306 ITR 277 (SC); K.P. Madhusudhanan v. CIT

236 ITR 977Supreme Court of India1999#1809 most cited

What is 306 ITR 277 (SC); K.P. Madhusudhanan v. CIT authority for?

When the difference between the income assessed and the income returned exceeds 20%, Explanation to section 271(1)(c) becomes applicable, casting the onus on the assessee. If the assessee fails to discharge this onus, the Assessing Officer is justified in imposing a penalty.

63

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

K.P. Madhusudhanan v. CIT · B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co Vs CIT · Section 271(1)(c) · Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) · Section 54F · income tax penalty · concealment of income · inaccurate particulars · assessed vs returned income difference · onus of proof · penalty imposition

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

Judgments citing 306 ITR 277 (SC); K.P. Madhusudhanan v. CIT

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 .....…

SHRI.PRAKASH R. NAIR,KOLLAM vs. DCIT, KOLLAM

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

ITA 141/COCH/2021[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2024AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasprakash R. Nair Dy.Cit, Central Circle Prop. Dhanya Foods Kollam Kochuppilammoodu Vs. Kollam 691001 [Pan:Abfpn4424P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 148(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80Section 801A(9)Section 80HSection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Shri Manomohan Das, Judicial Member Prakash R. Nair Dy.CIT, Central Circle Prop. Dhanya Foods Kollam Kochuppilammoodu vs. Kollam 691001 [PAN:ABFPN4424P] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate Respondent by: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 19.10.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 17.01.2024 O R D E R Per: Sanjay Arora, AM The instant Appeal by the Assessee agitates the dismissal of his appeal contesting the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act,…

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

…him for making such a claim is not found to be bona fide, Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) would come into play and assessee will be liable to penalty. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co Vs CIT reported in 116 Taxman 842, 236 ITR 977, 157 CTR 556 held that Difference between income assessed and income returned being more than 20 per cent, Explanation to section 271(1)(c) became applicable and assessee having failed to discharge onus being cast on assessee by virtue of said Explanation, Assessing Officer was justified in imposing penalty. 3.3.7. Further, to take care of these…

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

…him for making such a claim is not found to be bona fide, Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) would come into play and assessee will be liable to penalty. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co Vs CIT reported in 116 Taxman 842, 236 ITR 977, 157 CTR 556 held that Difference between income assessed and income returned being more than 20 per cent, Explanation to section 271(1)(c) became applicable and assessee having failed to discharge onus being cast on assessee by virtue of said Explanation, Assessing Officer was justified in imposing penalty. 3.3.7. Further, to take care of these…

SAROSH YAZDANI,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 214/CTK/2020[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack03 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144

…not only in the year under consideration but even in the preceding three assessment years also. In this view of the matter, the levy of penalty was held to be justified. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.A. Balasubramaniam Bros. & Co. vs. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 977, held that penalty can be imposed even on estimated addition also. It was held that where the assessee was not able to discharge the onus which was on it under the Explanation to section 271(l)(c) of the Act. The ITO was justified in imposing penalty, notwithstanding the fact that income was assessed on estimate basis. In view of above facts, the…

SAROSH YAZDANI,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 213/CTK/2020[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack03 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144

…not only in the year under consideration but even in the preceding three assessment years also. In this view of the matter, the levy of penalty was held to be justified. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.A. Balasubramaniam Bros. & Co. vs. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 977, held that penalty can be imposed even on estimated addition also. It was held that where the assessee was not able to discharge the onus which was on it under the Explanation to section 271(l)(c) of the Act. The ITO was justified in imposing penalty, notwithstanding the fact that income was assessed on estimate basis. In view of above facts, the…

SAROSH YAZDANI,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 212/CTK/2020[2006-07]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack03 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144

…not only in the year under consideration but even in the preceding three assessment years also. In this view of the matter, the levy of penalty was held to be justified. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.A. Balasubramaniam Bros. & Co. vs. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 977, held that penalty can be imposed even on estimated addition also. It was held that where the assessee was not able to discharge the onus which was on it under the Explanation to section 271(l)(c) of the Act. The ITO was justified in imposing penalty, notwithstanding the fact that income was assessed on estimate basis. In view of above facts, the…

SAROSH YAZDANI,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 211/CTK/2020[2005-06]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack03 Nov 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144

…not only in the year under consideration but even in the preceding three assessment years also. In this view of the matter, the levy of penalty was held to be justified. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.A. Balasubramaniam Bros. & Co. vs. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 977, held that penalty can be imposed even on estimated addition also. It was held that where the assessee was not able to discharge the onus which was on it under the Explanation to section 271(l)(c) of the Act. The ITO was justified in imposing penalty, notwithstanding the fact that income was assessed on estimate basis. In view of above facts, the…

