · penalty leviability · natural justice · opportunity to explain

Judgments citing Shyam Gopal Charitable Trust v. DIT(Exmp.)

Bethany Seva Sangam, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, (Exemption) Ward-2, Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 72/RPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.72/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Bethany Seva Sangam C/O. Bethany College Of Nursing, Borsi, Durg (C.G.) Pan : Aaaab0776D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, (Exemption), Ward-2, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 12ASection 139Section 147Section 148Section 272ASection 272A(2)(e)

…d. AR relied on the following judicial pronouncements: (i) Akali Baba Phool Singh Educational Trust Vs. DDIT (Exemption) (2010) 29 CCH 679 (Del.) (ii) G Pulla Reddy Vs. JCIT (2010) 47 DTR 1 (Hyd.) (iii) Shyam Gopal Charitable Trust Vs. DIT (Exemption) (2007) 290 ITR 99 (Del). (iv) Karandhai Tamil Sangam Vs. JCIT (2018) 172 ITD 272 (Chennai) (v) HTSL Community Service Trust Vs. JDIT (2012) 52 SOT 144 (Bang.) (URO) 11 Bethany Seva Sangam Vs. ITO, Exemption, Ward-2, Raipur 13. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short, ‘DR’) relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 14. We have thoughtfully…

Jhalawar Kendriya Sahakari Bnak Ltd, Jhalawar vs. Adl/ADIT (I&Ci), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 313/JPR/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jan 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 271FSection 285B

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 313/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2019-20. cuke Jhalawar Kendriya Sahakari Bank ADL/ADIT (I&CI) Vs. Ltd., Jaipur. 01, Sahakar Bhawan, NH-12, Jhalawar. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. AAATJ 2424 M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Advocate jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Ms Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) lquokbZ d…

The University of Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Addl. Dir. of Income Tax-(Exempition)-RG.-2, Mumbai

In the result, assessee appeal is allowed

ITA 1465/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Saktijit Dey (Jm)

For Respondent: Shri S.N.Kabra
Section 10Section 10(22)Section 104Section 143Section 148Section 272A(2)(e)

…d will accordingly, apply in relation to assessment year 2016-17 and subsequent years. Thus University submits that there was no mandatory requirement to file the return of income for the year under consideration. ii. Shyam Gopal Charitable Trust vs. DIT( E) 290 ITR 99 (Del) Annex-2 "Where assessee did not file return of income on the initial advice of its chartered accountant that it was not required to file any return for the relevant assessment years. Therefore there was reasonable cause within the meaning of s 273B for failure to file returns within stipulated time and penalty u/s 272A(2)( e) was not leviabl…

A.N. School Shiksha Samiti, Sikar vs. JCIT-Range (Exemption), Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 252/JPR/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 252/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2010-11 A.N. School Shiksha Samiti, Cuke J.C.I.T.-Range Vs. Radha Swami Bag, (Exemption) Sikar-303702 Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aabaa 6164 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shravan Kr Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 25/03/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 24/05/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 06/09/2019 For The A.Y. 2010-11 Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. The Impugned Penalty Order U/S 272A(2)(E) Dated 02/11/2018 As Well As Notices Are Bad In Law & On Facts Of The Case, For Want Of Jurisdiction & Various Other Reasons & Hence The Same May Kindly Be Quashed. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Law As Well As On The Facts Of The Case In Confirming The Imposition Of Penalty Of Rs. 2,53,700/- U/S 272A(2)(E) Invoked By The Ld Jcit. The Penalty So Imposed & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) Being Totally Contrary To The Provisions Of Law & Facts On The Record & Hence The Same May Kindly Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri Shravan Kr Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(JCIT)
Section 272A(2)(e)Section 272a(2)(e)Section 5

…been made to ss. 11 and 12—Hence, assessee might have been having a bona fide belief that the provisions of s. 139(4A) are not applicable to it and hence the penalty imposed by the AO is not justified In the case of Shyam Gopal Charitable Trust v/s DIT(Exmp.) 290 ITR 99(Del. HC) it has been held that "18. We are of the view that the appellant ought not to be made to suffer penalty, in the peculiar facts of the present case, for having acted upon an advice of its chartered accountant and not filing the IT returns in time. We should not be understood as laying down a general proposition that in all cases where the…

ITO 14(1)3, Mumbai vs. Ashokkumar M Parikh, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4986/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 55(2)(a)

…eklal Parikh penalty levied on the assessee was deleted on the fact that he followed the advice of a professional tax expert:- T. Ashok Pai 292 ITR 11(SC) Dilip N. Shroff 291 ITR 519 (SC) Lachman Chaturbhuj Java 132 ITR 631 (Bom) Shyam Gopal Charitable Trust 290 ITR 99 (Del) Deepak Kumar 232 CTR (P&H) 78 Sania Mirza 259 CTR (AP) 386 State of Kerala v. Krishna Kurup Madhava Kurup air 1971 Ker. 211 The Supreme Court in Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi [1979] 118 ITR 507, has held that legal advice given by the members of the legal profession may sometimes be wrong and even as pronouncement…

ITO 14(1)3, Mumbai vs. Bharatkumar M Parikh, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4985/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 55(2)(a)

