citedby: 1614118

It was only the ultimate inferencein Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint CIT to the effect that mens rea was an essential ingredient for the penalty under section 271(1) (c) that the decision in Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint CIT was overruled."

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Panji Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

It was only the ultimate inference in Dilip N. Shroff Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr. (cited supra) to the effect that mens rea was an essential ingredient for the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) that the decision in Dilip N. Shroff Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr. (cited supra) was overruled.

Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - A Sumanth - Full Document

It was only the ultimate inference in Dilip N. Shroff Vs. CIT to the effect that mens rea was an essential ingredient for the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) that the decision in Dilip N. Shroff Vs. CIT was overruled.

Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - A Magrey - Full Document

It was only the ultimate inference in Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint CIT to the effect that mens rea was an essential ingredient for the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) that the decision in Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint CIT was overruled........."

Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Manmohan - Full Document

Delhi High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 6 - S Khanna - Full Document

The basic reason why decision in Dilip N. Shroff Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr. (cited supra) was overruled by this Court in Union of India Vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors (cited supra), was that according to this Court the effect and difference between Section 271(1)(c) and Section 276-C of the Act was lost sight of in case of Dilip N. Shroff Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr. (cited supra).

Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 1723 - V S Sirpurkar - Full Document

It was only the ultimate inference in Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint CIT to the effect that mens rea was an essential ingredient for the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) that the decision in Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint CIT was overruled........."

Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 7 - Manmohan - Full Document

The basic reason why decision in Dilip N. Shroff Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr. (cited supra) was overruled by this Court in Union of India Vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors (cited supra), was that according to this Court the effect and difference between Section 271(1)(c) and Section 276-C of the Act was lost sight of in case of Dilip N. Shroff Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr. (cited supra).

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

It was only the ultimate inference in Dilip N. Shroff Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr. (cited supra) to the effect that mens rea was an essential ingredient for the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) that the decision in Dilip N. Shroff Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr. (cited supra) was overruled.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Delhi High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - S Khanna - Full Document

Search Results Page