12. In N.A. Malbary and Bros. v. Commissioner of Income- Tax, Bombay North

51 ITR 295Supreme Court of India1964#14256 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 271(1)Section 273Section 271(1) Explanation 3

Issues it is cited on

section 273concealment of incomeservice of noticelevy of penaltysection 271(1)section 144bsalarysection 139(1)section 271section 271(1)(c)section 139section 27

Judgments citing 12. In N.A. Malbary and Bros. v. Commissioner of Income- Tax, Bombay North

Valsan Chiyyabath Narayanan, Thrissur vs. DCIT Circle 1(1)& Tps, Thrissur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 82/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Aug 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 273

…to have concealed particulars of income for such year notwithstanding the fact that the assessee furnished return of income pursuant to notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Furthermore, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malbary (N.A.) and Bros. [1964]51 ITR 295 (SC) that penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is always leviable with reference to the original return of income and the penalty could also be levied with reference to concealment in original assessment proceedings. This position was reiterated again by the 3 judges judgement in the case of CIT vs. Onkar Saran and Sons [1992] 195 ITR 1. In the light of his u/s…

Valsan Chiyyabath Narayanan, Thrissur vs. DCIT Circle 1(1)& Tps, Thrissur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 81/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Aug 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 273

…to have concealed particulars of income for such year notwithstanding the fact that the assessee furnished return of income pursuant to notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Furthermore, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malbary (N.A.) and Bros. [1964]51 ITR 295 (SC) that penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is always leviable with reference to the original return of income and the penalty could also be levied with reference to concealment in original assessment proceedings. This position was reiterated again by the 3 judges judgement in the case of CIT vs. Onkar Saran and Sons [1992] 195 ITR 1. In the light of his u/s…

Valsan Chiyyabath Narayanan, Thrissur vs. DCIT Circle 1(1)& Tps, Thrissur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 80/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Aug 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 273

…to have concealed particulars of income for such year notwithstanding the fact that the assessee furnished return of income pursuant to notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Furthermore, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malbary (N.A.) and Bros. [1964]51 ITR 295 (SC) that penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is always leviable with reference to the original return of income and the penalty could also be levied with reference to concealment in original assessment proceedings. This position was reiterated again by the 3 judges judgement in the case of CIT vs. Onkar Saran and Sons [1992] 195 ITR 1. In the light of his u/s…

Valsan Chiyyabath, Thrissur vs. DCIT Circle 1(1)& Tps, Thrissur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 28/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Aug 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 273

…to have concealed particulars of income for such year notwithstanding the fact that the assessee furnished return of income pursuant to notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Furthermore, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malbary (N.A.) and Bros. [1964]51 ITR 295 (SC) that penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is always leviable with reference to the original return of income and the penalty could also be levied with reference to concealment in original assessment proceedings. This position was reiterated again by the 3 judges judgement in the case of CIT vs. Onkar Saran and Sons [1992] 195 ITR 1. In the light of his u/s…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 3, Pune vs. M/S. Gokhale Sabade Associates, Pune

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

ITA 867/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri C.V. DeshpandeFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…penalty in the facts of present case. It is settled position of law that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable with reference to concealment in the return of income. Reference can be made to the following decisions: 5 N.A. Malbary & Bros. Vs. CIT, 51 ITR 295 (SC) (b) CIT Vs. Onkar Saran & Sons. 195 ITR 1 (SC) In the absence of any variation between returned income and assessed income, no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act can be levied. Hence, we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. 10. In the result, the appeal filed…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S John Tinson & Comp. Pvt. Ltd

ITA/418/2009HC Delhi29 Nov 2010

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 143Section 271Section 275Section 43

…the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), or as the case may be, the Appellate Tribunal is received by the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, whichever period expires later.” 12. In N.A. Malbary and Bros. Vs. Commissioner of Income- Tax, Bombay North., 51 ITR 295, which was a case under the Income Tax Act, 1922 the Assessing Officer had passed first penalty order where under penalty was imposed on the basis of estimated income. Thereafter, second penalty order was passed imposing higher penalty after the account books were produced and when the Assessing Officer could get the correct figure of concea…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi II vs. John Tinson & Co. P.Ltd

ITA - 233 / 2008HC Delhi29 Nov 2010
Section 143Section 271Section 275Section 43

…which the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), or as the case may be, the Appellate Tribunal is received by the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, whichever period expires later." In N.A. Malbary and Bros. Vs. Commissioner of Income-12. Tax, Bombay North., 51 ITR 295, which was a case under the Income Tax Act, 1922 the Assessing Officer had passed first penalty order where under penalty was imposed on the basis of estimated income. Thereafter, second penalty order was passed imposing higher penalty after the account books were produced and when the Assessing Officer could get the correct figure of concealment…