How many judgments cite 306 ITR 277 (SC); K.P. Madhusudhanan v. CIT?

63 judgments on BharatTax cite 306 ITR 277 (SC); K.P. Madhusudhanan v. CIT (236 ITR 977), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does 306 ITR 277 (SC); K.P. Madhusudhanan v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 271(1)(c), Section 54F.

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

236 ITR 977Supreme Court of India1999#1788 most cited

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

The court decides whether an assessee has concealed income and furnished inaccurate particulars, leading to penalty under section 271(1)(c). The cited passages suggest the case is relied upon when an assessee surrenders income during assessment proceedings due to inability to justify expenses.

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

K.P. Madhusudhanan v. CIT · 306 ITR 277 SC · section 271(1)(c) · concealment of income · inaccurate particulars · surrender of income · penalty proceedings

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

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

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

…x Court per a series of decisions, viz. Mak Data (P.) 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 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…

Sh. Ashok Kumar Chauhan, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2988/DEL/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri N.S.Saini

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ITR 244; CIT vs Zoom Communication P.Ltd. (191 Taxman 179 [Delhi])/[2010] 327 ITR 510 (Delhi)/ [2010)233 CTR 465; MAKData P.Ltd. vs CIT[38 taxmann.com 448 (SC)/ [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC)/(2013) 263 CTR 1]; B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co vs CIT [116 taxman 842, 236 ITR 977, 157 CTR 556]; and CIT vs Escorts Finance Ltd. [183 Taxman 453 (Del), 920100 328 ITR 44 (Delhi)/ (2009) 226 CTR 105], whenever the claim made in the return of income was found to be ex-facie bogus, such a case would be treated as concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars and the penalty proceedings are justified. 3 7. We have heard th…

Crew Bos Products Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Faridabad

ITA 5236/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Beg, Senior DR

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

…te particulars of income and relied upon the cases of CIT vs. Zoom Communication (P.) Ltd. – 327 ITR 510 (Delhi); Mak Data P. Ltd. vs. CIT – 358 ITR 593 (SC); UOI vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors – 295 ITR 244; B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co. vs. CIT – 236 ITR 977; CIT vs. Gates Foam & Rubber Co. – 91 ITR 467; CIT vs. Prasanna Dugar – 371 ITR 19 (Cal.); ACIT vs. Smt. J. Mythili – 35 taxmann.com 86; Smt. Kran Devi vs. ACIT – (2009) 125 TTJ 631 (Delhi); CIT vs. S.J. Prasad – (2008) 220 CTR 169 (Ker.); and CIT vs. Smt. Meera Devi – (2012) 26 txmann.com 132 (Delhi). 10. First of all, when we examine satis…

Crew Bos Products Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Faridabad

ITA 5235/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Beg, Senior DR

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

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)

…d 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 Income tax Act, 1961 indicate the element of strict liability on the a…

M/S. Capital Power Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2257/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13 Capital Power Infrastructure Pvt. Acit, Circle- 5(2), Ltd., New Delhi. A- 156, Lower Ground Floor, Vs. New Friends Colony, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Ms. Himani Agrawal, CA

Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IT. (iii) CIT vs. Zoom Communication (P.) Ltd., 327 ITR 510. (iv) CIT vs. Moser Baer India Ltd., 315 ITR 460. (v) CIT vs. Gold Coin Health Food (P.) Ltd., 304 ITR 308. (vi) MAK Data P. Ltd. vs. CIT, 358 ITR 593. (vii) B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co. vs. CIT, 236 ITR 977. (viii) CIT vs. Gates Foam & Rubber Co., 91 ITR 467. (ix) Steel Ingots Ltd. vs. CIT, 296 ITR 228. (x) CIT vs. Escorts Finance Ltd., 328 ITR 44. (xi) CIT vs. R.M.P. Plasto (P.) Ltd., 313 ITR 397. (xii) K.P. Madhusudhanan vs. CIT, 251 ITR 99. (xiii) CIT vs. Splender Construction, 208 taxmann.com 302. 9. He submitted that since the assessee in the i…

Sahiwal Investment & Trading Co., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 4913/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamblesahiwal Investment & Trading Vs Ito Co., Ward 22(2) 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, New Delhi. 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaacs0017J Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(a)Section 32Section 50

…iii CIT vs. Zoom Communication P. Ltd. 327 ITR 510 (Del) iv. CIT vs. Moser Baer India Ltd. 315 ITR 460 (SC) v. CIT vs. Gold Coin Health Food P. Ltd. 304 ITR 308 (SC) vi. MAK Data P. Ltd. CIT 358 ITR 593 (SC) vii. B. A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co. vs. CIT 236 ITR 977 (SC) viii. CIT vs. Escorts Finance Ltd. 328 ITR 44 (Del) 9 11. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on the records. Since the Additional Grounds are legal in nature and can be taken at any stage, we are admitting the additional grounds filed by the Assessee. As regards the Additional Ground (i) relating…

ACIT, Circle, Panchkula vs. M/S Himalayan Expressway Ltd., Pinjore

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1614/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri. Ashwani Kumar GargFor Respondent: Dr. Gulshan Raj

Section 271(1)(c)Section 276C

…sulted in decrease in allowable depreciation by Rs.27.15 crore as proposed by the AO. Had the case is not picked up for scrutiny assessee would not have shown its true income in his return of income. 4. 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 5. GiT vs…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) 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 O…

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)

…trite law, expounded by the apex court decades { refer; 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 fu…

M/S Naresh Katare, Contractor, Gwalior vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-3, Gwalior

In the result, appeals of the assessee is allowed

ITA 53/AGR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra09 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Washim Arshad, Sr. DR

