dharmendra

We have heard both the sides in detail. Thrust given by the C1T(A) on the mens rea reflected in the conduct of the assessee does not survive with usual force, since the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Others Vs. Dharmendra Textiles Processors & Ors., 306 1TR 277. The Supreme Court has held in the said case that willful concealment is not essential for attracting civil liability of penalty under Section 271(1 )(c) of the Act. The othe.. Full Article

In penalty matter under the Central Excise Act, 1944 in the case of Union of India & Others v. Dharmendra Textile Processors & Others, (2007) 295 ITR 244 the Bench of two Judges of the Supreme Court doubted the judgment of other two Judges of the Supreme Court in Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT, (2007) (291 ITR 519); but because one Coordinate Bench (which means the Bench of the same strength of Judges) cannot over-rule the decision of another Coordinate Bench, they recommended .. Full Article

“Mens Rea” literally means a guilty mind. It is a cardinal principle of English Common Law is that a persons cannot be convicted and punished in a proceeding of a criminal nature unless it can shown that he had a guilty mind. The principle is self explanatory. A person should be punished for deliberate defiance of law, rather than something which didn’t do intentionally or something which happened accidently etc. Nevertheless, the principle is most misunderstood. Full Article

SUMMARY OF CASE LAW Even post Dharmendra Textile Processors’ judgment by the Supreme Court, merely because an addition is made to the income declared by the assessee, penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed; Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Dharmendra Textile Processor’s case does not bring about any radical change in the scheme [...] Full Article

Held in the context of s. 11AC of the Excise Act (which provides that where any duty of excise has not been .. paid .. by reasons of fraud, collusion or any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts ….. or contravention of any of the provisions of this Act … with intent to evade payment [...] Full Article

CASE LAW DETAILS Decided by:. ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH `A’, MUMBAI  In The case of: ACIT v. VIP Industries Ltd.  Appeal No. : ITA No. 4524/Mum/2006 Decided on: March 20, 2009 SUMMARY OF CASE LAW Where an assessee genuinely makes claim for a particular deduction by disclosing all the necessary facts relating to the same, that [...] Full Article

Kanbay Software vs. DCIT (ITAT Pune)  In respect of AY 2002-2003, the assessee claimed by a revised return that the loss suffered in respect of one s. 10A unit was not liable to be set-off against the profits of another s. 10A unit. The AO rejected the claim and the assessee accepted the decision of [...] Full Article

Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors - The Explanations appended to Section 272(1)(c) of the IT Act entirely indicates the element of strict liability on the assessee for concealment or for giving inaccurate particulars while filing return. The judgment in Dilp N. Shroof's case (supra) has not considered the effect and relevance of Section 276C of the I.T. Act. Object behind enactment of Section 271 (1)(e) read with Explanations indicate that the said section .. Full Article