CTR 465; MAKData P.Ltd. v. CIT

263 CTR 1Supreme Court of India2013#3265 most cited

What is CTR 465; MAKData P.Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

When a claim made in a return of income is found to be ex-facie bogus, it constitutes concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, justifying penalty proceedings.

36

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,359 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

MAKData P.Ltd. v. CIT · 263 CTR 1 · SC · Income Tax Act sections 132(1) · 132(4) · 139(1) · 153A · ex-facie bogus claim · concealment of income · inaccurate particulars · penalty proceedings

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 132(1)Section 132(1) of the Income Tax ActSection 132(4)Section 132(4) of the Income Tax ActSection 139(1)Section 139(1) of the Income Tax ActSection 153A

Judgments citing CTR 465; MAKData P.Ltd. v. CIT

Raju Bansal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- II, Faridabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7039/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.S. Sainiassessment Year: 2011-12 Raju Bansal Vs Dcit C/O M/S Rra Tax India, D-28, Central Circle-Ii South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi. Gurgaon. Pan No. Aezps1452H Appellant Respondent

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

…9 (SC); Union of India vs Dharamendra Textile Processors /2007) 295 ITR 244; CIT vs Zoom Communication P.Ltd. (191 Taxman 179 [Delhi])/[2010] 327 ITR 510 (Delhi)/ [2010)233 CTR 465; MAKData P.Ltd. vs CIT[38 taxmann.com 448 (SC)/ [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC)/(2013) 263 CTR 1]; B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co vs CIT [116 taxman 842, 236 ITR 977, 157 CTR 556]; and CIT vs Escorts Finance Ltd. [183 Taxman 453 (Del), 920100 328 ITR 44 (Delhi)/ (2009) 226 CTR 105], whenever the claim made in the return of income was found to be ex-facie bogus, such a case would be treated as concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particular…

Bishan Bansal, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle- II, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6959/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.S. Sainiassessment Year: 2008-09 Bishan Bansal Vs Dcit C/O M/S Rra Tax India, D-28, Central Circle-Ii South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi. Gurgaon. Pan No. Aezps1452H Appellant Respondent

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

…9 (SC); Union of India vs Dharamendra Textile Processors /2007) 295 ITR 244; CIT vs Zoom Communication P.Ltd. (191 Taxman 179 [Delhi])/[2010] 327 ITR 510 (Delhi)/ [2010)233 CTR 465; MAKData P.Ltd. vs CIT[38 taxmann.com 448 (SC)/ [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC)/(2013) 263 CTR 1]; B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co vs CIT [116 taxman 842, 236 ITR 977, 157 CTR 556]; and CIT vs Escorts Finance Ltd. [183 Taxman 453 (Del), 920100 328 ITR 44 (Delhi)/ (2009) 226 CTR 105], whenever the claim made in the return of income was found to be ex-facie bogus, such a case would be treated as concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particular…

Bishan Bansal, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle- II, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6958/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.S. Sainiassessment Year: 2008-09 Bishan Bansal Vs Dcit C/O M/S Rra Tax India, D-28, Central Circle-Ii South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi. Gurgaon. Pan No. Aezps1452H Appellant Respondent

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

…9 (SC); Union of India vs Dharamendra Textile Processors /2007) 295 ITR 244; CIT vs Zoom Communication P.Ltd. (191 Taxman 179 [Delhi])/[2010] 327 ITR 510 (Delhi)/ [2010)233 CTR 465; MAKData P.Ltd. vs CIT[38 taxmann.com 448 (SC)/ [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC)/(2013) 263 CTR 1]; B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co vs CIT [116 taxman 842, 236 ITR 977, 157 CTR 556]; and CIT vs Escorts Finance Ltd. [183 Taxman 453 (Del), 920100 328 ITR 44 (Delhi)/ (2009) 226 CTR 105], whenever the claim made in the return of income was found to be ex-facie bogus, such a case would be treated as concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particular…

Suresh Bansal, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle- II, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6957/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.S. Sainiassessment Year: 2007-08 Suresh Bansal Vs Dcit Rra Tax India, D-28, South Central Circle-Ii Extension, Part-1, New Delhi. Gurgaon. Pan No. Akypb5000H Appellant Respondent

