CORNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

276C of the Act was lost sight of in case of Dilip N. Shroff (supra). However, it must be pointed out that in Dharamendra Textile Processors' case (supra), no fault was found with the reasoning in the decision in Dilip N. Shroff's case (supra), where the Court explained the meaning of the terms "conceal" and "inaccurate". It was only

CORNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

276C of the Act was lost sight of in case of Dilip N. Shroff (supra). However, it must be pointed out that in Dharamendra Textile Processors' case (supra), no fault was found with the reasoning in the decision in Dilip N. Shroff's case (supra), where the Court explained the meaning of the terms "conceal" and "inaccurate". It was only

CONNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

276C of the Act was lost sight of in case of Dilip N. Shroff (supra). However, it must be pointed out that in Dharamendra Textile Processors' case (supra), no fault was found with the reasoning in the decision in Dilip N. Shroff's case (supra), where the Court explained the meaning of the terms "conceal" and "inaccurate". It was only

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 8(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross-objection of the assessee is allowed\nwhereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

reassessment on the basis of\nwhich penalty has been levied on the assessee has itself been finally set\naside or cancelled by the Tribunal or otherwise, the penalty cannot stand\nby itself and the same is liable to be cancelled as in the instant case\nordered by the Tribunal and later cancellation of penalty by the\nauthorities

KALPANA DILIP MEHTA AS LEGAL HEIR OF DILIP D MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. JCIT 19(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2007-08

sections was for providing remedy for loss of Revenue and such a penalty was a civil liability and therefore, willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability as was the case in the matter of prosecution u/s 276C of the Act. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is leviable if the AO is satisfied during the course