Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors

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 367,359 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 115JBSection 37(1)Section 147Section 14ASection 1961Section 148

Issues it is cited on

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

Judgments citing Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors

DCIT CC 3(4) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Dhanvinder Bindra, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5699/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam KumarFor Respondent: Shri Neel Khandelwal
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "D" Bench, Mumbai Before Shri P K Bansal, Vice President and Shri R.L. Negi, Judicial Member ITA Nos. 5694 to 5699 /Mum/2015 (Assessment Years: 2002-03 to 2007-08) DCIT, Central Circle-3(4) Shri Dhanvinder Bindra Room No. 401, 4th Floor A-71, Cozy Home Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 251-Pali Hill, Bandra (W) Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400050 PAN – AACPB6734E Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri Purushottam Kumar Respondent by: Shri Neel Khandelwal Date of Hearing: 11.10.2017 Date of Pronouncement: 01.11.2017 O R D E R Per P.K. Bansal, Vice President All these appeals have…

DCIT CC 3(4) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Dhanvinder Bindra, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5698/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam KumarFor Respondent: Shri Neel Khandelwal
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "D" Bench, Mumbai Before Shri P K Bansal, Vice President and Shri R.L. Negi, Judicial Member ITA Nos. 5694 to 5699 /Mum/2015 (Assessment Years: 2002-03 to 2007-08) DCIT, Central Circle-3(4) Shri Dhanvinder Bindra Room No. 401, 4th Floor A-71, Cozy Home Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 251-Pali Hill, Bandra (W) Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400050 PAN – AACPB6734E Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri Purushottam Kumar Respondent by: Shri Neel Khandelwal Date of Hearing: 11.10.2017 Date of Pronouncement: 01.11.2017 O R D E R Per P.K. Bansal, Vice President All these appeals have…

DCIT CC 3(4) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Dhanvinder Bindra, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5697/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam KumarFor Respondent: Shri Neel Khandelwal
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "D" Bench, Mumbai Before Shri P K Bansal, Vice President and Shri R.L. Negi, Judicial Member ITA Nos. 5694 to 5699 /Mum/2015 (Assessment Years: 2002-03 to 2007-08) DCIT, Central Circle-3(4) Shri Dhanvinder Bindra Room No. 401, 4th Floor A-71, Cozy Home Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 251-Pali Hill, Bandra (W) Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400050 PAN – AACPB6734E Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri Purushottam Kumar Respondent by: Shri Neel Khandelwal Date of Hearing: 11.10.2017 Date of Pronouncement: 01.11.2017 O R D E R Per P.K. Bansal, Vice President All these appeals have…

DCIT CC 3(4) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Dhanvinder Bindra, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5696/MUM/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam KumarFor Respondent: Shri Neel Khandelwal
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "D" Bench, Mumbai Before Shri P K Bansal, Vice President and Shri R.L. Negi, Judicial Member ITA Nos. 5694 to 5699 /Mum/2015 (Assessment Years: 2002-03 to 2007-08) DCIT, Central Circle-3(4) Shri Dhanvinder Bindra Room No. 401, 4th Floor A-71, Cozy Home Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 251-Pali Hill, Bandra (W) Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400050 PAN – AACPB6734E Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri Purushottam Kumar Respondent by: Shri Neel Khandelwal Date of Hearing: 11.10.2017 Date of Pronouncement: 01.11.2017 O R D E R Per P.K. Bansal, Vice President All these appeals have…

DCIT CC 3(4) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Dhanvinder Bindra, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5695/MUM/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam KumarFor Respondent: Shri Neel Khandelwal
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "D" Bench, Mumbai Before Shri P K Bansal, Vice President and Shri R.L. Negi, Judicial Member ITA Nos. 5694 to 5699 /Mum/2015 (Assessment Years: 2002-03 to 2007-08) DCIT, Central Circle-3(4) Shri Dhanvinder Bindra Room No. 401, 4th Floor A-71, Cozy Home Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 251-Pali Hill, Bandra (W) Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400050 PAN – AACPB6734E Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri Purushottam Kumar Respondent by: Shri Neel Khandelwal Date of Hearing: 11.10.2017 Date of Pronouncement: 01.11.2017 O R D E R Per P.K. Bansal, Vice President All these appeals have…

DCIT CC 3(4) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Dhanvinder Binddra, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5694/MUM/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam KumarFor Respondent: Shri Neel Khandelwal
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "D" Bench, Mumbai Before Shri P K Bansal, Vice President and Shri R.L. Negi, Judicial Member ITA Nos. 5694 to 5699 /Mum/2015 (Assessment Years: 2002-03 to 2007-08) DCIT, Central Circle-3(4) Shri Dhanvinder Bindra Room No. 401, 4th Floor A-71, Cozy Home Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 251-Pali Hill, Bandra (W) Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400050 PAN – AACPB6734E Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri Purushottam Kumar Respondent by: Shri Neel Khandelwal Date of Hearing: 11.10.2017 Date of Pronouncement: 01.11.2017 O R D E R Per P.K. Bansal, Vice President All these appeals have…

