CIT v. Mussadilal Ram

165 ITR 14Supreme Court of India1987#2847 most cited

What is CIT v. Mussadilal Ram authority for?

A difference between returned and assessed income raises an inference of concealment under Section 271(1)(c), placing the onus on the assessee to rebut this presumption. Willful concealment is not a necessary ingredient for attracting such a penalty.

41

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Mussadilal Ram · Section 271(1)(c) penalty · concealment of income · furnishing inaccurate particulars · onus on assessee · difference between returned and assessed income · presumption of concealment · willful concealment not essential · Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c)

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 274Section 271AABSection 271AAB(1)(c)Section 54F

Issues it is cited on

section 271aab(1)penalty proceedings initiatedsection 271aabfurnishing inaccurate particulars of incomesection 271aapenalty under section 271(1)(c)furnishing inaccurate particularssection 260penalty u/s 271(1)(c)section 271aconcealment of incomesection 274

Judgments citing CIT v. Mussadilal Ram

Rajesh B. Jain As Legal Heir of Bhanwarlal M. Jain, Mumbai vs. Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1942/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Assessee by
Section 143(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ाय पीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE JUSTICE (RETD.) C V BHADANG, PRESIDENT & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM I.T.A. No.1938/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2008-09) I.T.A. No.1937/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) I.T.A. No.1940/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) I.T.A. No.1939/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) I.T.A. No.1941/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) I.T.A. No.1942/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) I.T.A. No.1936/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Rajesh B. Jain as Legal Heir of ITO, Ward-19(1)(1), Bhanwarlal Jain, Piramal Chamber, 171, 17…

Rajesh B. Jain As Legal Heir of Bhanwarlal M Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-19(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1940/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Assessee by
Section 143(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ाय पीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE JUSTICE (RETD.) C V BHADANG, PRESIDENT & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM I.T.A. No.1938/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2008-09) I.T.A. No.1937/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) I.T.A. No.1940/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) I.T.A. No.1939/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) I.T.A. No.1941/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) I.T.A. No.1942/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) I.T.A. No.1936/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Rajesh B. Jain as Legal Heir of ITO, Ward-19(1)(1), Bhanwarlal Jain, Piramal Chamber, 171, 17…

Rajesh B, Jain As Legal of Bhanwarlal M. Jain, Mumbai vs. Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1938/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Ι.Τ.Α. No.1938/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2008-09) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1937/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1940/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1939/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1941/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1942/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1936/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Rajesh B. Jain As Legal Heir Of Bhanwarlal Jain, 171, 17Th Floor, Silver Arch, Petit Hall Compound, Nepeansea Road, Mumbai - 400006 Pan: Aafpj1924R Assessee -अपीलार्थी / Appellant Vs. Ito, Ward-19(1)(1), Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012. Revenue - प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent : Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agarwal, Adv, Shri Fenil Bhat & Shri Sucheck Anchaliya, Ca

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Assessee by
Section 143(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण न्याय पीठ मुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE JUSTICE (RETD.) C V BHADANG, PRESIDENT & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM Ι.Τ.Α. No.1938/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2008-09) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1937/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1940/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1939/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1941/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1942/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1936/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Rajesh B. Jain as Legal Heir of Bhanwarlal Jain, 171, 17th Floor, Silver Arch, Petit Hall Compound…

Rajesh B. Jain As Legal Heir of Bhanwarlal M. Jain, Mumbai vs. Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1937/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Assessee by
Section 143(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ाय पीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE JUSTICE (RETD.) C V BHADANG, PRESIDENT & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM I.T.A. No.1938/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2008-09) I.T.A. No.1937/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) I.T.A. No.1940/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) I.T.A. No.1939/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) I.T.A. No.1941/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) I.T.A. No.1942/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) I.T.A. No.1936/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Rajesh B. Jain as Legal Heir of ITO, Ward-19(1)(1), Bhanwarlal Jain, Piramal Chamber, 171, 17…

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

…8 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 presumption that can be rebutted by the assessee…

