What is Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

An assessee's agreement to an addition or voluntary disclosure of income does not automatically establish concealment for levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c). While such agreement may arise from various reasons like avoiding litigation, the assessee must still discharge the burden of proving that the addition was not due to concealment.

How many judgments cite Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT?

86 judgments on BharatTax cite Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT (168 ITR 705), spanning 2001 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 271(1)(c), Section 153A, Section 274, Section 132, Section 271AAB.

Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT (168 ITR 705)

Prem Prakash Agarwal, Naya Bazar Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 758/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)

Section 132Section 153ASection 271ASection 274

…ven on merits. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions: Hon’ble High Court of Madya Pradesh in the case of CIT Vs Suresh Chand Mittal 241ITR124 (2000)MP Supreme Court Judgement in Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT, [1987]168 ITR 705 Hon’ble ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of M.G.Contractors Pvt.Ltd. Vs DCIT, Central Circle-1, Faridabad in ITA Nos 7034 to 7038/Del/2014 Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Cheldas Khushaldas Patel And Ors. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax 1992, 196 ITR 200 Guj held as under: “ 7. The Commissioner, in the case of the firm, refused to waiv…

Prem Prakash Agarwal, Naya Bazar Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 757/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)

Section 153ASection 270ASection 270A(1)Section 274

…en on merits. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions: Hon’ble High Court of Madya Pradesh in the case of CIT Vs Suresh Chand Mittal 241ITR124 (2000) MP Supreme Court Judgement in Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT, [1987]168 ITR 705 Hon’ble ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of M.G.Contractors Pvt.Ltd. Vs DCIT, Central Circle-1, Faridabad in ITA Nos 7034 to 7038/Del/2014 Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Cheldas Khushaldas Patel And Ors. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax 1992, 196 ITR 200 Guj held as under: “ 7. The Commissioner, in the case of the firm, refused to waiv…

Prem Prakash Agarwal, Naya Bazar Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 756/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ssued u/s 153A of the Act. 5.9 The appellant had relied on the judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Madya Pradesh in the case of CIT Vs Suresh Chand Mittal 241ITR124 (2000) MP Supreme Court Judgement in Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT, [1987]168 ITR 705 Hon’ble ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of M.G.Contractors Pvt.Ltd. Vs DCIT, Central Circle-1, Faridabad in ITA Nos 7034 to 7038/Del/2014 and many others….. The facts of the above referred cases are different from the present case. In the present case during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to give the explanation of al…

Prem Prakash Agarwal, Naya Bazar Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 755/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ssued u/s 153A of the Act. 5.9 The appellant had relied on the judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Madya Pradesh in the case of CIT Vs Suresh Chand Mittal 241ITR124 (2000) MP Supreme Court Judgement in Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT, [1987]168 ITR 705 Hon’ble ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of M.G.Contractors Pvt.Ltd. Vs DCIT, Central Circle-1, Faridabad in ITA Nos 7034 to 7038/Del/2014 and many others….. The facts of the above referred cases are different from the present case. In the present case during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to give the explanation of al…

Shakti Stonex, Industrial Area Kishangarh vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 762/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Jan 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 274

…en on merits. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions: Hon’ble High Court of Madya Pradesh in the case of CIT Vs Suresh Chand Mittal 241ITR124 (2000) MP Supreme Court Judgement in Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT, [1987]168 ITR 705 Hon’ble ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of M.G.Contractors Pvt.Ltd. Vs DCIT, Central Circle-1, Faridabad in ITA Nos 7034 to 7038/Del/2014 Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Cheldas Khushaldas Patel And Ors. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax 1992, 196 ITR 200 Guj held as under: “7. The Commissioner, in the case of the firm, refused to waive…

ITO Ward-32(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Dharam Hasmukhbhai Jagda, Mumbai

ITA 446/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am Dharam Hasmukhbhai Jagda Income Tax Officer 32(1)(1) 154/155, Santvani Bld., Lic R. No. 703, Kautilya Bhavan, Colony, Besides Upadhya Bkc, Bandra (E), Vs. Dairy,Birivali(W), Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aglpj0431B Assessee By : None Revenue By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Date Of Hearing: 07.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.11.2023

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…uchers and receipts That conduct of the assessee according to the Revenue was by itself A.Y. 2014-15 Dharam Hasmukhbhai Jagda sufficient to show that there was concealment. The Supreme Court in the case of Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills vs. CIT, [1987] 168 ITR 705, has pointed out that not every case of non disclosure warrants imposition of penalty as the assessee may forgo a deduction or offer higher sums for taxation for a hundred and one different reasons and all of them cannot be regarded as reasons which are unworthy of acceptance." The Hon'ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court, vide its order dated 06…