ACIT CC 3(4) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Ziauddin A. Siddique, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed, as above

ITA 7413/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Tufail Ahmad Khan, D.R
Section 271

…). 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…

Vinyl Chemicals (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 3598/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S. Vinyl Chemicals (India) Vs. Dcit Cir 3(3), Mumbai Ltd., 7Th Floor, Regent Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No.Aaacv2410Q Appellant) .. Respondent)

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

…urnished inaccurate particulars or concealed particulars of income and hence, penalty was deleted. This decision was rendered after considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. V. Dharmendra Textile Processors & Ors. (306 ITR 277) (SC). 12. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shivlal Desai & Sons 114 ITR 388 has categorically observed that merely there are certain additions / disallowance in the assessment proceedings, it will not bring in its wake the levy of penalty. Further, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in 6 M/s. Vinyle Chemicals (India) Ltd., case of…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ge Capital Business Process Management Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department stand

ITA 4980/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Satija, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…liberatness” is implied in the concept of concealment. 7.5 However after the decision laid down in Dilip N. Shroff (Supra). T. Ashok Pai (Supra) in dispute under Central Excise Law the Apex Court in the case of UOI vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC) held that “default merited penalty without having to consider any intend of the assessee to evade tax. The Mens rea is essential only for matters of prosecutor and not penalty.” Thus after the decision in the case of Dharmendra Textile Processor (Supra), “Mesn rea is not necessary to be proved by revenue for civil penalties.” 7.6 Howeve…

P.Srinivasan, Salem vs. ITO, Salem

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is disposed of in the foregoing terms

ITA 1280/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Smt. Veni S.Raj, Jt. CITFor Respondent: 01.08.2017
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH ‘B’, CHENNAI "ी संजय अरोड़ा, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1280/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 P.Srinivasan, Income Tax Officer, Prop: M/s. Sri Dhanashree Textiles, Vs. Ward – I(1), Shop No.101, 102, Kamalam Complex, Salem. Dadubai Nagar, Salem – 636 001. [PAN: BXCPS 8105G] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Shri Lakshmi Venkatraman, FCA अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by :…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Inter Ocean Shipping India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5528/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…liberateness" is implied in the concept of concealment. 6.3 However after the decision laid down in Dilip N. Shroff (Supra), T. Ashok Pai (Supra) in a dispute under Central Excise Law the Apex Court in the case of UO1 Vs Dharamendra Textile Processors (2008) (306 ITR 277) (SC) held that "default merited penalty without having to consider any intend of the assessee to evade tax. The Mens rea is essential only for matters of prosecutor & not penalty/' Thus after the decision in the case of Dharamendra Textile Processor (Supra), "Mens rea is not necessary to be proved by revenue for civil penalties/' 6.1.3 However w…

Chandulal P. Shah ( HUF), Mumbai vs. ACIT 20(1), Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 5656/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5656/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Chandulal P.Shah (Huf) Assistant Commissioner Of Eastern Chemicals, 6Th Floor Income Tax-20(1) बनाम/ 601-B, Morya Landmark-Ii Mumbai – 400 020 Oshiwara Link Road Vs. Opp. Infinity Mall Andheri (West), Mumbai-400 053 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabhc-3234-M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Paresh Shaparia, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Rajat Mittal, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…standard show-cause notice reflects non-application of mind by AO and hence vitiates the penalty. We also find that the ratio of this case was very much relevant and valid despite the judgment of Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processor (306 ITR 277) in view of another judgment of Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Reliance Petro products Pvt. Ltd. [322 ITR 158] wherein it was observed that reasoning given in the case of Dilip N.Shroff could not be faulted except to the extent of observations regarding necessity of mens-rea for the purpose of Section 271(1)(C). 8. Similar view has been taken by Hon’bl…

Viren Vini Ahuja, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir- 84, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 422/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhshri Viren Vini Ahuja Acit, Cc-8(4), 1, Neelkanth Road No.6, Mumbai. Vs. Chembur, Mumbai-400071 Pan: Aacpa4809M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Bairagra (AR )For Respondent: Shri V. Justin (DR)
Section 132Section 153ASection 253Section 254(1)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69

