251 ITR 99 (SC); B.A. Balasubramaniam and Bros. v. CIT

205 ITR 244Supreme Court of India1994#4470 most cited

What is 251 ITR 99 (SC); B.A. Balasubramaniam and Bros. v. CIT authority for?

Where there is a difference between returned and assessed income, an inference of concealment arises. The assessee bears the onus to rebut this presumption, and a mere absence of a plausible explanation attracts penalty.

26

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

B.A. Balasubramaniam and Bros. v. CIT · 271(1)(c) · concealment of income · penalty · explanation 1 · onus on assessee · difference between returned and assessed income

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

Judgments citing 251 ITR 99 (SC); B.A. Balasubramaniam and Bros. v. CIT

DCIT, Circle 22(2), 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

…with explanation 1 thereto and the judicial pronouncements in the case of B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co. 157 CTR 556(SC); B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. 152 ITR 529 (Mad.);Mussadilal Ram Bharose 165 ITR 14 (SC); K.R. Sadayappan 185 ITR 49 (SC); Jeevan Lal Sah 205 ITR 244 (SC) and K.P.Madhusudanan 251 ITR 99(SC), it is well established that whenever there is difference between the returned and assessed income, there is inference of concealment. The explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act raises a presumption that can be rebutted by the assessee with reference to facts of the case. Thus, the onus is on the as…

Nova Promoters and Finlease Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3173/DEL/2014[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2024AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Ms.Madhumita Roynova Promoters & Vs. Ito, Ward 13(3) Finlease Pvt. Ltd. Ito Building, I.P. Estate 7, Kapil Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi – 34

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anshul
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…ab & Haryana High Court in the case of Vishwakarma Industries v. CIT [1982] 135 ITR 652, and Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT v. Mussadilal Ram Bharose [1987] 165 ITR 14, CIT v. K.R. Sadayappan [1990] 185 ITR 49 and Addl. CIT v. Jeevan Lal Sah [1994] 205 ITR 244, though the penalty proceedings continue to be penal proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that it is now no longer necessary that the department must go further and establish that there was conscious concealment of particulars of income or a deliberate failure to furnish accurate particulars. One cannot forget that the State depen…

Pushpanjali Hospitality Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 16(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 5296/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2009-10 Pushpanjali Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, B-49, Connught Place, Ward 16(3), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacm0006B

For Appellant: Shri Alok Mathur, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 41Section 41(1)

…at the onus of burden has shifted from Department to the Assesse and, thus, the AO wrongly shifted the burden on the assessee. 5 a. CIT v/s Anwar Ali, 76 ITR 696 (SC) b. CIT v/s Mussadilal Ram Bharose, 165 ITR 14 (SC) c. Additional CIT v/s Jeevan Lal Sah, 205 ITR 244 (SC) 8. It may be noted that these cases have no relevance to the facts and interpretation in our case as Penalty is levied with relation to writing back the Credits u/s 41 (1) of the Act. 9. That it may also be noted that the AO during Penalty Proceedings had never confronted the Assesse with the proposed Disallowance and Levying Penalty and a…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Jabalpur vs. Madhya Pradesh Power Generating Co. Ltd., Jabalpur

In the result, the Revenue's appeal is dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 251/JAB/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur23 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Bardia, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Halder, DR
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

…Ltd. vs. CIT [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC); Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC); K.P. Madhusudhanan vs. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC); B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. v. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 977 (SC); Addl. CIT vs. Jeevan Lal Shah [1994] 205 ITR 244 (SC); CIT vs. K.R. Sadayappan [1990] 185 ITR 49 (SC)), so that the law in its respect, succinctly stated, is that a plausible explanation, supported by facts, saves penalty. Rather, inasmuch as implicit therein is the concept of 'reasonable cause', penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) does not find mention in s. 273B, stipulating, in respect of the penalty pro…

Mesers Malwa Motors, Bathinda vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Bathinda

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 131/ASR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 131/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (SMC) BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 131/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Malwa Motors, G. T. Road, vs. The Income Tax Officer, Rampuraphul, Distt. Bathinda Ward-1(3), Bathinda [PAN: AARFM 8286D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.) Respondent by: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.) Date of Hearing: 02.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 28.06.2019 ORDER Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the Assessee directed against the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda ('CIT(A)' for short)…

