CIT v. K.Ρ. Madhusudanan

246 ITR 218High Court2000#9108 most cited
12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

Issues it is cited on

section 271fsection 271bpenalty under section 271(1)(c)section 271(1)(b)best judgment assessmentpenalty u/s 271(1)(c)reasoned ordersection 44absection 44section 271(1)reason to believesection 271

Judgments citing CIT v. K.Ρ. Madhusudanan

HIGH VOIT ELECTICALS P LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 , PALGHAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4465/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4462, 4463, 4464 & 4465/Mum/2025 A.Ys: 2013-14 High Voit Electicals P Vs ITO, Ward – 1 Ltd., MQP8+5Q3, Amba Wadi J-46 MIDC Tarpur, Palghar - 401404 Boisar, S.O Salwad, Boisar – 401506, Dist – Palghar PAN – AABFH1723L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 14.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 10.11.2025 ORDER Per Bench.: These fourappeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the different impugned…

HIGH VOIT ELECTICALS P LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 , PALGHAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4464/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4462, 4463, 4464 & 4465/Mum/2025 A.Ys: 2013-14 High Voit Electicals P Vs ITO, Ward – 1 Ltd., MQP8+5Q3, Amba Wadi J-46 MIDC Tarpur, Palghar - 401404 Boisar, S.O Salwad, Boisar – 401506, Dist – Palghar PAN – AABFH1723L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 14.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 10.11.2025 ORDER Per Bench.: These fourappeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the different impugned…

HIGH VOIT ELECTICALS P LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 , PALGHAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4463/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4462, 4463, 4464 & 4465/Mum/2025 A.Ys: 2013-14 High Voit Electicals P Vs ITO, Ward – 1 Ltd., MQP8+5Q3, Amba Wadi J-46 MIDC Tarpur, Palghar - 401404 Boisar, S.O Salwad, Boisar – 401506, Dist – Palghar PAN – AABFH1723L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 14.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 10.11.2025 ORDER Per Bench.: These fourappeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the different impugned…

HIGH VOIT ELECTICALS P LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 , PALGHAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4462/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4462, 4463, 4464 & 4465/Mum/2025 A.Ys: 2013-14 High Voit Electicals P Vs ITO, Ward – 1 Ltd., MQP8+5Q3, Amba Wadi J-46 MIDC Tarpur, Palghar - 401404 Boisar, S.O Salwad, Boisar – 401506, Dist – Palghar PAN – AABFH1723L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 14.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 10.11.2025 ORDER Per Bench.: These fourappeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the different impugned…

DCIT 3(1), MUMBAI vs. ICICI BANK LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 4305/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2003-04

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl Counsel
Section 10Section 10(5)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2003-04 DCIT, Circle 3(1), M/s. ICICI Bank Ltd., Room No.607, ICICI Bank Towers, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 51 PAN: AAACI1195H (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Ms. Aarti Vissanji, A.R. Revenue by : Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl Counsel Date of Hearing : 09 . 11 . 2023 Date of Pronouncement : 19 . 12 . 2023 O R D E R Per : Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member: The appellant, DCIT, Circle 3(1), Mumbai (…

SUDHIR BHUPENDRA DESAI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INT. TAX), SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 92/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.92/Srt/2023 (Ay 2012-13) (Hearing In Physical Court) Sudhir Bhupendra Desai Income Tax Officer, (Int. Tax), 106, ‘Shriyam’, Nehru Nagar, Room No.107, 1St Floor, Vs Ichhanath, Svr College, S.O., Income-Tax Office, Surat Surat-395007 Anavil Business Centre, Pan No: Axdpd 7887 Q Adajan Hazira Road, Adajan, Surat-395007 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…longwith interest. The assessee has no mala fide intention to evade the tax or concealed his income though it was due to bona fide ignorance of Indian Tax system. The assessee also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K. P. Madhusudan 246 ITR 218 (SC), wherein it was held that before penalty can be imposed, the entirety of circumstances must reasonably point to the conclusion that 4 Sudhir B Desai the disputed amount represented income and that the assessee had consciously concealed the particulars of his income or had deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars. Further, assessee also…

ARJUN SINGH,KOTA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-I

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 106/JPR/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Dec 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…he interpretation placed upon the Explanation by a full bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Viswakarma Industries Vs. CIT (1982) 135 ITR 652. Similar view has been expressed by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs. K.P. Madhusudan reported in 246 ITR 218. This decision has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in 251 ITR 99. Affirming the aforesaid decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that after insertion of explanation its earlier decision in the case of Sir Shadi Lal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 168 ITR 705 (SC) was no longer applicable. The Kerala High Court at…

