169 CTR 489 (SC); Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors

295 ITR 244Supreme Court of India2007#1158 most cited
98

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors · Dharamendra Textile Processors · penalty u/s 271(1)(c) · concealment of income · furnishing inaccurate particulars · Section 274 · bona fide mistake · object of Section 271(1)(c) · 295 ITR 244 · Supreme Court penalty

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 132Section 148Section 274Section 276CSection 139(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 276csection 276bona fide mistakepenalty u/s 271(1)(c)concealment of incomefurnishing inaccurate particularspenalty under section 271(1)(c)section 274furnishing inaccurate particulars of incomesection 271(1)chief commissionercommissioner (appeals)

Judgments citing 169 CTR 489 (SC); Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

ITA 1054/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)

…ion of India and (vii) In the judgment delivered in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors and Others (2007) Others Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors and Others (2007) Others Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors and Others (2007) 295 ITR 244 (SC) the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated as 295 ITR 244 (SC) the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated as 295 ITR 244 (SC) the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated as under: "...the object behind the enactment of section 271(1)(c) read "...the object behind the enactment of section 271(1)(c) read "...the object behind the enactment of section 271(1)(c…

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

ITA 1053/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)

…ion of India and (vii) In the judgment delivered in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors and Others (2007) Others Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors and Others (2007) Others Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors and Others (2007) 295 ITR 244 (SC) the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated as 295 ITR 244 (SC) the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated as 295 ITR 244 (SC) the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated as under: "...the object behind the enactment of section 271(1)(c) read "...the object behind the enactment of section 271(1)(c) read "...the object behind the enactment of section 271(1)(c…

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DICT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

ITA 1052/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)

…ion of India and (vii) In the judgment delivered in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors and Others (2007) Others Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors and Others (2007) Others Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors and Others (2007) 295 ITR 244 (SC) the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated as 295 ITR 244 (SC) the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated as 295 ITR 244 (SC) the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated as under: "...the object behind the enactment of section 271(1)(c) read "...the object behind the enactment of section 271(1)(c) read "...the object behind the enactment of section 271(1)(c…

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

ITA 1051/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)

…ion of India and (vii) In the judgment delivered in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors and Others (2007) Others Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors and Others (2007) Others Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors and Others (2007) 295 ITR 244 (SC) the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated as 295 ITR 244 (SC) the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated as 295 ITR 244 (SC) the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated as under: "...the object behind the enactment of section 271(1)(c) read "...the object behind the enactment of section 271(1)(c) read "...the object behind the enactment of section 271(1)(c…

DCIT, CIRCLE 22(2), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. SAHIL VACHANI, DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2604/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice Presdient (), Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shriavdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.2604/िद"ी/2023(िन.व. 2016-17)

For Appellant: S/Shri Anuj Garg & Narpat Singh, Sr.DRFor Respondent: S/Shri Rohan Khare & Priyam
Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िद"ी पीठ “ जी ”, िद"ी "ी महावीरिसंह, उपा"" (तृतीयसद"), "ी िवकास अव"थी, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी अवधेशकुमारिम"ा, लेखाकार सद"के सम" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”, DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESDIENT (THIRD MEMBER), SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRIAVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं.2604/िद"ी/2023(िन.व. 2016-17) ITA N0.2604/DEL/2023(A.Y.2016-17) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 22(2), R.No 225E, 2nd Floor, CR Building, IP Estate, New Delhi 110002 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Sahil Vachani, S-43, Panchsheel Park, Delhi 110017 PAN: ADJPV-6597-K .....…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. MUNIWAR ABAD CHARITABLE TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3559/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanito, Vs. Muniwar Abad Charitable 618, Mtnl Cumballa Hill Telephone Trust, Exchange Building, Peddar Road, 405A, 407, Jolly Bhavan No. 1, Maharashtra – 400 026 10, New Marine Lines, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Pan: Aaatm0140K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 276C

…r levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee has willfully committed default by claiming the deduction for which it was not entitled to. Reliance for this proposition is placed on Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2007] 295 ITR 244 where in it is held that the penalty under this provision is a civil liability. Willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability as in this case in the matter of prosecution u/s.276C of the Income-tax Act." Further, the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition made by the A.O. vide order dated 28.10.2016. S Muniwar A…

SURESH CHAND BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16 , DELHI

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

ITA 3666/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3665/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16) Amit Bansal ACIT C/o M/s Ganesh Lal Central Circle-16 Shri Chand, Janta Bazzar Vs. Delhi Jind, SCH No.6, Jind Haryana-126102 PAN-AGBPB 2366DJ (Appellant) (Respondent) Suresh Chand Bansal ACIT C/o M/s Ganesh Lal Central Circle-16 Shri Chand, Janta Bazzar Vs. Delhi Jind, SCH No.6, Jind Haryana-126102 PAN-AANPC 3204B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Ruchesh Sinha, Adv. Respondent by Shri Om Parkash, S…