Nova Promoters and Finlease Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3173/DEL/2014[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2024AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Ms.Madhumita Roynova Promoters & Vs. Ito, Ward 13(3) Finlease Pvt. Ltd. Ito Building, I.P. Estate 7, Kapil Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi – 34

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anshul
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…Ali [1970] 76 ITR 696, no longer holds good. This position has been accepted by Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Vishwakarma Industries v. CIT [1982] 135 ITR 652, and Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT v. Mussadilal Ram Bharose [1987] 165 ITR 14, CIT v. K.R. Sadayappan [1990] 185 ITR 49 and Addl. CIT v. Jeevan Lal Sah [1994] 205 ITR 244, though the penalty proceedings continue to be penal proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that it is now no longer necessary that the department must go further and establish that there was conscious concealment of particulars of income or…

Mrs. Beant Kaur Juneja, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2), Nagpur

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED

ITA 18/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 018/Nag/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Beantkaur Avtarsingh Juneja Hp Petrol Pump, Dosar Bhavan, C. A. Road, Nagpur-440002. Pan: Aflpj2956E . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr Abhay Marathe [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(1)Section 24Section 246A(1)(a)Section 250Section 253(1)(a)Section 271BSection 273BSection 274(1)Section 44A

…73B of the Act. Consequently, the Ld. NFAC approbated the imposition and dismissed the appeal by placing reliance on ‘ITO Vs Gaytri Coal Supply’ 238 AT 16 (Patna), ‘CIT Vs Standard Mercantile Co.’ 160 ITR 613 (Patna) and ‘CIT Vs Mussadilal Ram Bharose’ [1987] 165 ITR 14 [Equi: 30 Taxman 546H]. ITAT-Nagpur Page 2 of 6 Beantkaur Avtarsingh Juneja Vs ITO. 2.4 Still aggrieved by the aforestated imposition of penalty the appellant assessee set-up this appeal on a solitary ground that the appellate authority erred in law and facts & circumstance in confirming the penalty u/s 271B of the Act. 3. The case was called t…

Pramod N. Prajapati, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vapi

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 621/SRT/2018[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Dec 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) Pramod N. Prajapati, Pr.Cit-1, B-1, Panchvati Apartment, Valsad. Vs. Tokarkhada, Silvasa, D&Nh-396230 Pan No. Accpp 2457 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Hasmukhbhai N. Prajapati, Pr.Cit-1, E 8, Gokul Vihar, Tokarkhada, Valsad. Vs. Silvasa, D&Nh-396230 Pan No. Accpp 2456 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 154Section 250Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Virtual hearing) Pramod N. Prajapati, Pr.CIT-1, B-1, Panchvati Apartment, Valsad. Vs. Tokarkhada, Silvasa, D&NH-396230 PAN No. ACCPP 2457 J Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Hasmukhbhai N. Prajapati, Pr.CIT-1, E 8, Gokul Vihar, Tokarkhada, Valsad. Vs. Silvasa, D&NH-396230 PAN No. ACCPP 2456 K Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee represented by Shri Ashutosh P Nanavaty, AR Department represented by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 19/12/2022 Date o…

Pushpanjali Hospitality Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 16(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 5296/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2009-10 Pushpanjali Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, B-49, Connught Place, Ward 16(3), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacm0006B

For Appellant: Shri Alok Mathur, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 41Section 41(1)

…ollowing cases regarding "Deliberate" and contending that the onus of burden has shifted from Department to the Assesse and, thus, the AO wrongly shifted the burden on the assessee. 5 a. CIT v/s Anwar Ali, 76 ITR 696 (SC) b. CIT v/s Mussadilal Ram Bharose, 165 ITR 14 (SC) c. Additional CIT v/s Jeevan Lal Sah, 205 ITR 244 (SC) 8. It may be noted that these cases have no relevance to the facts and interpretation in our case as Penalty is levied with relation to writing back the Credits u/s 41 (1) of the Act. 9. That it may also be noted that the AO during Penalty Proceedings had never confronted the Assesse w…