Shri Vithalbhai Kadvabhai Korat, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(3)(1), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 205/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.205/Srt/2023 (Ay 2016-17) (Hearing In Physical Court) Vithalbhai Kadvabhai Korat Income Tax Officer, Ward- 55,V.T. Nagar, Near Sarthana 3(3)(1), Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs Jakatnaka, Varachha, Majura Gate, Surat-395006 Surat-395001 Pan No: Adkpk 2173 K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…) 36 DTR 0449, (2010) 230 CTR 0320, (2010) 322ITR 0158, (2010) 189 Taxman 0322 (SC)  Shailesh Jayendra Bhadalia vs. ITO-33(3)(4),Mumbai ITA No.7224/Mum/2018 dated 07.02.2020  Sir Shadi Lal Sugar & General Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT [1987] 33 Taxman 460A (SC)/[1987] 168 ITR 705 (SC)/[1987] 64 CTR 199 (SC)[31-07- 1987] 6. On the other hand, Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue supported the order of lower authorities. The ld SR DR for the revenue submits that the ld CIT(A) has considered all such submissions of the assessee and confirmed the penalty. 7. I have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone throu…

Kaveri Polymers, Warangal vs. DCIT, Central Circle -1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 513/HYD/2022[2015-165]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Mar 2023AY 2015-165

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri KPRR Murthy

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…lained by the Supreme Court in K.P. Madhusudan v. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99/118 Taxman 324, wherein the Court held- "Learned Counsel for the assessee then drew our attention to the judgement of this Court in Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1987] 168 ITR 705. He submitted that the assessee had agreed to the additions to his income referred to hereinabove to buy peace and it did not follow therefrom that the amount that was agreed to he added was concealed income. That it did not follow that the amount agreed to be added was concealed income is undoubtedly what was laid down by this Court in the case…

Kaveri Infra Project Pvt Ltd, Warangal vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 511/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri KPRR Murthy

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…lained by the Supreme Court in K.P. Madhusudan v. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99/118 Taxman 324, wherein the Court held- "Learned Counsel for the assessee then drew our attention to the judgement of this Court in Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1987] 168 ITR 705. He submitted that the assessee had agreed to the additions to his income referred to hereinabove to buy peace and it did not follow therefrom that the amount that was agreed to he added was concealed income. That it did not follow that the amount agreed to be added was concealed income is undoubtedly what was laid down by this Court in the case…

Kaveri Infra Project Pvt Ltd, Warangal vs. DCIT, Central Circle -1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 510/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri KPRR Murthy

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…lained by the Supreme Court in K.P. Madhusudan v. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99/118 Taxman 324, wherein the Court held- "Learned Counsel for the assessee then drew our attention to the judgement of this Court in Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1987] 168 ITR 705. He submitted that the assessee had agreed to the additions to his income referred to hereinabove to buy peace and it did not follow therefrom that the amount that was agreed to he added was concealed income. That it did not follow that the amount agreed to be added was concealed income is undoubtedly what was laid down by this Court in the case…

Aman Goyal, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 402/JPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Balram Swami, C.AFor Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263wSection 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…that the Appellant has hided anything or furnished inaccurate particulars as the Income had already been offered before opening of any assessment and disclosed in the financial statement of the Appellant. 10. Supreme Court in case of Sir Shadilal Sugar Mills (168 ITR 705) held that there may be a hundred and one reasons for not protesting and agreeing to an addition but that does not follow to the conclusion that the amount agreed to be added was concealed income. Indeed, there may be numerous reasons with the tax payer for not approaching the first appellate authority for justice, for example the following: (i)…

Mohite and Mohite (Engineers and Contractors), Kolhapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kolhapur

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

ITA 288/PUN/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.286 To 288/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2015-16 Mohite & Mohite Vs. Acit, Central Circle, (Engineers & Contractors), Kolhapur. 240/B, Mohite House, General Thorat Marg, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur- 416003. Pan : Aacfm4102F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Suhas Kulkarni Date Of Hearing : 21.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-11, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 15.02.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Three Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.286/Pun/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Suhas Kulkarni