AMIT BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, DELHI

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

ITA 3665/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3665/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16) Amit Bansal ACIT C/o M/s Ganesh Lal Central Circle-16 Shri Chand, Janta Bazzar Vs. Delhi Jind, SCH No.6, Jind Haryana-126102 PAN-AGBPB 2366DJ (Appellant) (Respondent) Suresh Chand Bansal ACIT C/o M/s Ganesh Lal Central Circle-16 Shri Chand, Janta Bazzar Vs. Delhi Jind, SCH No.6, Jind Haryana-126102 PAN-AANPC 3204B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Ruchesh Sinha, Adv. Respondent by Shri Om Parkash, S…

AMIT BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, DELHI

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

ITA 3664/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3665/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16) Amit Bansal ACIT C/o M/s Ganesh Lal Central Circle-16 Shri Chand, Janta Bazzar Vs. Delhi Jind, SCH No.6, Jind Haryana-126102 PAN-AGBPB 2366DJ (Appellant) (Respondent) Suresh Chand Bansal ACIT C/o M/s Ganesh Lal Central Circle-16 Shri Chand, Janta Bazzar Vs. Delhi Jind, SCH No.6, Jind Haryana-126102 PAN-AANPC 3204B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Ruchesh Sinha, Adv. Respondent by Shri Om Parkash, S…

KALIPADA SAHA,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD-24(3),HOOGHLY. , HOOGHLY

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1191/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…pronouncements as per para 8.1 to uphold the order of the AO which are as under: (i) MAK Data P. Ltd. vs. CIT [38 taxmann.com 448 (SC), (ii) B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co Vs. CIT [116 Taxman 842] (iii) Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2007] 295 ITR 244. 9. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the determination whether the penalty is leviable or not depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and cannot be brought into any straight jacket formula. The moot point for determination by the Ld. CIT(A) was whether any explanation for the additions made in the assessment order was given or not, and if any…

KALIPADA SAHA,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD-24(3), HOOGHLY. , HOOGHLY

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1190/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…pronouncements as per para 8.1 to uphold the order of the AO which are as under: (i) MAK Data P. Ltd. vs. CIT [38 taxmann.com 448 (SC), (ii) B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co Vs. CIT [116 Taxman 842] (iii) Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2007] 295 ITR 244. 9. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the determination whether the penalty is leviable or not depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and cannot be brought into any straight jacket formula. The moot point for determination by the Ld. CIT(A) was whether any explanation for the additions made in the assessment order was given or not, and if any…

KALIPADA SAHA,HOOHLY vs. ITO, WARD-24(3), HOOGHLY. , HOOGHLY

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1189/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…pronouncements as per para 8.1 to uphold the order of the AO which are as under: (i) MAK Data P. Ltd. vs. CIT [38 taxmann.com 448 (SC), (ii) B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co Vs. CIT [116 Taxman 842] (iii) Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2007] 295 ITR 244. 9. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the determination whether the penalty is leviable or not depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and cannot be brought into any straight jacket formula. The moot point for determination by the Ld. CIT(A) was whether any explanation for the additions made in the assessment order was given or not, and if any…

KALIPADA SAHA,HOOGHLY vs. ITO,WARD-24(3), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1188/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…pronouncements as per para 8.1 to uphold the order of the AO which are as under: (i) MAK Data P. Ltd. vs. CIT [38 taxmann.com 448 (SC), (ii) B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co Vs. CIT [116 Taxman 842] (iii) Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2007] 295 ITR 244. 9. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the determination whether the penalty is leviable or not depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and cannot be brought into any straight jacket formula. The moot point for determination by the Ld. CIT(A) was whether any explanation for the additions made in the assessment order was given or not, and if any…

PADAM KUMAR JAIN,RANCHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

ITA 17/RAN/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi17 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 80G

…disclosed a sum and offered said sum to tax, since said amount was not disclosed in original return, penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) was justified. Further, the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of UOI Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors reported in (2007) 295 ITR 244(SC) held that there is a conflict of opinions between the judgments of the Division Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff (supra) on one hand and on the other in the case of Shriram Mutual Fund (supra). Secondly, the object behind enactment of section 271(1)(c), read with the Explanations indicates that the said section has be…

PADAM KUMAR JAIN,RANCHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

ITA 16/RAN/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi17 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 80G