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

…rpretation placed upon the Explanation by a Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Viswakarma Industries Vs. CIT (1982) 135 ITR 652. (vii) Similar view has been expressed by the Kerala High Court in the ease of CIT Vs. K.P. Madhusudana reported in 246 ITR 218. This decision has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in 251 ITR 99. Affirming the aforesaid decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that after insertion of explanation its earlier decision in the case of Sir ShadiLal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 168 ITR 705 (SC) was no longer applicable. (viii) The Delhi High Cou…

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)

…. The onus laid down upon the assessee to rebut the presumption raised under Explanation 1 would not be discharged by any fantastic or fanciful explanation. It is not the law that any and every explanation has to be accepted. In CIT v. K.P. Madhusudanan [2000]246 ITR 218/[2002] 125 Taxman 265, Hon'ble Kerala High Court came to the conclusion that penalty was liable to be imposed in a case where the assessee could offer no acceptable explanation for the income not disclosed or the inaccurate particulars he had furnished in his return. - Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile processors (SC) 3…

SHRI ARUN GOEL,,BIJNOR vs. ACIT, BIJNOR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2404/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2018AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Ashmia Neb, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 24Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 56Section 69C

…lanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. On this premise, while distinguishing the 3 judicial pronouncements submitted by the assessee and by placing reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs K.P. Madhu Sudanan (2006) 246 ITR 218 (Ker) and some other decisions, learned AO proceeded to levy a penalty of Rs.1,25,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. In appeal, learned CIT(A) upheld the penalty as levied by the AO. Hence, the assessee is in appeal before us stating that the impugned order is bad on facts and in law and it is the result of non appreciation of the facts and circu…

ITO, WARD - 13(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. AMBEY RETAILERS PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2104/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 Income Tax Officer V/S. M/S Ambey Retailers Pvt. Ward-13(1), 9Th Ltd. 29B, Rabidra Sarani, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-73 Floor, 110, Shanti Pally, Aayakar [Pan No.Aahca 8700 F] Bhawan (Poorva), Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri R. Chowdhury, Addl. Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant None ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 13-08-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 05-09-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Challenges Correctness Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Kolkata’S Order Dated 03.07.2017, Passed In Case No.472/Cit(A)-5/W-15(1)/15-16, Reversing The Assessing Officer’S Action Deleting Imposing Penalty Of ₹50,21,837/- Involving Proceedings U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. 2. We Have Heard Learned Departmental Representative Arguing In Favour The Above Impugned Penalty. Case File Perused. It Emerges First Of All That Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion On The Issue Reads As Under:- “1. By Way Of Additional Ground The Objection Raised Is That The Ao Failed To Strike Off The Irrelevant Portion In The Notice Initiating Penalty U/S 271(1)(C)/ Section 274. Relying On The Decision Of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory & Others [2013] 359 Itr

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “D” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “D” KOLKATA Before Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member and Dr. A.L. Saini, Accountant Member Assessment Year :2012-13 Income Tax Officer V/s. M/s Ambey Retailers Pvt. Ward-13(1), 9th Ltd. 29B, Rabidra Sarani, 3rd Floor, Kolkata-73 Floor, 110, Shanti Pally, Aayakar [PAN No.AAHCA 8700 F] Bhawan (Poorva), Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri R. Chowdhury, Addl. CIT-DR अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant None ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 13-08-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 05-09-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of…

SHRI ASHWINBHAI B.POKIA,,SURAT vs. THE ACIT.CIRCLE-9,, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1011/AHD/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1011/Ahd/2014/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2004-05 Ashwinbhai B. Pokia Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of 61, Saify Society, Income-Tax, L.H.Road, Surat – 395006. Circle-9, Surat. [Pan: Ackpp 5049 C] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Rasesh Shah – Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri J.K.Chandnani, Sr.Dr राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 12.07.2018 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On 31.07.2018

Section 131Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

…relying on these case laws of cases in Hon'ble Delhi High Court of CIT vs. Gurbachan lal in 250 ITR 157 (Delhi), Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Viswakarma Industries vs. CIT (1982) 132 ITR 652, Hon'ble Kerala High Court in CIT vs. K.P.Madhusudana in 246 ITR 218, Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Sushil Kumar Sharad Kumar 232 ITR 588 (Alld), Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Sohan Singh 254 ITR 170 held that for the purpose of penalty matter has to be examined in the background of Explanation to Section 271(1)(c). It has also been held that evidences recorded during the course of assessment proceedings,…