317 ITR 1 (SC); UoI v. Dharmendra Textile Processors

293 ITR 584Supreme Court of India2007#15563 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 350,364 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Judgments citing 317 ITR 1 (SC); UoI v. Dharmendra Textile Processors

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

…he same, besides w.r.t. Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) (refer Mak Data (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC); CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal [2009] 317 ITR 1 (SC); UoI v. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC); Guljag Industries v. CTO [2007] 293 ITR 584 (SC); K.P. Madhusudhanan vs. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC); B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros v. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 977 (SC), to cite some), is on the assessee who makes the claim. 6.6 Next, we consider the assessee’s legal ground, i.e., of the notice u/s. 274 not striking off one of the two limbs attracting penalty u/s. 271(1)(c), charging it therefore…

Shri Anurag Shah 2654, Shah Bhawan Ghee Wallon Ka Rasta Johari Bazar, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-2(1), Jaipur, Ward-2(1)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 938/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (ACIT)

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…as a result of scrutiny assessment, on being questioning by the AO, the appellant came forward to offer the above income for taxation. The attention is invited to judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors 293 ITR 584 (SC), wherein after quoting from section 271 extensively and also considering section 271(1)(c), the Hon'ble Court came to the conclusion that since section 271(1)(c) indicates the element of strict liability on the assessee for the concealment or for giving inaccurate particulars while filing Return, there was no necessity of mens rea. The Court…

Smt. Suman Lakhani, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result, the penalty amounting to Rs

ITA 857/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Madan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Janardan Das, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36

…ot be established. Hence on this ground assessee's contention fails. Support for this rational is taken from the following judgments . Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile processors (SC) 306 ITR 277, Gidjag Industries Ltd. vs. CTO (SC) 293 ITR 584 and CIT vs. Atul Mohan Bindal (SC) 317 ITR 1 have held that 'mens rea' not essential for civil liability’ of penalty - Penalties under fiscal statutes are for breach of civil liabilities - Willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability as is the case in the matter of prosecution u/s 276C. Assessment and penalty…

Gaurav Garg, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5716/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 132ASection 13ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69A

…ncludes penalty u/s Page 8 of 15 ITA No. -5716/Del/2015. Gaurav Garg. 271 (1)( c) as established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision in the case of Union of India Vs Dharrnendra Textile processors (SC) 306 ITR 277, Guljag Industries Ltd. Vs GTO (SC) 293 ITR 584, CIT Vs Atul Mohan Bindal (SC) 317 11 R 1. -Still a clear present of mens rea is being taken here for levy of higher rate of penalty on the assessee. The minimum and maximum penalty works out to Rs. 7,74,560/- and Rs. 23,23,5001- respectively. Looking to the facts of the case I hereby impose maximum penalty of 200% of the tax sought to be, evaded…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Action Ispat and Power Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 3021/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Action Ispat & Power Pvt. Ltd., 5Th Floor, Itl Twin Tower, Circle-1(2), . New Delhi. Block A, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi. Pan: Aaeca9671L

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. DR

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd., 327 ITR 51, the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors, 166 taxman 65; Guljag Industries Ltd. vs. CPO, 293 ITR 584 (SC);and K.P. Madhusudan vs. CIT, 251 ITR 99 (SC), the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.45,59,500/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. 8. Before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the genuineness of the term loan taken for purchase of Plant & Machinery and genuineness of the interest paid on the said term loan is not in dispute. The paym…

M/S Pioneer Pesticides Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT, C-1(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1553/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S Pioneer Pesticides Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, Sco 82-83, Sector 8-C, Circle 1(1), Chandigarh Chandigarh

For Appellant: Sh. Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh, Sr.DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…ons P. Ltd’ [2010] 327 ITR 510 (Del) and also of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ‘Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors’ 306 ITR 227 and another decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ‘Gujrag Industries Ltd. Vs. CTO’ 293 ITR 584 concluded that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income and, therefore, was liable for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved by the above order of the Assessing officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee made following submissions:- “1. Disallowance u/s 36(…