…disclosed a sum and offered said sum to tax, since said amount was not disclosed in original return, penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) was justified. Further, the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of UOI Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors reported in (2007) 295 ITR 244(SC) held that there is a conflict of opinions between the judgments of the Division Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff (supra) on one hand and on the other in the case of Shriram Mutual Fund (supra). Secondly, the object behind enactment of section 271(1)(c), read with the Explanations indicates that the said section has be…

SHRI SURESH MAL LODHA, 537-38, MAHIMA TRINITY, NEW SANGANER ROAD, SWEJ FARM, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 968/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahenda Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…l the income is not acceptable for which the AO relied upon various case laws. SURESH MAL LODHA VS ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR 1. Samson Maritime Ltd. vs CIT (Bombay High Court dated 7-03-2017) 2. Mak Data 258 ITR 593 (SC) 3. Dharmendra Textiles Processors (2007) 295 ITR 244 4. CIT vs Vidyagauri Natwar Lal, 238 ITR 91 (Guj) Taking all these facts into consideration, the AO was satisfied that the assessee had concealed income of Rs.23,33,440/- and the assessee is liable for penalty u/s 271(1)© of the Act. Thus the AO computed the penalty amount of Rs.7,93,130/- and levied the same upon the assessee u/s 271(1)© of t…

ACIT CIRCLE-11(1), NEW DELHI vs. HELLO RETAIL INDIA PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3049/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M. Baranwal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…se Coopers Pvt Ltd 348 ITR 306, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. 14. Before us, the ld. DR strongly supported the findings of the Assessing Officer and relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 295 ITR 244, Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision in 328 ITR 44 and 105 ITR 708. 15. We have carefully considered the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute that the expenses incurred by the assessee on the rented premises were written off as loss on surrender of the rented property on discontinuance of running business. 16. It is also not in d…

GEORGE KUTTY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3788/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] George Kutty, Vs Dcit, C/O-M/S. Oasis Tours India (P.) Circle-13(1), Ltd., C-40, Middle Circle, Dwarka New Delhi. Sadan, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aajpk4005H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Manish Malik, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2022

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 276CSection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “SMC” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2010-11] George Kutty, vs DCIT, C/o-M/s. Oasis Tours India (P.) Circle-13(1), Ltd., C-40, Middle Circle, Dwarka New Delhi. Sadan, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. PAN-AAJPK4005H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Manish Malik, Adv. Respondent by Shri Om Parkash, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 11.08.2022 Date of Pronouncement 24.08.2022 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : The present appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2010- 11 is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-7, New Delhi…

M/S OM PLANTATION,22, PATH NO.6, VIJAY BARI, TEEN DUKAN, SIKAR ROAD, JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-4(3), JAIPUR

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

ITA 158/JPR/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jul 2022AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Ms Runi Pal (Addl.CIT) a
Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…essee had M/s Om Plantation vs. ITO concealed the amount or furnished inaccurate particulars. The appellant failed to discharge his onus as failed to file details proving the facts. 7.11 In the case of Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors [(2007) 295 ITR 244] the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Penalty under section 271 (1 )(c) is a civil liability for which willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting the civil liability as is the case in the matter of proceedings under section 276C. 7.12 In the case of CIT Vs Zoom Communication (P.) Ltd., [191 Taxman 179 (Delhi) [2010] 327 ITR…

KISHOR MADHAV PARANJAPE,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1887/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1887/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Kishor Madhav Paranjape, The Dcit, Central 1139/516, Venu Apts, Vs Circle-2(2), Pune. Off F C Road, Shivajinagar, Pune – 411016. Pan: Abipp 3973 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas P Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe– Dr Date Of Hearing 28/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30/06/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-12, Pune For The Assessment Year 2015-16, Dated 23.09.2019. 2. The Facts Emanating From The Assessment Order & Penalty Order Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Deriving Income From Business. He Is A Partner In Various Firms, Earning Share Of Profit, Interest On Capital & Remuneration From Partnership Firms. It Is Pertinent To Note That All The Firms Wherein The Assessee Is A Partner, Are All Engaged In The Business Of Land Development & Building Construction. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For Assessment

Section 2(14)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…mately at a distance of 9 km. No where the Talathi has mentioned the basis on which he has arrived at the said conclusion. These are civil proceedings and mens-rea need not be proved. 7.1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharmendra Textile Processor 295 ITR 244 has observed as under : Quote “ it may be pointed out that the object behind enactment of section 271(1)(c) read with the Explanations quoted above indicates that the said section has been enacted to provide for a remedy for loss of revenue. The penalty under the said section is a civil liability. Wilful concealment is not an essential ingredient…

Showing 1–20 of 98 · Page 1 of 5