CIT v. Balasubramaniam and Bros.

152 ITR 529High Court1985#12197 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

Judgments citing CIT v. Balasubramaniam and Bros.

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

…ellant is allowed.” [Emphasis supplied] 18 14. In terms of provisions of section271(1)(c) of the Act read 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 presum…

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)

…ars of income, in terms of provisions of sec. 27l(l)(c) of the Act read with explanation 1 thereto and the judicial pronouncements in the case of B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co. v. CIT [2001] 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 th…

M/S. Globe Capital Market Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6089/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

…it was found to be so by the authorities below, the conduct of the assessee amounts to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof. She further placed reliance on a decision reported in CIT vs B.A. Balasubramaniam and 4 Bros. (1985) 152 ITR 529 in support of her contention that even when an addition was made on estimate basis, proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are maintainable. 6. We have gone through the record. In this matter, the assessee earned the dividend income of Rs.2,25,92,701/- and claimed it as exempt while stating that no expenditure with regard to the earning of such exe…

Ajit Singh Bagga, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 96/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaa.Y. 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44Section 68

…stimate the Net Profit at the rate which is prescribed by the Act under the presumptive method of taxation for the Civil Contractors. Reliance was placed on the judgement of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Balasubramaniam and Bros reported in 152 ITR 529 (Mad.), wherein the Hon’ble Madras High Court had upheld the imposition of penalty which was based on estimated additions. 5. We have heard the Ld. Sr. DR and have also perused the material placed on record. It is seen that the assessee had submitted before the Ld. CIT (A) that the accounts were audited under the provisions of Section 44 AB of t…

Arvind Kumar, Rohtak vs. ITO, Rohtak

In the result appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 81/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaa.Y. 2008-09

Section 271(1)(c)

…nnot take shelter behind legal precedents to escape the rigors of penalty when the assessee himself was at default. The Ld. Sr. D.R. also placed reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Balasubramaniam and Bros reported in 152 ITR 529 (Mad.), wherein the Hon’ble Madras High Court had upheld the imposition of penalty which was based on estimated additions. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and have also perused the material placed on record. In the present case it is not in dispute that the addition was based on an estimate. It is also not in dispute that the assessee had…

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)

…ld. CIT(A) was right in law and on facts in confirming the penalty of Rs.6,61,660/- imposed by the AO upon the assessee u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In support,he placed reliance on the following decisions. I. 42 Taxman.Com 20 (Del HC), CIT vs Arcotech Ltd. II. 152 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…

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)

…rs of income. In terms of provisions of sec. 271(l)(c) of the Act read with explanation 1 thereto and the judicial pronouncements in the case of B.A. BaSasubramaniam & Bros. Co. v. C1T [2001] 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*-.-;…

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Best & Crompton Engg. Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 600/CHNY/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Sept 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojariआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.600/Mds/2012 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Mrs. Jayanthi Krishnan, CITFor Respondent: Sh.S. Subramanian, CA
Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

…ing a civil liability, willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld. D.R. has also placed reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in CIT v. B.A. Balasubramaniam And Bros. (1985) 152 ITR 529. The Ld. D.R. has also placed her reliance on an unreported decision of Delhi Bench of this Tribunal referred by the Revenue in its grounds of appeal at Ground No.2.4 in M/s Chadha Sugars P. Ltd. in ITA No.1773(Del)/2010 dated 23.12.2010. According to the Ld. D.R., Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158. 10. On the contrary, Shri S. Subramanian, the Ld. repr…