Puneet Saluja, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3497/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 133ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…] 116 Taxman 842 (SC),CIT v. B.A. Baiasubramaniam & Bros. Co. [1985] 152 ITR 529 / 20 Taxman 215(Mad.), CIT v. Mussadilal Ram Bharose [1987] 165 ITR 14 /30 Taxman 546H; CIT v. K.R. Sadayappan [1990] 185 ITR 49/51 Taxman 304 , Addl. CIT v. Jeevan Lai Sah[1994] 205 ITR 244 / 73 Taxman 182 (SC) and K.P. Madhusudanan v. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99/ 118 Taxman 324 (SC), it is well established that whenever there is difference between the returned and assessed income, there is inference of concealment. The Explanation 1 to sec. 271 (1)(c) of the Act raises a presumption that can be rebutted by the assessee with reference to…

M/S. Padmini Infrastructure Developers India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1002/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri K.N. Chary & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, FCA and Shri Somil Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…n on the assessee to prove there is no concealment”. 6.7. In the case of B. A. Balasubramanium & Bros Co. vs CIT 236 ITR 977 (SC). It was observed that for "the assessee to prove there is no concealment". 6.8. In the case of Additional CIT vs. Jeevan Lai Shah 205 ITR 244 (SC), it was observed that “the burden remains on the assessee, unless discharged that failure to return correct income did not arise from fraud on willful neglect on his part". 6.9. In the case of CIT V Anwar Ali (1970) 76 ITR 696 (SC). It was observed that "finding given in the assessment proceedings is a good evidence". 6.10. The appellant has…

Sh. Maninder Singh Prop. M/S Dashmesh Bricks, Bathinda vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Bathinda

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 440/ASR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A No.440/Asr/2017 Assessment Year:2011-12

For Appellant: Written SubmissionsFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R)
Section 268ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…td. vs. CIT [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC); Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC); K.P. Madhusudhanan vs. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC); B.A. Balasubramaniam and Bros v. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 977 (SC); Addl. CIT vs. Jeevan Lal Shah [1994] 205 ITR 244 (SC); CIT vs. K. R. Sadayappan [1990] 185 ITR 49 7 Maninder Singh, Bathinda vs. ITO (SC), to cite some, followed by Hon’ble High Courts throughout the country, as by the jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Lalchand Tirath Ram [1997] 225 ITR 675 (P&H); Prem Pal Gandhi v. CIT (in ITA No. 353 of 2009, dated 22/7/2009), the latter also relied upon…

The DCIT, Circle-3(1), Baroda vs. M/S/ Amar Mining Company, Baroda

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1032/AHD/2016[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Oct 2018AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 1998-99

For Appellant: Apoorva Bharadwaj, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Soparkar &
Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271(1)(c)

…ens rea had not been proved by the Department but the assessee had to prove that there was no concealment, as settled in the case of CIT vs. Mussadilal Rambharose, 165 ITR, 14, 20 (SC); CIT vs. K.R. Sadyappan, 185 ITR 49 (SC), CIT (Addl.) vs. Jeevan Lal Shah, 205 ITR 244 (SC), B.A. Balasurbramaniam and Brothers Co. vs. CIT 236 ITR 977, 978 (SC) and KP Madhusudhan vs. CIT, 251 ITR 99 (SC). Reliance is also placed on the recent decision of Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Dharmendra Textile Processors Ltd., 306 ITR 277 (SC), wherein it has been held that "the explanations appended to Section 271(1)(c) of the Incom…

M/S Alp Overseas Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6140/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…it was not taxable, though such claim was misconceived, penalty is not leviable. 5 [Type the document title] CIT v Santosh Financiers (2001) 247 ITR 742 (Ker) following the rationale of the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT (Addl) v Jeevan Lal Sah (1994) 205 ITR 244 (SC) and Sir Shadilal Sugar & General Mills Ltd. v C/T(1987) 168 ITR 705 (SC). CIT v Seeds India Ltd. (P.H.I) (2008) 301 ITR 13 (Del). Where there was a solitary mistake in debiting cost of wires to consumable stores account and there was no suggestion from the Income-tax Department, that the mistake was not bona fide, penalty is not leviable. CI…

ACIT-16(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Utv Global Bradcasting Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed is dismissed