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50

…uarely applicable. The mere fact that the assessee had chosen not to contest the addition in the appellate forum, cannot automatically entail levy of penalty as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sir Shadi Lal Sugar & General Mills Ltd. vs. CIT, 168 ITR 705 (SC). 9. In the light of the above discussion, the appellant cannot be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealing the particulars of income and it is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Hence, we reverse the orders passed by the lower authorities and quash the penalty order. Thus, the grounds…

Mohite and Mohite (Engineers and Contractors), Kolhapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kolhapur

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

ITA 287/PUN/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.286 To 288/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2015-16 Mohite & Mohite Vs. Acit, Central Circle, (Engineers & Contractors), Kolhapur. 240/B, Mohite House, General Thorat Marg, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur- 416003. Pan : Aacfm4102F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Suhas Kulkarni Date Of Hearing : 21.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-11, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 15.02.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Three Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.286/Pun/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Suhas Kulkarni

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50

…uarely applicable. The mere fact that the assessee had chosen not to contest the addition in the appellate forum, cannot automatically entail levy of penalty as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sir Shadi Lal Sugar & General Mills Ltd. vs. CIT, 168 ITR 705 (SC). 9. In the light of the above discussion, the appellant cannot be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealing the particulars of income and it is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Hence, we reverse the orders passed by the lower authorities and quash the penalty order. Thus, the grounds…

Mohite and Mohite (Engineers and Contractors), Kolhapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kolhapur

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

ITA 286/PUN/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.286 To 288/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2015-16 Mohite & Mohite Vs. Acit, Central Circle, (Engineers & Contractors), Kolhapur. 240/B, Mohite House, General Thorat Marg, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur- 416003. Pan : Aacfm4102F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Suhas Kulkarni Date Of Hearing : 21.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-11, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 15.02.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Three Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.286/Pun/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Suhas Kulkarni

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50

…uarely applicable. The mere fact that the assessee had chosen not to contest the addition in the appellate forum, cannot automatically entail levy of penalty as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sir Shadi Lal Sugar & General Mills Ltd. vs. CIT, 168 ITR 705 (SC). 9. In the light of the above discussion, the appellant cannot be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealing the particulars of income and it is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Hence, we reverse the orders passed by the lower authorities and quash the penalty order. Thus, the grounds…

Pramod N. Prajapati, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vapi

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 621/SRT/2018[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Dec 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) Pramod N. Prajapati, Pr.Cit-1, B-1, Panchvati Apartment, Valsad. Vs. Tokarkhada, Silvasa, D&Nh-396230 Pan No. Accpp 2457 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Hasmukhbhai N. Prajapati, Pr.Cit-1, E 8, Gokul Vihar, Tokarkhada, Valsad. Vs. Silvasa, D&Nh-396230 Pan No. Accpp 2456 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 154Section 250Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…l and true disclosure of all materials and has not recorded any finding contrary to such full and true disclosure of facts hence in terms of explanation 1 to Sec. 271(1)(c) of the I.T Act 1961 and as held in Sir Shadilal Sugar & General Mills Ltd. Vs CIT 1987 168 ITR 705 SC ad again approved in CIT Vs Suresh Chandra Mittal 251 ITR 9 (SC) as also followed in CIT Vs Valmikbhai H Patel 2006, 280 ITR 487 (Guj). 8. Ld. CIT(A) Valsad has failed to appreciate in facts and in law that investment in flat of Rs. 2,10,000/- has been taxed in A.Y. 1996-97 and such income is taxed second time and it is significant appreciate…

Arjun Singh, Kota vs. ACIT, Circle-I

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 106/JPR/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT

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

…en affirmed by the Supreme Court in 251 ITR 99. Affirming the aforesaid decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that after insertion of explanation its earlier decision in the case of Sir Shadi Lal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 168 ITR 705 (SC) was no longer applicable. The Kerala High Court at page 244 has observed as under:- "The question of onus is of primary and added importance in legal acrimony, In CIT Vs. Anwar Ali (1970) 76 ITR 696, the apex court laid down that, before a person could be visited with a penalty for concealment, etc., the Revenue must prove that the amount in…

Phoenix International Freight Services P. Ltd( Now Known As As C.H. Robinson International (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3206/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shripavankumargadale,Judicialmember & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S. Phoenix Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of International Freight Income Tax, Range-2(1) Services Pvt. Ltd. (Now Mumbai-400050 Known As C.H. Robinson International (India) Pvt. Ltd.) Excom House 7, Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai-400072 Pan No.Aabce0443R Appellant Respondent