…). 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…

Ramesh H Gada, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1100/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhshri Ramesh H Gada, The Ito 25(3) (3) C-10, Room No. 606, 6Th Floor, 9/A Narshina Prasad Building, Malviya Road, Opp Gala Eye Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Bandra Vs. Hospital, Ville Parle (East), Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400057 Mumbai-400051. Pan: Aabpg2968C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Nishit Gandhi AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. V. Justin - DR
Section 143(3)Section 24Section 253Section 254(1)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri Ramesh H Gada, The ITO 25(3) (3) C-10, Room No. 606, 6th Floor, 9/A Narshina Prasad Building, Malviya Road, Opp Gala Eye Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Bandra Vs. Hospital, Ville Parle (East), Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400057 Mumbai-400051. PAN: AABPG2968C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Nishit Gandhi Advocate Revenue by : Sh. V. Justin - DR Date of hearing : 23.08.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 27.09.2017 Order Under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PA…

Pramukh Realtors, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 15(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3304/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Pramukh Relators Acit-15(2), 1301, G Wing Kamla Vihar, 1St Floor, R. No. 113, Vs. Borsa Pada, Mahavir Matru Mandir, Nagar, Kandivali (W), Tardeo Road, Grant Mumbai-400067. Road (W), Mumbai-400007 Pan No. Aagfp3465N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Sanjay R. Parikh, Ar Revenue By : Mr. M.C. Omi Ningshen, Dr Date Of Hearing : 21/06/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/09/2017

For Appellant: Mr. Sanjay R. Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Mr. M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s Pramukh Relators ACIT-15(2), 1301, G Wing Kamla Vihar, 1st floor, R. No. 113, Vs. Borsa Pada, Mahavir Matru Mandir, Nagar, Kandivali (W), Tardeo Road, Grant Mumbai-400067. Road (W), Mumbai-400007 PAN No. AAGFP3465N Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Sanjay R. Parikh, AR Revenue by : Mr. M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR Date of Hearing : 21/06/2017 Date of pronouncement : 18/09/2017 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the as…

The Manjiri Stud Farm P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 883/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am श्री महाविर स िंग, न्याययक दस्य एििं श्री राजेश कुमार, ऱेखा दस्य के मक्ष The Manjri Stud Farm Pvt Ltd., The Asstt. Commissioner Of 41/44, Shapoorji Pallonji Centre Income Tax, Circle 2, फनधभ/ Minoo Desai Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Colaba, M K Road, Mumbai-400005 Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri J D Mistri, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 272Section 274

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “फी”, म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH “B” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM श्री महाविर स िंग, न्याययक दस्य एििं श्री राजेश कुमार, ऱेखा दस्य के मक्ष The Manjri Stud Farm Pvt Ltd., The Asstt. Commissioner of 41/44, Shapoorji Pallonji Centre Income Tax, Circle 2, फनधभ/ Minoo Desai Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Colaba, M K Road, Mumbai-400005 Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : स्थधमी रेखध सं./ PAN : AAACT1947J (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीरधथी की ओय से / Assessee by : Shri J D Mistri, Sr.Ad…

Orbit Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ITO 15(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Year

ITA 1597/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev M. ShahFor Respondent: Shri A.B. Koli
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…). 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…

Orbit Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ITO 15(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Year

ITA 1596/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev M. ShahFor Respondent: Shri A.B. Koli
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…). 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…

ITO, Chennai vs. Philip S.Sakthivel, Chennai

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

ITA 69/CHNY/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Aug 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.69/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2002-03 The Income Tax Officer, Shri Philip S Sakthivel, 1220, 20Th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Non Corporate Ward 7(2), Room No. Vs. 606, 6Th Floor, Wanaparthy Block, 121, Chennai 600 040. M.G. Road, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aaips2091P] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri A. Srinivasan, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : None सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.07.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Impugned Appellate Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 7, Chennai Dated 12.11.2015 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2002-03 With Reference To The Penalty Order Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Dated 19.09.2011. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Engaged

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivasan, JCITFor Respondent: None
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80H

…ed 25.07.2011, he has stated that against the order of the Tribunal, the assessee has been advised to file M.P. and thereafter, there was no response from assessee’s side. By following the decision in the case of UOI v. Dharmendra Textile Processors Pvt. Ltd. 306 ITR 277 (SC), wherein it was held that it is not for the Revenue to prove the element of mens rea for the purpose of levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the Assessing Officer levied penalty. By following the decision in the case of CIT v. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. (supra), wherein it was held that a mere making of the claim, which…

Rekha Bhupendra Dalal, Mumbai vs. DCIT OSD-II Cen RG 7, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3363/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Pawan Singhrekha Bhupendra Dalal The Dcit, Osd-Ii, Bhupen Chambers, Ground Floor, Central Range-7, Vs. Dalal Street, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai. Pan: Aaupd0962E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi- AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 253Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274rSection 54Section 54F

…). 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…