ITA 3104/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit-16(1) M/S Utv Global Broadcasting Ltd. Room No. 439, (Now Known As M/S Disney Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Entertainment (India) Ltd. 7Th Floor, M.K. Marg Mumbai- Building No. 11, Solitaire Corporate 400020. Park, Guru Hargovind Singh Road Chakala, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093. Pan No. Aaacu9044R Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. V. Justin, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Naresh Kumar, Ar Date Of Hearing : 24/05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/05/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Naresh Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Justin, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 27l

…ied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without appreciating that explanation (1) of section 27l(l)(c) is squarely applicable in the instant case, as in the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgments in Addl. CIT Vs Jeevan Lal San [1994] 205 ITR 244 (SC), B. A. Ralasubramaniam and Bros. Co. vs CIT [1999] 236 ITR 977 [SC] and UOI vs Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC)? D. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 3. In a nutshell, the facts are that the assessee filed its return of income…

Shanti Kutir Chs Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 5280/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Apr 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5280/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) बिाम/ Shanti Kutir Chs Ltd. Ito 19(1)(4) 10T H Road, Santacruz(E), Mumbai Mumbai 400055 V. स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaaas6226M (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh ChokshiFor Respondent: Shri. V. Justin ,DR
Section 143(3)Section 24Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal /2009J ITR 317(SC); UOI v/s. Dharmendra Textile Processors 12008] 306 ITR 277(SC); K.P. Madhusudanan us. CIT 12001] 251 ITR 99 (SC); B.A. Balasubramaniam and Bros. v/s. CIT(1999) 236 ITR 977 (SC); Addl CIT v/s. Jeevan Lal Shah [1994] 205 ITR 244 (SC), to cite some, and which is completely absent in the instant case, the Id. CIT (A), Whose findings are comprehensive, has correctly appreciated both, the facts as well as the law in the matter, so that there has been no omission on his part to consider any aspect of the matter." 6.2 I further hold that the appellant has not established as to…

The ITO, Ward-2(3)(5), Surat vs. M/S. Global Syntax, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2936/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C .M. Garg & Shri O. P. Meena

Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

…regard. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We find that in the assessment order, the AO has relied on the decision of Dharmendra Textile Processors & Ors. (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC). Addl. CIT vs. Jeevanlal Shah 205 ITR 244 (SC) and K P Madhusudan vs. CIT 251 ITR 99 (SC) and levied penalty of Rs.14,58,400/- which deleted by the CIT(A). The AO has estimated the income on pure guess work. The similar issue had come before the Hon’ble M.P.High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shivnarayan Jamnalal, (1998) 232 ITR M/s.Global Syntax in ITA No.2936/Ahd/2016 for A.Y. 2010-11 P…

M/S. Rashi Wears Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4327/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt. Beena A Pillaia.Y. 2008-09

Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80l

…y does not necessarily follow. Balaji vegetable Products (P) Ltd. vs CIT (2007) 290 ITR 172 (Kar) Page 2 of 7 ITA 4327/Del/14 Assessment Year 2008-09 Rashi Wears Pvt.Ltd. c) The Supreme Court rationale of the decision in CI'T (Addl.) vs Jeevan Lal Sah (1994) 205 ITR 244 and Sir Shadi Lal Sugar & General Mills Ltd. vs CIT (1987) 168 ITR 705 (SC) it was held that a wrong claim with disclosure of full facts does no merit levy of penalty. d) The AO disallowed the deduction u/s 80-IB claimed by the assessee & Initiated penalty proceedings. The Tribunal held that there is no merit in holding the assessee to have furni…

R.Vasuki, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 899/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Mrs. Veni Raj, Jt. CITFor Respondent: 03.08.2017
Section 131Section 133ASection 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…ions settling the law in the matter: Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC); K.P. Madhusudhanan vs. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC); B.A. Balasubramaniam and Bros v. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 977 (SC); Addl. CIT vs. Jeevan Lal Shah [1994] 205 ITR 244 (SC); Sharma Alloys (India) Ltd. v. ITO [2013] 357 ITR 379 (Mad); and CIT vs. Nathulal Agarwala & Sons [1985] 153 ITR 292 (Pat)(FB), to name some. The ld. counsel, adducing a copy of the notice u/s. 274 dated 07.02.2014, argued before us that the penalty could not be levied in-as-much as the notice does not spell out as to whether the penalty pro…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ge Capital Business Process Management Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department stand