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

…9 (SC); Union of India vs Dharamendra Textile Processors /2007) 295 ITR 244; CIT vs Zoom Communication P.Ltd. (191 Taxman 179 [Delhi])/[2010] 327 ITR 510 (Delhi)/ [2010)233 CTR 465; MAKData P.Ltd. vs CIT[38 taxmann.com 448 (SC)/ [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC)/(2013) 263 CTR 1]; B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co vs CIT [116 taxman 842, 236 ITR 977, 157 CTR 556]; and CIT vs Escorts Finance Ltd. [183 Taxman 453 (Del), 920100 328 ITR 44 (Delhi)/ (2009) 226 CTR 105], whenever the claim made in the return of income was found to be ex-facie bogus, such a case would be treated as concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particular…

M/S. Oil Industry Development Board, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4664/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 154Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 36

…axman 8 (SC)/[2009] 315 ITR 460 (SC)/[2009] 222 CTR 213) where Hon’ble Supreme Court confirmed Penalty under section 271(1 )(c) for wrong adjustment of Unabsorbed Depreciation. 4. MAK Data P. Ltd vs. CIT [38 taxmann.com 448 (SC)/[2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC)/[2013] 263 CTR 1 ] Where Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Under Explanation 1 to s. 271(1 )(c), voluntary disclosure of concealed income does not absolve assessee of s. 271(1 )(c) penalty if the assessee fails to offer an explanation which is bona fide and proves that all the material facts have been disclosed "9. We are of the view that the surrender of income in t…

M/S. Oil Industry Development Board, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4663/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 154Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 36

…axman 8 (SC)/[2009] 315 ITR 460 (SC)/[2009] 222 CTR 213) where Hon’ble Supreme Court confirmed Penalty under section 271(1 )(c) for wrong adjustment of Unabsorbed Depreciation. 4. MAK Data P. Ltd vs. CIT [38 taxmann.com 448 (SC)/[2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC)/[2013] 263 CTR 1 ] Where Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Under Explanation 1 to s. 271(1 )(c), voluntary disclosure of concealed income does not absolve assessee of s. 271(1 )(c) penalty if the assessee fails to offer an explanation which is bona fide and proves that all the material facts have been disclosed "9. We are of the view that the surrender of income in t…

M/S. Oil Industry Development Board, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4662/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 154Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 36

…axman 8 (SC)/[2009] 315 ITR 460 (SC)/[2009] 222 CTR 213) where Hon’ble Supreme Court confirmed Penalty under section 271(1 )(c) for wrong adjustment of Unabsorbed Depreciation. 4. MAK Data P. Ltd vs. CIT [38 taxmann.com 448 (SC)/[2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC)/[2013] 263 CTR 1 ] Where Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Under Explanation 1 to s. 271(1 )(c), voluntary disclosure of concealed income does not absolve assessee of s. 271(1 )(c) penalty if the assessee fails to offer an explanation which is bona fide and proves that all the material facts have been disclosed "9. We are of the view that the surrender of income in t…

Sh. Ashok Kumar Chauhan, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2988/DEL/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri N.S.Saini

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

…9 (SC); Union of India vs Dharamendra Textile Processors /2007) 295 ITR 244; CIT vs Zoom Communication P.Ltd. (191 Taxman 179 [Delhi])/[2010] 327 ITR 510 (Delhi)/ [2010)233 CTR 465; MAKData P.Ltd. vs CIT[38 taxmann.com 448 (SC)/ [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC)/(2013) 263 CTR 1]; B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co vs CIT [116 taxman 842, 236 ITR 977, 157 CTR 556]; and CIT vs Escorts Finance Ltd. [183 Taxman 453 (Del), 920100 328 ITR 44 (Delhi)/ (2009) 226 CTR 105], whenever the claim made in the return of income was found to be ex-facie bogus, such a case would be treated as concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particular…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sitashri Trading & Finance Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2295/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Tiwari, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 14Section 143(2)Section 14A