SAROSH YAZDANI,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 210/CTK/2020[2004-05]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack03 Nov 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144

…not only in the year under consideration but even in the preceding three assessment years also. In this view of the matter, the levy of penalty was held to be justified. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.A. Balasubramaniam Bros. & Co. vs. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 977, held that penalty can be imposed even on estimated addition also. It was held that where the assessee was not able to discharge the onus which was on it under the Explanation to section 271(l)(c) of the Act. The ITO was justified in imposing penalty, notwithstanding the fact that income was assessed on estimate basis. In view of above facts, the…

SAROSH YAZDANI,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 13/CTK/2014[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack03 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144

…not only in the year under consideration but even in the preceding three assessment years also. In this view of the matter, the levy of penalty was held to be justified. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.A. Balasubramaniam Bros. & Co. vs. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 977, held that penalty can be imposed even on estimated addition also. It was held that where the assessee was not able to discharge the onus which was on it under the Explanation to section 271(l)(c) of the Act. The ITO was justified in imposing penalty, notwithstanding the fact that income was assessed on estimate basis. In view of above facts, the…

SAROSH YAZDANI,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 12/CTK/2014[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack03 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144

…not only in the year under consideration but even in the preceding three assessment years also. In this view of the matter, the levy of penalty was held to be justified. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.A. Balasubramaniam Bros. & Co. vs. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 977, held that penalty can be imposed even on estimated addition also. It was held that where the assessee was not able to discharge the onus which was on it under the Explanation to section 271(l)(c) of the Act. The ITO was justified in imposing penalty, notwithstanding the fact that income was assessed on estimate basis. In view of above facts, the…

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

…ide mistake on part of assessee and even 3 | P a g e if assessee agreed to addition with a condition that penalty could not be imposed, department is not precluded from initiating penalty proceedings 5. B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co Vs CIT [116 Taxman 842, 236 ITR 977, 157 CTR 556] where Hon’ble Supreme Court held that difference between income assessed and income returned being more than 20 per cent, Explanation to section 271(1)(c) became applicable and assessee having failed to discharge onus being cast on assessee by virtue of said Explanation, Assessing Officer was justified in imposing penalty 6. CIT vs…

M/S. UNITED AIRLINES INC.,NEW DELHI vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 958/DEL/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 1996-97 & Assessment Year: 1997-98 & Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-00 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 United Airlines, Vs. Dcit/Ddit Amba Deep Building, Non-Resident Circle, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaacu4427C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)(i)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 1996-97 And Assessment Year: 1997-98 And Assessment Year: 1998-99 And Assessment Year: 1999-00 And Assessment Year: 2000-01 And Assessment Year: 2001-02 And Assessment Year: 2002-03 United Airlines, Vs. DCIT/DDIT Amba Deep Building, Non-resident Circle, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi New Delhi PAN : AAACU4427C (Appellant) (Respondent) And Assessment Year: 1998-99 And Assessment Year: 1999-00 2 ITA Nos.216 & 217/Del/2000; 1691 to 1695/Del/2008; 954…

M/S. UNITED AIRLINES INC.,NEW DELHI vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 957/DEL/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 1996-97 & Assessment Year: 1997-98 & Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-00 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 United Airlines, Vs. Dcit/Ddit Amba Deep Building, Non-Resident Circle, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaacu4427C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)(i)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 1996-97 And Assessment Year: 1997-98 And Assessment Year: 1998-99 And Assessment Year: 1999-00 And Assessment Year: 2000-01 And Assessment Year: 2001-02 And Assessment Year: 2002-03 United Airlines, Vs. DCIT/DDIT Amba Deep Building, Non-resident Circle, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi New Delhi PAN : AAACU4427C (Appellant) (Respondent) And Assessment Year: 1998-99 And Assessment Year: 1999-00 2 ITA Nos.216 & 217/Del/2000; 1691 to 1695/Del/2008; 954…

M/S. UNITED AIRLINES INC.,NEW DELHI vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 956/DEL/2014[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2022AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 1996-97 & Assessment Year: 1997-98 & Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-00 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 United Airlines, Vs. Dcit/Ddit Amba Deep Building, Non-Resident Circle, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaacu4427C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)(i)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 1996-97 And Assessment Year: 1997-98 And Assessment Year: 1998-99 And Assessment Year: 1999-00 And Assessment Year: 2000-01 And Assessment Year: 2001-02 And Assessment Year: 2002-03 United Airlines, Vs. DCIT/DDIT Amba Deep Building, Non-resident Circle, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi New Delhi PAN : AAACU4427C (Appellant) (Respondent) And Assessment Year: 1998-99 And Assessment Year: 1999-00 2 ITA Nos.216 & 217/Del/2000; 1691 to 1695/Del/2008; 954…