ITA 4980/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Satija, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…Ali (1970) 76 ITR 696. But after the introduction of Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c), the Supreme Court held that the requirement of proof of Mens rea on the part of the Revenue, would no longer be necessary as held in Add!. CIT Vs Jeevan Lal Shah (1994) 205 ITR 244 (SC) and B.A. Balasubramaniam and Bros. Co. Vs CIT (1999) 236 ITR 977 (SC). 7.2 The role of the Explanation, it was pointed out, was only to place the burden of proof squarely on the taxpayer. It is however observed that the Explanation has been often overworked by the Assessing officers, so as to justify penalty in each and every case of dif…

P.Srinivasan, Salem vs. ITO, Salem

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is disposed of in the foregoing terms

ITA 1280/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Smt. Veni S.Raj, Jt. CITFor Respondent: 01.08.2017
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…R 277 (SC): Mak Data P. Ltd. vs. CIT [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC); CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal [2009] 317 ITR 1 (SC); K.P. Madhusudhanan vs. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC); B.A. Balasubramaniam and Bros v. CIT (1999) 236 ITR 977 (SC); Addl. CIT vs. Jeevan Lal Shah [1994] 205 ITR 244 (SC); CIT vs. K. R. Sadayappan [1990] 185 ITR 49 (SC); CIT vs. Mussadilal Ram Bharose [1987] 165 ITR 14 (SC); and Sharma Alloys (India) Ltd. v. ITO [2013] 357 ITR 379 (Mad). Coming to the facts of the case, we find that neither in the assessment nor in the penalty proceedings did the assessee furnish any explanation whatsoever with regard to the…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Inter Ocean Shipping India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5528/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…r Ali (1970) 76 ITR 696. But after the introduction of Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c), the Supreme Court held that the requirement of proof of Mens rea on the part of the Revenue, would no longer be necessary as held in Addl. CIT Vs Jeevan Lal Shah (1994) 205 ITR 244 (SC) and B.A. Balasubramaniam and Bros. Co. Vs CIT (1999) 236 ITR 977 (SC). The role of the Explanation, it was pointed out, was only to place the burden of proof squarely on the taxpayer. It is however observed that the Explanation has been often overworked by the Assessing officers, so as to justify penalty in each and every case of difference,…

Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5865/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. K.V.S.R. Krishna, CAFor Respondent: None(application rejected)
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 43(1)Section 43(6)Section 45(7)

…i 16 Taxman 842 (SC);C1T v. B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co. [1985] 152 ITR 529 / 20 Taxman 2i5(Mad.), CIT v. Mussadilal Ram Bharose [1987] 165 ITR 14 /30 Taxman 546H; C1T v.K.R. Sadayappan [1990] 185 ITR 49 / 51 Taxman 304 , Addl. CIT v. Jeevan Lal Sah[!994] 205 ITR 244 / 73 Taxman 182 (SC) and K.P. Madhusudanan v. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 997 118 Taxman 324 (SC), H i- .-.-ell established that whenever there is difference be*-.-;:;^ the returned and assessed income, there is inference of concealment. The Explanation 1 to sec. 271(l)(c) of the Act raises a presumption that can be rebutted by the assessee with reference…

ITO WD 1(3), Thane vs. Amar Diamond Tools, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed

ITA 7671/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7671/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Ito, Ward – 1(1), Amar Diamond Tools Room No. 23, B-Wing, 6Th Floor, Shivdarshan Building, Mumbai बनाम/ Ashar It Park, Road No. 16-Z, Pune Road, Mumbra, Vs. Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (W)-400 612 Thane (W)-400 604 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aahfa 7543 D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. R. Singh ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Jayant Bhatt

For Appellant: Shri S. R. SinghFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Bhatt
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…td. vs. CIT [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC); Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC); K.P. Madhusudhanan vs. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC); B.A. Balasubramaniam and Bros v. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 977 (SC); Addl. CIT vs. Jeevan Lal Shah [1994] 205 ITR 244 (SC); and CIT vs. Nathulal Agarwala & Sons [1985] 153 ITR 292 (Pat)(FB). 7 ITO vs. Amar Diamond Tools 5. In view of the foregoing, we have no hesitation in, vacating the findings of the ld. CIT(A), uphold the levy of penalty in the instant case. We decide accordingly. 6. In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed. प"रणामतः राज"व क" अपील "वी…

251 ITR 99 (SC); B.A. Balasubramaniam and Bros. v. CIT (205 ITR 244) — Cited in 26 Judgments | BharatTax