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…271(1) (c). Thus, the contrary decision of the Mumbai High Court in the case of CITVs P.M. Shah (1993) 204 ITR 462 (Bom) stands overruled. (b) After introduction of the Explanation, the decision in the case of Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd, CIT Vs 168 ITR 705 (SC), no more holds good and hence, the fact that the assessee had agreed for the addition is no more relevant. The Explanation was introduced to meet such situations only. Moreover, after the introduction of the Explanation, the revenue has not to prove mens rea on the part of the assessee. 14 M/s Phoenix International Freight Services Pvt Ltd.…

M/S. Shubham Industries, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 8, Pune

ITA 1887/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1887/Pun/2018 निर्ाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shubham Industries, The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S.R.G.Bhilare & Co., Vs Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune. Chartered Accountants, Plot No.9, Jatan Niwas, Off Pune Satara Road, Ruturaj Soc., Pune - 411037 Pan: Abxfs 9255 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav - Dr Date Of Hearing 11/01/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 08/04/2022

Section 133Section 271(1)(c)

…sion on the act of voluntary surrender by the assessee, which obviously was done in good faith and to buy peace." [Emphasis supplied] 4. The Tribunal also placed reliance on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Sir Shadilal Sugar & General Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1987] 168 ITR 705 1 , in support, holding as under : ". . . We find that the assessee admitted that these were the incomes of the assessee but that was not an admission that there was deliberate concealment. From agreeing to additions, it does not follow that the amount agreed to be added was concealed income. There may be a hundred and one reasons for such admiss…

Shri Jai Hind Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD-5(4), Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 146/JPR/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.” 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

…Dilip N. Shroff 291 ITR 519. It is to be noted that the provisions of sec 271(1)(c) as considered by the apex court in the case of Anwar Ali (supra) were identical to the provisions under the old Act of 1922. In the case of Sir Shadilal Sugar & General Mills 168 ITR 705 SC, it was held that penalty could not be imposed merely because the 'A' agreed to be assessed on a particular income. The decision of the apex court was based on the provisions as they were originally enacted. The view taken by the division be nch in the cas e of Dilip N. Shroff was doubted and overruled in UOI-v- Dharmendra Textiles Processors…

Ms. Binna Nitin Parikh, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-19(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2604/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blems. Binna Nitin Parikh V. Acit – Circle – 19(1) W1, Sudantta Apartments Room No. 203, 2Nd Floor 10A Mount Pleasant Road Matru Mandir, Tardev Road Malabar Hill, Mumbai - 400006 Mumbai – 400 007 Pan: Aadpp1671P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Hirawat Department By : Shri C.T. Mathews

For Appellant: Shri Sunil HirawatFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 35(1)(ii)

…n the same surrender agreement in which assessee has categorically pleaded that the surrender is subject to no concealment. This type of situation has been dealt by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sir Shadilal Sugar & General Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1987] 168 ITR 705/33 Taxman 460A” 14. In the impugned penalty order, the LAO has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mak Data Ltd. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is distinguishable on the facts that in the case of Mak Data Ltd., no explanation was given by the assessee in respect of the documents found on the survey procee…

Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT

What is Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT

Prem Prakash Agarwal, Naya Bazar Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

Prem Prakash Agarwal, Naya Bazar Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

Prem Prakash Agarwal, Naya Bazar Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

Prem Prakash Agarwal, Naya Bazar Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

Shakti Stonex, Industrial Area Kishangarh vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

ITO Ward-32(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Dharam Hasmukhbhai Jagda, Mumbai

Shri Vithalbhai Kadvabhai Korat, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(3)(1), Surat

Kaveri Polymers, Warangal vs. DCIT, Central Circle -1(3), Hyderabad

Kaveri Infra Project Pvt Ltd, Warangal vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

Kaveri Infra Project Pvt Ltd, Warangal vs. DCIT, Central Circle -1(3), Hyderabad

Aman Goyal, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Jaipur

Mohite and Mohite (Engineers and Contractors), Kolhapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kolhapur

Mohite and Mohite (Engineers and Contractors), Kolhapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kolhapur

Mohite and Mohite (Engineers and Contractors), Kolhapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kolhapur

Pramod N. Prajapati, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vapi

Arjun Singh, Kota vs. ACIT, Circle-I

Phoenix International Freight Services P. Ltd( Now Known As As C.H. Robinson International (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 2(1), Mumbai

M/S. Shubham Industries, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 8, Pune

Shri Jai Hind Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD-5(4), Jaipur

Ms. Binna Nitin Parikh, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-19(1), Mumbai