…section 271(1)(c)(iii) with effect from 1-4-2003 is clarificatory and, therefore, will have retrospective effect. Penalty u/s 271 (1 )(c) could be /vied in case of loss return v. MAK Data P. Ltd vs. CIT [38 taxmann.com 448 (SC)I[2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC)/[2013] 263 CTR 1 ] Where Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Under Explanation 1 to s. 271 (1 )(c), voluntary disclosure of concealed income does not absolve assessee of s. 271 (1 )(c) penalty if the assessee fails to offer an explanation which is bona fide and proves that all the material facts have been disclosed “9. We are of the view that the surrender of income in…

Anisha Khanna, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward- 1(1), Meerut

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 514/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Aug 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Rajkumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay Kumar Jiwani, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…95 ITR 244] 2. R L Traders vs. ITO (2017-TIOL-2583-HC-DEL-IT) 3. CIT vs. Zoom Communication (P.) Ltd. [191 Taxman 179 (Delhi)/[2010] 327 ITR 510 (Delhi)/[2010] 233 CTR 465] 4. MAK Data P. Ltd vs. CIT [38 taxmann.com 448(SC)/[2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC)/[2013] 263 CTR 1] 5 ITA No.- 513 & 514/Del/2018 Smt. Anuradha Khanna & Ms. Anisha Khanna. 5. K.P. Madhusudhanan vs CIT [[2001] 118 Taxman 324 (SC)/[2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC)/[2001] 169 CTR 489 (SC)] 6. Sundaram Finance Ltd v. CIT 403 ITR 407 (Mad), on the proposition that assessee had understood purport and Import of notice hence no prejudice was caused to assessee…

Anuradha Khanna, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward- 1(1), Meerut

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 513/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Aug 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Rajkumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay Kumar Jiwani, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…95 ITR 244] 2. R L Traders vs. ITO (2017-TIOL-2583-HC-DEL-IT) 3. CIT vs. Zoom Communication (P.) Ltd. [191 Taxman 179 (Delhi)/[2010] 327 ITR 510 (Delhi)/[2010] 233 CTR 465] 4. MAK Data P. Ltd vs. CIT [38 taxmann.com 448(SC)/[2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC)/[2013] 263 CTR 1] 5 ITA No.- 513 & 514/Del/2018 Smt. Anuradha Khanna & Ms. Anisha Khanna. 5. K.P. Madhusudhanan vs CIT [[2001] 118 Taxman 324 (SC)/[2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC)/[2001] 169 CTR 489 (SC)] 6. Sundaram Finance Ltd v. CIT 403 ITR 407 (Mad), on the proposition that assessee had understood purport and Import of notice hence no prejudice was caused to assessee…

ACIT, Circle, Panchkula vs. M/S Himalayan Expressway Ltd., Pinjore

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1614/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri. Ashwani Kumar GargFor Respondent: Dr. Gulshan Raj
Section 271(1)(c)Section 276C

…4 Taxman 8 (SC)/r20091 315 ITR 460 (SC)/r20091 222 CTR 213) where Hon'ble Supreme Court confirmed Penalty under section 271(1)(c) for wrong adjustment of Unabsorbed Depreciation. 3. MAK Data P. Ltd vs. CIT W taxmann.com 448 (SC)/r20131 358 ITR 593 (SC)/r20131 263 CTR 1 1 AS RELIED UPON BY THE AO IN THE PENALTY ORDER Where Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Under Explanation 1 to s. 271(1)(c), voluntary disclosure of concealed income does not absolve assessee of s. 271(1)(c) penalty if the assessee fails to offer an explanation which is bonafide and proves that all the material facts have been disclosed. "9. We are…

Suresh Jindal, Karnal vs. ITO, Karnal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1664/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri N.K. Billaiyaassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. K. Tewari, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘G’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2007-08 SURESH JINDAL, VS. ITO, WARD-1 PROP. SWASTIK IMPEX, KARNAL TIMBER MARKET, KARNAL (PAN: ALDPK7993G) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. K. Tewari, Sr. DR. ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM The Assessee has filed this Appeal against the Order dated 03.03.2014 of the Ld. CIT(A), Karnal relating to assessment year 2007-08 on the following grounds:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the orde…