…eklal Parikh penalty levied on the assessee was deleted on the fact that he followed the advice of a professional tax expert:- T. Ashok Pai 292 ITR 11(SC) Dilip N. Shroff 291 ITR 519 (SC) Lachman Chaturbhuj Java 132 ITR 631 (Bom) Shyam Gopal Charitable Trust 290 ITR 99 (Del) Deepak Kumar 232 CTR (P&H) 78 Sania Mirza 259 CTR (AP) 386 State of Kerala v. Krishna Kurup Madhava Kurup air 1971 Ker. 211 The Supreme Court in Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi [1979] 118 ITR 507, has held that legal advice given by the members of the legal profession may sometimes be wrong and even as pronouncement…

Ashokkumar Maneklal Parikh, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(1)(3)

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3709/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 55(2)(a)

…eklal Parikh penalty levied on the assessee was deleted on the fact that he followed the advice of a professional tax expert:- T. Ashok Pai 292 ITR 11(SC) Dilip N. Shroff 291 ITR 519 (SC) Lachman Chaturbhuj Java 132 ITR 631 (Bom) Shyam Gopal Charitable Trust 290 ITR 99 (Del) Deepak Kumar 232 CTR (P&H) 78 Sania Mirza 259 CTR (AP) 386 State of Kerala v. Krishna Kurup Madhava Kurup air 1971 Ker. 211 The Supreme Court in Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi [1979] 118 ITR 507, has held that legal advice given by the members of the legal profession may sometimes be wrong and even as pronouncement…

Bhartkumar Maneklal Parikh, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(1)(3)

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3708/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 55(2)(a)

…eklal Parikh penalty levied on the assessee was deleted on the fact that he followed the advice of a professional tax expert:- T. Ashok Pai 292 ITR 11(SC) Dilip N. Shroff 291 ITR 519 (SC) Lachman Chaturbhuj Java 132 ITR 631 (Bom) Shyam Gopal Charitable Trust 290 ITR 99 (Del) Deepak Kumar 232 CTR (P&H) 78 Sania Mirza 259 CTR (AP) 386 State of Kerala v. Krishna Kurup Madhava Kurup air 1971 Ker. 211 The Supreme Court in Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi [1979] 118 ITR 507, has held that legal advice given by the members of the legal profession may sometimes be wrong and even as pronouncement…

Ashokkumar Maneklal Parikh, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 179/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 55(2)(a)

…eklal Parikh penalty levied on the assessee was deleted on the fact that he followed the advice of a professional tax expert:- T. Ashok Pai 292 ITR 11(SC) Dilip N. Shroff 291 ITR 519 (SC) Lachman Chaturbhuj Java 132 ITR 631 (Bom) Shyam Gopal Charitable Trust 290 ITR 99 (Del) Deepak Kumar 232 CTR (P&H) 78 Sania Mirza 259 CTR (AP) 386 State of Kerala v. Krishna Kurup Madhava Kurup air 1971 Ker. 211 The Supreme Court in Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi [1979] 118 ITR 507, has held that legal advice given by the members of the legal profession may sometimes be wrong and even as pronouncement…

Bharatkumar Maneklal Parikh, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1250/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 55(2)(a)

…eklal Parikh penalty levied on the assessee was deleted on the fact that he followed the advice of a professional tax expert:- T. Ashok Pai 292 ITR 11(SC) Dilip N. Shroff 291 ITR 519 (SC) Lachman Chaturbhuj Java 132 ITR 631 (Bom) Shyam Gopal Charitable Trust 290 ITR 99 (Del) Deepak Kumar 232 CTR (P&H) 78 Sania Mirza 259 CTR (AP) 386 State of Kerala v. Krishna Kurup Madhava Kurup air 1971 Ker. 211 The Supreme Court in Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi [1979] 118 ITR 507, has held that legal advice given by the members of the legal profession may sometimes be wrong and even as pronouncement…

Mohan S Lakhani vs. Income Tax Officer & Anr

ITA/18/2014HC Delhi11 Feb 2015
Section 143(2)Section 7

…ITA No.18/2014 Page 1 $~21 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on: 11th February, 2015 + ITA 18/2014 MOHAN S LAKHANI ..... Appellant Through Mr. K V S Gupta, Adv. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER & ANR. ..... Respondents Through Mr. Arjun Harkauli, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) % 1. The question of law aggrieved by the assessee is whether Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the ITAT”) fell into er…

M/S Bharat Furnishing Co vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/34/2002HC Delhi12 Aug 2014
Section 271(1)(a)

….42,095/- includes the TDS, which was deducted on Rs. 2,93,004.13 received from the DDA. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant-assessee has relied upon decision of this Court in Shyam Gopal Charitable Trust Vs. Director of Income Tax (Exemption), [2007] 290 ITR 99 (Delhi). This was a case relating to Section 272A. It was held that there was violation of principles of natural justice as the notice for penalty under Section 272A(2)(e) of the Act was required to be issued and served on the assessee to enable him to defend the proceeding as imposition of penalty had adverse civil consequences. The assess…

Shyam Gopal Charitable Trust v. DIT(Exmp.) (290 ITR 99) — Cited in 12 Judgments | BharatTax