Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 271(1)(c), Section 143(3), Section 115JB, Section 37(1), Section 147, Section 14A.

Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors

Q: How many judgments cite Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors?

501 judgments on BharatTax cite Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors (306 ITR 277), spanning 2009 to 2026.

306 ITR 277Supreme Court of India2008#136 most cited

What is Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors authority for?

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is a strict civil liability, and willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting it. The explanation appended to the section indicates this element of strict liability for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

501

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,368 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors · 306 ITR 277 · section 271(1)(c) · penalty for concealment · furnishing inaccurate particulars · strict liability · civil liability · willful concealment not required · penalty assessment

Also reported as

174 Taxmann 571212 CTR 432

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 115JB Section 37(1)Section 147 Section 14A Section 1961 Section 148

Issues it is cited on

furnishing inaccurate particulars of income furnishing inaccurate particulars penalty u/s 271(1)(c)penalty under section 271(1)(c)concealment of income section 274 levy of penalty section 271(1)section 271 section 271(1)(c)section 27 section 115jb

Judgments citing Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors

Bayer Vapi Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Bilag Industries Pvt.Ltd., Vapi vs. The A CIT., Vapi Circle, Vapi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1688/AHD/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Aug 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No.1688/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2005-06 Bayer Vapi Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Bilag Industries Income Tax, Private Limited), Plot No.306/3, Vapi Circle, Vapi. Phase-Ii, Vapi – 396 195, Gujarat. [Pan: Aabcb 2100 L] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Mehul K Patel, Advocate & Shri A. Gopalakrishnan, Ca Shri Prasenjit Singh – Cit(Dr) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By 18.07.2019 सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On: 27.08.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per O.P.Meena, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The 1. Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)- Valsad, Valsad(In Short “The Cit(A)”) Dated 31.03.2014 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2005-06. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita 2. No.1688/Ahd/2014 Read As Under : “01. The Appellant Company Has Neither Concealed Its Income Nor Submitted Any Inaccurate Particulars Of Income & The Adjustments/ Additions Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Contrary To The Facts Of The Case & Law & Deserves To Be Deleted. 02. On Appreciation Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Bayer Vapi Pvt. Ltd.,(Formerly Known As Bilag Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vs.Acit-Vapi/Ita No.1688/Ahd/2014: A.Y.2005-06 Page 2 Of 20

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…stantiate it and to prove that the presumption was bonafide. Therefore, after citing the number of case laws of various Hon'ble High Courts and Hon'ble Supreme Courts and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharmendra Textile Processors Ltd., 306 ITR 277 held that penalty is civil liability and willful concealment is not essential ingredient for attracting civil liability, confirmed the penalty imposed by the AO. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed this appeal before 10. this Tribunal. The ld.Counsel submitted that the claim of intangible assets has been accepted by the Tribunal during A.Y. 2004…

Vyanjan Hotel P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO - 2(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7445/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Ramit Kochar, Hon'Blem/S Vyanjan Hotels Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax Officer – 2(3)(4) Unit No.4, Peninsula Chambers Room No. 555 Peninsula Corporate Park Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road G.K. Marg, Lower Parel (W) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aabcv7944C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora Shri Nikhil Tiwari Department By : Shri Ajay Kumar Ojha

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Ojha

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

…of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, in the context of the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. After analyzing its own decisions in the case of Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT (291 ITR 519), Union of India v. Dharmendra Textiles (306 ITR 277), Union of India v. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills (224 CTR 1) and CIT v. Atul Mohan Jindal (317 ITR 1), the Hon'ble Court stated as under:- "The basic reasons why decision in Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint CIT was overruled by this Court in Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors, was that according to this court the effect and differenc…

Shri Ghanshyam Dungarbhai Sutariya, Surat vs. The ACIT, Circle-8, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 2971/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Meenaassessment Year: 2009-10 Ghanshyam Dungarbhai Sutaria, Vs. Acit, Circle-8, H.No. 1, 1St Floor, Sahaj Park Row Surat House, Hira Baug Circle, Vallabhacharya Road, Near Kailashdham Society, Ashwanikumar Road, Surat-395008 (Pan: Akkpp9318E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…he entire onus is on the assessee to not only offer an explanation but also to substantiate it and to prove that the presumption was bonafide. 5.7 We further find that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 306 ITR 277 has held that the Explanations added to section 271(1)(c) in entirety also indicate the element of strict liability on the assessee for concealment or for giving inaccurate particulars while filing returns. In another case in CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal [2009] 9 SCC 589 their Lordship held that mens rea is not necessary for Imposing penalty under se…

ACIT 10(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra State Power Generation Co.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4720/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri N.K. Pradhandcit-10(1) M/S Maharashtra State Power 455, 4Th Floor, Generation Co. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Plot No. G-9, Prakash Gad, Mumbai -400 020 Vs. Anant Kanekar Marg, Station Road, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051