DCIT(It)-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Venu Raman Kumar, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3559/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit (It) – 3(3)(2) Vs. Shri Venu Raman 16Th Floor, Room No. Kumar, 1634, Air India Bldg, Flat No. 2, Hermes Nariman Point, House-Iii, Mumbai – 400020. Worli Sea Face, Mumbai – 400025. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abapk9122E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Achal Sharma. Cit. Dr Respondent By : Shri.Vijay Mehta.Ar Date Of Hearing 01.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 13.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 57, Mumbai Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri.Achal Sharma. CIT. DRFor Respondent: Shri.Vijay Mehta.AR
Section 114Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 5(2)

…ligence. If he fails to do so, he shall be deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars thereof and consequently liable for penalty provided by the section. b) Further in the case of IT v. Musaddilal Ram Bharose (165 ITR 14), the Apex Court has held that after insertion of Explanation, the responsibility of rebuttal lies on the assessee. c) In the recent case of Mak data P Ltd 306 IT 277(SC) it has held that the explanation I of271(1) (c) raises a presumption of concealment, when a difference is noticed by the AO. between reported and assessed income. The burden is…

Babu Ram Mittal, Narwana vs. ITO Ward-1, `Jind

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2152/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. R.S. Singhvi, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69

…bir, but he failed to do so. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer observed that the onus that lay upon the assessee to explain the source of deposit could not be discharged and therefore relying upon the decisions in the case of CIT vs. Mussadi Lal Ram Bharose, 165 ITR 14(SC) and CIT vs. Gurbachan Lal, 252 IT 157 (Del) , made addition of Rs.44,00,000/- u/s. 69 of the Act. 4. Assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the same by the impugned order for want of representation on behalf of the assessee. 5. Assessee, therefore, preferred this appeal. Learned AR submits that the ld. CIT(A) was not…

Shri Jai Hind Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD-5(4), Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 146/JPR/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.” 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

…ld be out of the mischief of the Explanation unless the deptt is able to establish afresh that assessee had in fact concealed the particulars or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. This view has been approved by the apex court in Musadilal Ram Bharose 165 ITR 14 SC, CIT-v-K.R.Sadayappan 185 ITR 49 SC and in Chuharmal 172 ITR 250 SC. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer the latest decision of SC in the case of Dharmendra Textiles (supra) wherein it has been held-(i) the Explanations appended to section 271(1)(c) indicate the element of strict liability,(ii) the object behind the enactment shows…

Sri H.J.Siwani, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 512/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandra Sekhar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, D.R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

…given by the assessee should be an acceptable explanation as held by Hon’ble Supreme ITA Nos.1928 to 1939/Bang/2016 & ITA Nos.511&512/Bang/2017 Shri M.J. Siwani & Shri H.J. Siwani, Bangalore Page 13 of 29 court in the case of CIT vs. Mussadilal Ram bharosa (165 ITR 14)(SC). However, the present explanations of the assessee are not acceptable. The Ld A.R, in the rejoinder, submitted that the decision in the case of Mussadilal Ram bharosa (supra) has been rendered in the context of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. He submitted that the assessee has presented correct facts before the AO and the assessing o…

Sri M.J.Siwani, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 511/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandra Sekhar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, D.R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

…given by the assessee should be an acceptable explanation as held by Hon’ble Supreme ITA Nos.1928 to 1939/Bang/2016 & ITA Nos.511&512/Bang/2017 Shri M.J. Siwani & Shri H.J. Siwani, Bangalore Page 13 of 29 court in the case of CIT vs. Mussadilal Ram bharosa (165 ITR 14)(SC). However, the present explanations of the assessee are not acceptable. The Ld A.R, in the rejoinder, submitted that the decision in the case of Mussadilal Ram bharosa (supra) has been rendered in the context of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. He submitted that the assessee has presented correct facts before the AO and the assessing o…

Shri.H.J.Siwani, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1939/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandra Sekhar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, D.R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

