How many judgments cite B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co. v. CIT?

39 judgments on BharatTax cite B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co. v. CIT (116 Taxmann 842), spanning 2017 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co. v. CIT come up under?

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

B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co. v. CIT

116 Taxmann 842Supreme Court of India2001#3030 most cited

What is B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co. v. CIT authority for?

Where the difference between the returned and assessed income exceeds 20%, Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) applies, and the assessee must discharge the onus to rebut the inference of concealment.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co. v. CIT · section 271(1)(c) · penalty · concealment of income · furnishing inaccurate particulars · difference between returned and assessed income · explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) · onus on assessee · bona fide mistake

Also reported as

157 CTR 556

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

Issues it is cited on

section 253(1)(a)section 276c bona fide mistake furnishing inaccurate particulars of income furnishing inaccurate particulars penalty u/s 271(1)(c)section 253 concealment of income commissioner (appeals)levy of penalty reopening of assessment section 271(1)

Judgments citing B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co. v. CIT

DCIT, Chandigarh vs. Chandigarh Housing Board, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 102/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Jindal, CA &For Respondent: Smt.C. Chandrakanta, CIT DR

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “ए” च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘A’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE: SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI R.L. NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.102/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The D.C.I.T. , M/s Chandigarh Housing Board, बनाम Central Circle-1(1), 8, Jan Marg, Sector 9, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAALC0132H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri A.K. Jindal, CA & Ms.Rattan Kaur, CA राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt.C. Chandrakanta, CIT DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of…

DCIT-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Tpi India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1792/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Manjunatha G, Am आयकर अपील िं./ Ita No.1792/Mum/2019 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2009-10) The Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Tpi India Ltd. बनाम/ Tax, 102, Atlanta, Nariman Point, Circle 3(3)(2), Mumbai Mumbai-400 021 Vs. (अपीलाथी / Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aacct7772P अपीलाथी की ओर े/ Appellant By : Shri Akhtar H. Ansari, Dr प्रत्यथी की ओर े/ Respondent By : None ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18.06.2020 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 18.06.2020

For Appellant: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari, DRFor Respondent: None

Section 271(1)(c)

…d surely have won, as their facts are very strong. They further contend that when there is a turnover of around Rs 15 crores, why should they be indulging in bogus purchases. 3.1.4 I find that the Hon'ble SC has in the case of B A Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co, 116 Taxmann 842, has held that the presumption of concealment sticks only when there is a difference of more than 20% between returned income and TPI India Ltd. assessed income. Then, the explanation to section 271(1(c) comes into play. Then, the burden shifts to the appellant to discharge the onus of innocence. That being not the situation here, the presump…

Sandeep Bhimrao Lad, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle-3, Thane

ITA 1620/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1620/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar, DR

Section 133(6)Section 148Section 271Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1620/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) DCIT Circle – 3, Sandeep Bhimrao Lad, Room No. 2, 6th floor, Prop-M/s Sai Venkatesh Ashar IT Park, Road no. बिधम/ Construction, Room No. 16Z, Wagle Industrial 17, Jeevan Kamal CHS, Vs. Estate, Thane, Kopri Colony, Pin 400 604 Mumbai- 400 603. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. ACCPL9583H (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1617, 1618 & 1619/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 t…

Ashtavinayak Construction, Navi Mumbai vs. JCIT Cir. 22(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5367/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Ashtavinayaka Jcit Circle 22(3), Mumbai. Construction, Vs. Plot No. R-478, Ttc Industrial Area, Midc, Rabale, Navi Mumbai- 400701. Pan No. Aadfa1724G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Bhadresh Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. S.K. Mishra, DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s Ashtavinayaka JCIT Circle 22(3), Mumbai. Construction, Vs. Plot No. R-478, TTC Industrial area, MIDC, Rabale, Navi Mumbai- 400701. PAN No. AADFA1724G Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Bhadresh Doshi, AR Revenue by : Mr. S.K. Mishra, DR Date of Hearing : 12/07/2019 Date of pronouncement : 30/09/2019 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2010-11. The appeal is directed agai…

Harish Kumar HUF, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-34(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1469/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Dr. B.R.R. Kumara.Y. : 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Naveen ND Gupta, CA & Sh. AshuFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 288ASection 94(7)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A.Y. : 2015-16 HARISH KUMAR, (HUF), Vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 34(1), 5/21, SHANTI NIKETAN, NEW DELHI ROOM NO. 804, 8TH FLOOR, NEW DELHI – 110 021 (PAN: AAAHH9496M) E-2 BLOCK, PRATYAKASH KAR BHAWAN, CIVIC CENTRE, NEW DELHI – 110 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Naveen ND Gupta, CA & Sh. Ashu Goel, CA Department by : Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR. ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 26.11.2018 of the Ld. Commissioner o…

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)

…In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘G’, New Delhi Before : Shri H.S. Sidhu, Judicial Member And Shri B.R.R. Kumar, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2007-08 Puneet Saluja, C/o Vipin Jain & vs. Income-tax Officer, Associates, CAs, Flat No. 915, 9th Ward 30(4), New Delhi. Floor, Indraprakash Building, 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. PAN- AIGPS2924P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by None Respondent by Sh. N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 12.06.2019 Date of Pronouncement 13.06.2019 ORDER Per B.R.R. Kumar, A.M.: The appeal was filed 13.06.2016 and notice has been issued to the assessee by…

Sony Dadc Manufacturing (India ) P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 11(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3648/MUM/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Sheth, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2003-04 M/s. Sony DADC Assistant Commissioner Manufacturing (India) Pvt. of Income Tax, Ltd., Range-11(1), C-106, Trans Thane Room No.439, Vs. Creek, Aayakar Bhavan, MIDC Industrial Area, M.K. Road, Pawane Village, Mumbai Navi Mumbai – 400 705 PAN: AACCS1614B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Neeraj Sheth, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, D.R. Date of Hearing : 30.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 16.05.2019 O R…

Sonali D. Mehta, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17 (3) Erstwhile Deputy Commissioner Income Tax 12(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6708/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Paresh Shaparia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 Mrs. Sonali D. Mehta, ACIT 17(3), 105, Apollo Street, Erstwhile- DCIT-12(1), 2nd Floor, Room No.31, Vs. Mumbai M.S. Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 400 023 PAN: AANPM 7994C (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Paresh Shaparia, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, D.R. Date of Hearing : 10.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 15.05.2019 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been preferred by…