M/S. UNITED AIRLINES INC.,NEW DELHI vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 955/DEL/2014[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2022AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 1996-97 & Assessment Year: 1997-98 & Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-00 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 United Airlines, Vs. Dcit/Ddit Amba Deep Building, Non-Resident Circle, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaacu4427C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)(i)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 1996-97 And Assessment Year: 1997-98 And Assessment Year: 1998-99 And Assessment Year: 1999-00 And Assessment Year: 2000-01 And Assessment Year: 2001-02 And Assessment Year: 2002-03 United Airlines, Vs. DCIT/DDIT Amba Deep Building, Non-resident Circle, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi New Delhi PAN : AAACU4427C (Appellant) (Respondent) And Assessment Year: 1998-99 And Assessment Year: 1999-00 2 ITA Nos.216 & 217/Del/2000; 1691 to 1695/Del/2008; 954…

M/S. UNITED AIRLINES INC.,NEW DELHI vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 954/DEL/2014[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 1996-97 & Assessment Year: 1997-98 & Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-00 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 United Airlines, Vs. Dcit/Ddit Amba Deep Building, Non-Resident Circle, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaacu4427C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)(i)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 1996-97 And Assessment Year: 1997-98 And Assessment Year: 1998-99 And Assessment Year: 1999-00 And Assessment Year: 2000-01 And Assessment Year: 2001-02 And Assessment Year: 2002-03 United Airlines, Vs. DCIT/DDIT Amba Deep Building, Non-resident Circle, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi New Delhi PAN : AAACU4427C (Appellant) (Respondent) And Assessment Year: 1998-99 And Assessment Year: 1999-00 2 ITA Nos.216 & 217/Del/2000; 1691 to 1695/Del/2008; 954…

UNITED AIRLINES vs. DDIT NON- RESIDENT , CIRCLE,

ITA 1695/DEL/2008[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2022AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 1996-97 & Assessment Year: 1997-98 & Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-00 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 United Airlines, Vs. Dcit/Ddit Amba Deep Building, Non-Resident Circle, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaacu4427C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)(i)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 1996-97 And Assessment Year: 1997-98 And Assessment Year: 1998-99 And Assessment Year: 1999-00 And Assessment Year: 2000-01 And Assessment Year: 2001-02 And Assessment Year: 2002-03 United Airlines, Vs. DCIT/DDIT Amba Deep Building, Non-resident Circle, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi New Delhi PAN : AAACU4427C (Appellant) (Respondent) And Assessment Year: 1998-99 And Assessment Year: 1999-00 2 ITA Nos.216 & 217/Del/2000; 1691 to 1695/Del/2008; 954…

UNITED AIRLINES vs. DDIT NON- RESIDENT , CIRCLE,

ITA 1694/DEL/2008[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2022AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 1996-97 & Assessment Year: 1997-98 & Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-00 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 United Airlines, Vs. Dcit/Ddit Amba Deep Building, Non-Resident Circle, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaacu4427C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)(i)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 1996-97 And Assessment Year: 1997-98 And Assessment Year: 1998-99 And Assessment Year: 1999-00 And Assessment Year: 2000-01 And Assessment Year: 2001-02 And Assessment Year: 2002-03 United Airlines, Vs. DCIT/DDIT Amba Deep Building, Non-resident Circle, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi New Delhi PAN : AAACU4427C (Appellant) (Respondent) And Assessment Year: 1998-99 And Assessment Year: 1999-00 2 ITA Nos.216 & 217/Del/2000; 1691 to 1695/Del/2008; 954…

UNITED AIRLINES vs. DDIT NON- RESIDENT , CIRCLE,

ITA 1693/DEL/2008[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2022AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 1996-97 & Assessment Year: 1997-98 & Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-00 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 United Airlines, Vs. Dcit/Ddit Amba Deep Building, Non-Resident Circle, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaacu4427C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)(i)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 1996-97 And Assessment Year: 1997-98 And Assessment Year: 1998-99 And Assessment Year: 1999-00 And Assessment Year: 2000-01 And Assessment Year: 2001-02 And Assessment Year: 2002-03 United Airlines, Vs. DCIT/DDIT Amba Deep Building, Non-resident Circle, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi New Delhi PAN : AAACU4427C (Appellant) (Respondent) And Assessment Year: 1998-99 And Assessment Year: 1999-00 2 ITA Nos.216 & 217/Del/2000; 1691 to 1695/Del/2008; 954…

Showing 1–20 of 63 · Page 1 of 4