← All Phrases

“Section 272(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 272Section 272(1)6 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 272(1) is Commissioner of Customs v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (267 ITR 272), cited in 501 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 272(1)

Commissioner of Customs v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
267 ITR 272 · 2004 · Supreme Court
501
citing judgments

CBDT and CBEC circulars, along with administrative instructions, are binding on departmental authorities, who must not act in contravention of them. However, these circulars and instructions are not binding on courts or assessees.

256 ITR 603 (P&H); CIT v. Arunaben Sumankumar
272 ITR 309 · 2005 · High Court
17
citing judgments

An assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue if the Assessing Officer fails to conduct adequate enquiry into the facts and circumstances of the case, indicating a non-application of mind. Such an order can be revised under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Judgments citing Section 272(1)

Dhirajlal Nathubhai Bhut, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), Rajkot

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

ITA 574/RJT/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Oct 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 251Section 271(1)(b)Section 272(1)

make request to set-aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. Besides, penalty under section 272(1) (b) of the Act was imposed on a dead person, which will not survive, as the representative of the dead person had already intimated to the assessing officer about

Parshottambhai Shamjibhai Gajjar, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-4(2)(4), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 588/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Parshottambhgai Shamjibhai Gajjar The Ito, Ward-4(2)(4) 75, Shastrinagar Vs. Now Ward-4(2)(3) Nr. Anandbaug Society Ahmedabad. Ghatlodia Ahmedabad. Pan : Bhtpg 0081 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jaimin Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Jaimin Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘SMC’ अहमदाबाद

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Circle-1, Bengaluru vs. Rashtrotthana Parishat, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1666/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017=18

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra CIT-D.RFor Respondent: Sri Prakash Shridhar Hegde, CA
Section 11Section 11(6)Section 250Section 270ASection 274

sight of in Dilip N. Shroff’s case (supra). Dcit(E), Circle-1, Bengaluru Page 22 of 24 25. The Explanations appended to section 272(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act entirely indicates the element of strict liability on the assessee for concealment or for giving inaccurate particulars while

Satya Kumar Darbari, Lucknow vs. Dcitacit-4, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 41/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2017-18 Satya Kumar Darbari V. Dcit-4 381, Rajendra Nagar Lucknow Lucknow Pan:Agtpd4584H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Yogesh Mishra, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02 07 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05 07 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Mishra, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 144Section 272(1)(d)Section 274Section 68

there was no compliance on the part of the assessee. The Assessing Officer, therefore, issued show cause notice on 7.11.2019 for penalty under section 272(1)(d) read with section 274 of the Act, but there was no compliance from the assessee. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section

Muniswamy Venkataswamy, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 678/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Padmanabhan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 272(1)(d)

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under 274 read with section 272(1)(d) and 270A of the Act.” 2. At the time of hearing, both the parties fairly conceded that the assessment order is ex-parte as well

Dwaraka Prasad Bazari, Balotra vs. ITO, Balotra

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 82/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur20 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271ASection 272(1)(d)Section 274Section 69A

also seen that, has failed to comply with a notice u/s 142(1) issued on 06.11.2019, penalty proceedings u/s 274 read with section 272(1)(d) of the IT Act, initiated separately. In view of the above, total income of the assessee is assessed/computed as under:- S. No. Particulars Particulars