…given by the assessee should be an acceptable explanation as held by Hon’ble Supreme ITA Nos.1928 to 1939/Bang/2016 & ITA Nos.511&512/Bang/2017 Shri M.J. Siwani & Shri H.J. Siwani, Bangalore Page 13 of 29 court in the case of CIT vs. Mussadilal Ram bharosa (165 ITR 14)(SC). However, the present explanations of the assessee are not acceptable. The Ld A.R, in the rejoinder, submitted that the decision in the case of Mussadilal Ram bharosa (supra) has been rendered in the context of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. He submitted that the assessee has presented correct facts before the AO and the assessing o…

Shri.H.J.Siwani, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1938/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandra Sekhar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, D.R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

…given by the assessee should be an acceptable explanation as held by Hon’ble Supreme ITA Nos.1928 to 1939/Bang/2016 & ITA Nos.511&512/Bang/2017 Shri M.J. Siwani & Shri H.J. Siwani, Bangalore Page 13 of 29 court in the case of CIT vs. Mussadilal Ram bharosa (165 ITR 14)(SC). However, the present explanations of the assessee are not acceptable. The Ld A.R, in the rejoinder, submitted that the decision in the case of Mussadilal Ram bharosa (supra) has been rendered in the context of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. He submitted that the assessee has presented correct facts before the AO and the assessing o…

Shri.H.J.Siwani, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1937/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandra Sekhar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, D.R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

…given by the assessee should be an acceptable explanation as held by Hon’ble Supreme ITA Nos.1928 to 1939/Bang/2016 & ITA Nos.511&512/Bang/2017 Shri M.J. Siwani & Shri H.J. Siwani, Bangalore Page 13 of 29 court in the case of CIT vs. Mussadilal Ram bharosa (165 ITR 14)(SC). However, the present explanations of the assessee are not acceptable. The Ld A.R, in the rejoinder, submitted that the decision in the case of Mussadilal Ram bharosa (supra) has been rendered in the context of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. He submitted that the assessee has presented correct facts before the AO and the assessing o…

Shri.H.J.Siwani, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1936/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandra Sekhar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, D.R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

…given by the assessee should be an acceptable explanation as held by Hon’ble Supreme ITA Nos.1928 to 1939/Bang/2016 & ITA Nos.511&512/Bang/2017 Shri M.J. Siwani & Shri H.J. Siwani, Bangalore Page 13 of 29 court in the case of CIT vs. Mussadilal Ram bharosa (165 ITR 14)(SC). However, the present explanations of the assessee are not acceptable. The Ld A.R, in the rejoinder, submitted that the decision in the case of Mussadilal Ram bharosa (supra) has been rendered in the context of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. He submitted that the assessee has presented correct facts before the AO and the assessing o…

Shri.H.J.Siwani, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1935/BANG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandra Sekhar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, D.R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

…given by the assessee should be an acceptable explanation as held by Hon’ble Supreme ITA Nos.1928 to 1939/Bang/2016 & ITA Nos.511&512/Bang/2017 Shri M.J. Siwani & Shri H.J. Siwani, Bangalore Page 13 of 29 court in the case of CIT vs. Mussadilal Ram bharosa (165 ITR 14)(SC). However, the present explanations of the assessee are not acceptable. The Ld A.R, in the rejoinder, submitted that the decision in the case of Mussadilal Ram bharosa (supra) has been rendered in the context of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. He submitted that the assessee has presented correct facts before the AO and the assessing o…

Shri.H.J.Siwani, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1934/BANG/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandra Sekhar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, D.R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

…given by the assessee should be an acceptable explanation as held by Hon’ble Supreme ITA Nos.1928 to 1939/Bang/2016 & ITA Nos.511&512/Bang/2017 Shri M.J. Siwani & Shri H.J. Siwani, Bangalore Page 13 of 29 court in the case of CIT vs. Mussadilal Ram bharosa (165 ITR 14)(SC). However, the present explanations of the assessee are not acceptable. The Ld A.R, in the rejoinder, submitted that the decision in the case of Mussadilal Ram bharosa (supra) has been rendered in the context of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. He submitted that the assessee has presented correct facts before the AO and the assessing o…

CIT v. Mussadilal Ram (165 ITR 14) — Cited in 41 Judgments | BharatTax