For Appellant: Shri Manjunath Swami, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Sheth, A.R

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

…in its statement of accounts, therefore, no penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) was liable to be imposed in its case. As regards the reliance placed by the A.O on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme court in the case of UOI Vs. Dharmendra Textiles Processors (2007) 212 CTR 432 (SC), it was submitted by the ld. A.R, that as the same was distinguishable on facts, therefore, the same would not assist the case of the revenue. In fact, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that the A.O while relying on the aforesaid judicial pronouncement had misconceived the factual position prevalent in the case of the assessee in context of th…

South India Surgicals Co. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 916/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.916/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2015-16 M/S. South India Surgical Company The Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., New No. 117, Old No. 65, Vs. Income Tax, Wallajah Road, Anna Salai, Corporate Circle 6(2), Chennai 600 002. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacs5091E] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai Dated 28.02.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘‘ए” "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी धु"ु" आर.एल रे"ी, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद" के सम" Before Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member & Shri S. Jayaraman, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.916/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2015-16 M/s. South India Surgical Company The Assistant Commissioner of Ltd., New No. 117, Old No. 65, Vs. Income Tax, Wallajah Road, Anna Salai, Corporate Circle 6(2), Chennai 600 002. Chennai. [PAN:AAACS5091E] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Resurgere Mines and Minerals India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1531/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, CA and Shri Ashish Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR

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

…That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature. (iii) The law laid down in Dilip Shroff 291 ITR 519 (SC) as to the meanings of the words "conceal" and "inaccurate" continues to be good law because what was overruled in Dharmendra Textile Processors 306 ITR 277 (SC) was only that part in Dilip Shroff where it was held that mens rea was an essential requirement for penalty u/s 271 (1)(c)." Your honor in the case of CIT vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited ITA No. 626/2011 the AO imposed penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) on the ground that the assessee had filed "inaccurate particulars" by wrongly (i) claiming d…

Ekta Shakti Developers, Mumbai vs. ACIT RG 25(3) New DCIT, Central Circle (6)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 1762/MUM/2019[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1762/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2002-03) बिधम/ M/S. Ekta Shakti Developers Dcit, Central Circle (6) (2) 19Th Floor, Air India 401, Hallmark Business Vs. Plaza, Near Gurunank Building, Mumbai-400021. Hospital, Kala Nagar, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafe9373L (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Naresh Jain & Mahaveer Jain (Ar) Revenue By: Mrs. Neelima V. Nadkarni (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/07/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/07/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 26.06.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-45, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2002-.03 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Order To Be Confirmed.

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Jain & MahaveerFor Respondent: Mrs. Neelima V. Nadkarni (DR)

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275

…). Our coordinate Bench, after considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Kaushalya & Ors., (supra) as also the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff (supra) and Dharmendra Textile Processors, 306 ITR 277 (SC) deduced as under :- “12. A combined reading of the decision rendered by Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. B Kaushalya and Others (supra) and the decision rendered by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N Shroff (supra) would make it clear that there should be application of mind on the part of the AO at the time of issuing…

Gaurav Garg, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5716/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 132ASection 13ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69A

…essential for civil liability of penalty which includes penalty u/s Page 8 of 15 ITA No. -5716/Del/2015. Gaurav Garg. 271 (1)( c) as established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision in the case of Union of India Vs Dharrnendra Textile processors (SC) 306 ITR 277, Guljag Industries Ltd. Vs GTO (SC) 293 ITR 584, CIT Vs Atul Mohan Bindal (SC) 317 11 R 1. -Still a clear present of mens rea is being taken here for levy of higher rate of penalty on the assessee. The minimum and maximum penalty works out to Rs. 7,74,560/- and Rs. 23,23,5001- respectively. Looking to the facts of the case I hereby impose maximum…

Mitsuboshi Belting India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Range 15(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 448/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 37Section 44A

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Amarjit Singh (JM) I.T.A. No. 448/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2013-14) Mitsuboshi Belting India P. Ltd. ACIT Range 15(2)(2) Vs. R-672, Ground & Upper Floor Aayakar Bhavan Next to Alpha Laval, Pipeline M.K. Road Road, TTC Industrial Area Mumbai-400 020. Rabale MIDC, Navi Mumbai. PAN : AAGCM9369K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri M.P.Lohia Department by Shri S.K. Mitra Date of Hearing 9.5.2019 Date of Pronouncement 9.7.2019 O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM):- This appeal by the assessee is directed against the orde…

Ameet Vipin Desai, Mumbai vs. ITO - 24 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5026/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunatha, Assessment Year: 2013-14

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

…s of income which attracts penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The AO, after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also relied upon the decision of Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs Dharmendra Textile Processors (306 ITR 277)(SC) held that the assessee has failed to offer any explanation for claiming speculation loss under the head income from business, even though, the said loss has been carried forward to subsequent years, therefore, he opined that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Act and a…