Gandra Venkata Ramana Reddy, Warangal vs. Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(I/C), Warangal

In the result appeal is considered partly allowed

ITA 1881/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri B. Ramakotaiahassessment Year: 2012-13 Sri Gandra Venkata Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Ramana Reddy, Income Tax, Circle -1 Warangal. (I/C), Warangal Pan – Aiepg9935A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.V. Chalamaiah Revenue By : Shri M. Naveen Date Of Hearing : 29-05-2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 06-06-2018 Order Per B. Ramakotaiah, Am: This Is An Appeal By Assessee Against The Confirmation Of Penalty Of Rs. 2,76,555/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The It Act On The Reason That Assessee Has Not Declared The Rental Income On The Property. 2. Briefly Stated Facts Leading To The Penalty Are That Assessee Was An Mla & Was Also Carrying Business Of Maintaining A Petrol Bunk & Transport Business In Individual Capacity. In The Course Of Scrutiny Proceedings, A.O Noticed That There Was A Rental Income To The Tune Of Rs. 8,95,000/- From M/S Unitech Wireless & M/S Axis Bank & The Tds Was Credited To The Individual Account & Assessee Also Made The Claim. Since The Corresponding Income Was Not Offered, A.O Asked Assessee As To Why The Same Should Not Be Brought To Tax. It Was 2

For Appellant: Shri K.V. ChalamaiahFor Respondent: Shri M. Naveen
Section 271(1)(c)

…ng in view the fact that the filing of the HUF return was a considered after-thought. Following the ratio of the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors [2007] 295 ITR 244 (SC), and MAK Data P. Ltd Vs. CIT [263 CTR 1] (SC), the penalty order is upheld and the ground no.1 in appeal is dismissed”. 4. In the course of present assessment proceedings apart from the grounds raised, Assessee also raised an additional ground that the penalty notice does not specify that A.O intended to impose penalty on concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of…

M/S Sanraj Engineering Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5988/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh.G.D.Agarwal, Hon’Ble & Sh.K.N.Charysanraj Engineering Pvt.Ltd., Vs Ito, A-4/B-1, Mohan Coop Indl. Estate, Ward-7(3), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan-Aaccs6897E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Adv. Respondent By Sh. S.S.Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 27.10.2017 Order Per K.N.Chary

Section 133(6)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 46ASection 68

…; Union of India vs Dharamendra Textile Processors [2007] 295 ITR 244; CIT vs Zoom Communication P.Ltd. (191 Taxman 179 [Delhi])/[2010] 327 ITR 510 (Delhi)/ [2010]233 CTR 465; MAK Data P.Ltd. vs CIT [38 taxmann.com 448 (SC)/ [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC)/(2013) 263 CTR 1]; B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co vs CIT [116 taxman 842, 236 ITR 977, 157 CTR 556]; and CIT vs Escorts Finance Ltd. [183 Taxman 453 (Del)/ 920100 328 ITR 44 (Delhi)/ (2009) 226 CTR 105], whenever the claim made in the return of income was found to be ex-facie bogus, such a case would be treated as concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particul…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. American Express India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4422/DEL/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.C. Danday, Sr. DR
Section 10BSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 80H

…213) 2. CIT Vs Gold Coin Health Food (P.) Ltd (172 Taxman 386 (SC)/(2008) 304 ITR 308 (SC). 3. Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors (2007) 295 ITR 2441 Page 5 of 10 4. MAK Data P. Ltd vs. CIT T38 taxmann.com 448 (SC)/2013l 358 ITR 593 (SC)/2013 263 CTR 1. 5. B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co Vs CIT [116 Taxman 842, 236 ITR 977, 157 CTR 556]. 6. CIT vs Gates Foam & Rubber Co [91 ITR 467] CIT vs India Seafood [105 ITR 708] 7. Steel Ingots Ltd vs. CIT T296 ITR 228] 8. CIT Vs Escorts Finance Ltd [183 Taxman 453 (Delhi)/[2010] 328 ITR 44 (Delhi)/[2009] 226 CTR 105] 9. CIT Vs R.M.P. Plasto (P.) Ltd [184 Ta…