Section 145(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…52 ITR 529 (Madras HC), CIT vs B.A. Balasubramanian & Brothers Co. where it was observed that in the cases of assessment on the basis of estimates, applicability of section 271(1)(c) can not be ruled out. III. 124 ITR 376 (Madras HC) Rathnam& co. vs. IAC. IV. 236 ITR 977 (SC) the apex court in the case of CIT vs B.A. Balasubramanian & Brothers Co. decision of hon’ble Madras High Court affirmed, cited 124 ITR 376. V. 118 Taxman 324 (SC) and 251 ITR 99 (SC) Maka Data VI. ITA. No. 3009/Ahd/2007/A.Y. 2001-02 M/s Harish Hosiery Mart. 6 ITA 53/Agra/2016 8. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the facts and wr…

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)

…ion in Mak Data (supra), be made to the following decisions 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…

M/S Sanraj Engineering Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5988/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh.G.D.Agarwal, Hon’Ble & Sh.K.N.Charysanraj Engineering Pvt.Ltd., Vs Ito, A-4/B-1, Mohan Coop Indl. Estate, Ward-7(3), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan-Aaccs6897E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Adv. Respondent By Sh. S.S.Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 27.10.2017 Order Per K.N.Chary

Section 133(6)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 46ASection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SH.G.D.AGARWAL, HON’BLE PRESIDENT AND SH.K.N.CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sanraj Engineering Pvt.Ltd., vs ITO, A-4/B-1, Mohan Coop Indl. Estate, Ward-7(3), New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN-AACCS6897E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Adv. Respondent by Sh. S.S.Rana, CIT DR Date of Hearing 11.10.2017 Date of Pronouncement 27.10.2017 ORDER PER K.N.CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Aggrieved by the order dated 29.09.2016 in appeal No.84/13-14 passing by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [in short “CIT(A)”]-28, New Delhi for 2006-07 Assessm…

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.4980/DEL/2014 A.Y. : 2007-08 DCIT, CIRCLE 12(1), VS. M/S GE CAPITAL BUSINESS NEW DELHI PROCESS MANAGEMENT SERVICES PVT. LTD., AIFACS BUILDING, 1, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI (PAN: AABCG0222E) (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) Revenue by : Sh. Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR Assessee by : Sh. Rahul Satija, Adv. ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM The Revenue has filed this Appeal against the impugned Order dated 23.6.2014 of the Ld. CIT(A)-XV, New Delhi relevant to assessment year 2007-08. 2.…

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

…of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 306 ITR 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 assesse…

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)

…o 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, even where an addition was merely on estimated basis of for bona fide…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. American Express India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4422/DEL/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.C. Danday, Sr. DR

Section 10BSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 80H

…008) 304 ITR 308 (SC). 3. Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors (2007) 295 ITR 2441 Page 5 of 10 4. MAK Data P. Ltd vs. CIT T38 taxmann.com 448 (SC)/2013l 358 ITR 593 (SC)/2013 263 CTR 1. 5. B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co Vs CIT [116 Taxman 842, 236 ITR 977, 157 CTR 556]. 6. CIT vs Gates Foam & Rubber Co [91 ITR 467] CIT vs India Seafood [105 ITR 708] 7. Steel Ingots Ltd vs. CIT T296 ITR 228] 8. CIT Vs Escorts Finance Ltd [183 Taxman 453 (Delhi)/[2010] 328 ITR 44 (Delhi)/[2009] 226 CTR 105] 9. CIT Vs R.M.P. Plasto (P.) Ltd [184 Taxman 372 (SC)/[2009] 313 ITR 397 (SC)/[2009] 227 CTR 635] 10. CIT Vs Z…

Harish Narinder Salve, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 100/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: SH. SACHIT JOLLY, ADVFor Respondent: SH. ARUN KUMAR YADAV, SR. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…lowing cases laws:- i) MAK Data P. Ltd. Vs. CIT (38 Taxmann.com 448) /(2013 358 ITR 593 ii) CIT vs. Escorts Finance Ltd. (183 Taxman 453). iii) CIT vs. Zoom Communication (P) Ltd. 191 Taxman 179 (Delhi). iv) BA Balasubramaniam and Bros. Co. Vs. CIT (1999) 236 ITR 977 (SC). v) CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (2010) 189 Taxman 322 (SC) vi) Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors (2007) 295 ITR 244. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the records available with us especially the order passed by the revenue authorities and we find that the assessee has filed his return of income for the asse…

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

…advert to the following decisions, viz. Mak Data (P.) 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 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…

Yogesh Sunderlal Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT 24(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 6093/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6093/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Yogesh Sunderlal Shah, Dy. Cit-24(1), F/107, Shreepal Industrial Estate, C/13, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, बनाम/ New Oshivara Bridge, Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Vs. S. V. Road, Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai-400 102 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aakps 2779 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Gopal, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Airiju Jaikaran सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 22.6.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 30.6.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-34, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 06.8.2014, Confirming The Levy Of Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09 Vide Order Dated 29.4.213. 2. The Issue In The Instant Appeal Is The Sustainability Or Otherwise In Law Of The Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act, I.E., In The Given Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Airiju Jaikaran

Section 2(47)Section 269USection 27Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

…me of which we may refer to, as follows: Mak Data (P.) 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 and Bros v. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 977 (SC); Addl. CIT vs. Jeevan Lal Shah [1994] 205 ITR 244 (SC); CIT vs. Nathulal Agarwala & Sons [1985] 153 ITR 292 (Pat)(FB). What the assessee has acquired (at a cost of Rs.185 lacs, also incurring the obligation for a peppercorn rent of Rs.500/- per month), is an interest in a residential flat, which can itself be termed as an immovable property,…