Mesers Malwa Motors, Bathinda vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Bathinda

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 131/ASR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 131/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

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

…ll be deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income. Reference in this context may be drawn to a series of decisions by the Apex Court in the matter, viz. Mak Data (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC); UoI v. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC); K.P. Madhusudhanan vs. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC); B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. v. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 977 (SC); CIT (Addl.) vs. Jeevan Lal Shah [1994] 205 ITR 244 (SC); CIT vs. K. R. Sadayappan [1990] 185 ITR 49 (SC)), to cite some, followed by Hon’ble High Courts throughout the country, including the jurisdictional High Court, as in CIT v.…

Shri H.K. Gandotra, Gurgaon vs. The Inocme-Tax Officer, Jammu

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 594/ASR/2014[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Jun 2019AY 1997-98

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 594/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 1997-98

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 246Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

…penalty proceedings being criminal or quasi criminal in nature, a notion, never 15 ITA Nos. 594/Asr/2014 (AY 1997-98) H. K. Gandotra v. ITO encouraged, dispelled by the larger bench decision by the Apex Court in Dharmendra Textile Processors v. UoI [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC). Now, this does not mean to suggest, and it is nobody’s case, that the charge is not to be specified, that in fact being the basis for the levy of the penalty, but only that it may as well fall in the other limb, to little consequence. This, it may be clarified, though not relevant for deciding the appeal under reference wherein the proceedi…

Hakimmudin Mansoorali Plasticwala, Mumbai vs. ITO 13(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 3927/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2011-12 Hakimmuddin Mansoorali Plasticwala Ito-13(1)3) Shop No. 14/C, Ground Floor Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Aradhana Building M.K.Road, Churchgate Dhobi Street, Masjid Bunder Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 003 Pan:Aaacpp1052B (Assessee) (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri B. YadagiriFor Respondent: Shri Bhadresh K. Doshi

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Puneet Saluja, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3497/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 133ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…aim which is not sustainable under law cannot lead to levy of penalty. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the arguments of the assessee held that the penalty is leviable in view of the rationale given by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharmendra Textiles, 306 ITR 277 3 and various other case laws mentioned below. For the sake of brevity, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under : 4.1 I have carefully considered the written submissions filed by the Ld. AR and penalty order passed by the AO. From the penalty order, it is established that AO imposed penalty specifically holding that creation of AOP…

Transwind Communication Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, (OSD), Circle-8, Ahmedabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1538/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Jignesh Kumar Parikh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri James Kurian, Sr. D.R

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…the only document where the assessee can furnish the particulars of his income. When such particulars are found to be inaccurate, the liability would arise." 3.4 It is further noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharmendra Textiles Processors 306 ITR 277 (2008) (SC) has noted that the explanations appended to sec. 271(1)(c) entirely indicate the element of strict liability on the assessee for Transwind Communication and Electronics Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT Asst.Year – 2010-11 concealment or for giving inaccurate particulars while filing return. It is also held that the section has been enacted to provi…

Sahakar Developers, Mumbai vs. ACIT 25(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 7383/MUM/2017[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kishnadwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh, D.R

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…). Our coordinate Bench, after considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Kaushalya & Ors., (supra) as also the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff (supra) and Dharmendra Textile Processors, 306 ITR 277 (SC) deduced as under :- "12. A combined reading of the decision rendered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. B Kaushalya and Others (supra) and the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N Shroff (supra) would make it clear that there should be application of mind on the part of the AO at the time of issuin…

Horizon Country Wide Logistics Ltd(Now Succeeded on Amalgamation by Skil Infrastructure Limited ), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 7068/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kamar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 7068/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Horizon Country Wide बिधम/ Dcit, Cc-6(3) 19Th Floor, Air India, M.K. Logistics Ltd. (Now Vs. Succeeded On Amalgamation Road, Mumbai-400020. By Skill Infrastructure Ltd.) Skil House, 209 Bank Street Cross Lane, Fort Mumbai- 400023. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccn5412E (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ruturaj H. Gurjar (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 29.09.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-54, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2009-10 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Order To Be Confirmed. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - 2. Ita. No7068/M/2017 A.Y. 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Ruturaj H. Gurjar (AR)For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 35D

M/S. Oil Industry Development Board, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4664/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 154Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 36

…umbai ITAT in the case of ACIT vs. Supreme Industries Ltd. (2009) (28 SOT 19) that wrong or impermissible claim cannot avoid penalty u/s 271(l)(c). The Hon'bie Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Others vs. Dharmendra Textiles Processors and Others, 306 ITR 277 observed that mensrea need not be established by the Revenue in every case of civil penalty including income-tax penalty. After amendment, establishing mens rea is not a precondition to levy penalty u/s 271(l)(c). The relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard are as under: "It is of significance to note that the conceptual…

M/S. Oil Industry Development Board, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4663/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 154Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 36

M/S. Oil Industry Development Board, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4662/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 154Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 36