Data Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

358 ITR 598Supreme Court of India2013#17735 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,356 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

section 253(2)surrender of incomesection 131(1)revision u/s 263section 271aabsection 41(1)furnishing inaccurate particulars of incomesundry creditorsfurnishing inaccurate particularspenalty u/s 271(1)(c)section 36(1)(va)section 274

Judgments citing Data Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Auranagbad., Aurangabad vs. Shreehari Associates Pvt Ltd, Aurangabad

The appeals of the REVENUE are ALLOWED

ITA 410/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Mr CH Naniwadekar & Kiran Sanmane [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ajaykumar Kesari & Arvind Desai [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 253(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)

…the case of ‘K P Madhusudhanan Vs CIT’ reported at 251 ITR 99 (SC) and ‘UOI Vs Dharmendra Textiles Processor’ reported in 306 ITR 227 (SC). The Ld. DR Mr Desai further pressing into service the decision in the case of ‘MAK Data Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT’ [reported in 358 ITR 598 (SC)] dislodged the entitlement of the respondent assessee for exemption from penalty owning to voluntary surrender of income in search action. 9. Per contra, the Ld. AR Mr Naniwadekar submitted that, the addition towards unexplained sub-contracting expenditure though was admitted on oath by one of the directors of the respondent assessee, howeve…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Aurangabad vs. Shreehari Associates Pvt Ltd, Aurangabad

The appeals of the REVENUE are ALLOWED

ITA 408/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Mr CH Naniwadekar & Kiran Sanmane [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ajaykumar Kesari & Arvind Desai [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 253(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)

…the case of ‘K P Madhusudhanan Vs CIT’ reported at 251 ITR 99 (SC) and ‘UOI Vs Dharmendra Textiles Processor’ reported in 306 ITR 227 (SC). The Ld. DR Mr Desai further pressing into service the decision in the case of ‘MAK Data Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT’ [reported in 358 ITR 598 (SC)] dislodged the entitlement of the respondent assessee for exemption from penalty owning to voluntary surrender of income in search action. 9. Per contra, the Ld. AR Mr Naniwadekar submitted that, the addition towards unexplained sub-contracting expenditure though was admitted on oath by one of the directors of the respondent assessee, howeve…

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Aurangabad vs. Shreehari Associates Private Limited, Aurangabad

The appeals of the REVENUE are ALLOWED

ITA 407/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Mr CH Naniwadekar & Kiran Sanmane [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ajaykumar Kesari & Arvind Desai [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 253(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)

…the case of ‘K P Madhusudhanan Vs CIT’ reported at 251 ITR 99 (SC) and ‘UOI Vs Dharmendra Textiles Processor’ reported in 306 ITR 227 (SC). The Ld. DR Mr Desai further pressing into service the decision in the case of ‘MAK Data Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT’ [reported in 358 ITR 598 (SC)] dislodged the entitlement of the respondent assessee for exemption from penalty owning to voluntary surrender of income in search action. 9. Per contra, the Ld. AR Mr Naniwadekar submitted that, the addition towards unexplained sub-contracting expenditure though was admitted on oath by one of the directors of the respondent assessee, howeve…

Praphull Kaluram Shivale, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 12, Pune

ITA 490/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No. 490/Pun/2019 करिनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2015-16 Shri Praphull Kaluram Shivale, 234, Balu Shetpabal Road, Vadhu Budruk, Shirur,Pune – 412216 Pan :Bfqps4176B . . . . . . . अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 12, Pune . . . . . . . ""थ" / Respondent "ारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri B. C. Malakar Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing :16/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement :26/08/2022 आदेश / Order Per G.D. Padmahshali, Am; The Present Appeal Of The Appellant Assessee Is Challenged Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Pune [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 14/02/2019 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 [For Short “The Act”] Which In Turn Dove Out Of Order Of Penalty [For Short “Po”] Of Asstt. Commission Of Income Tax, Circle-12 Pune [For Short “Ao”] Dt.28/06/2018 U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2015-16. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 14

For Appellant: Shri B. C. MalakarFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 43C

…ce and in any case, so-called voluntary disclosure of business profit by furnishing re-computation cannot alter the consequences in the light of decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the similar facts and circumstances in “MAK Data Pvt Ltd Vs CIT” reported in 358 ITR 598. 10. Given that, section 274 provides that, no order imposing a penalty shall be made unless the assessee has been heard or has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. In the present case, a penalty SCN was issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act, and upon failure to respond to first SCN, the appellant was put to further notice which ITA…

Asst.C.I.T., Hubli vs. Shri. Raju H Patadia, Hubli

ITA 1180/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoasst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle- 3(1) Hubballi-580025. … Appellant Vs. Shri Raju H Patadia, Prop.M/S.Gold Palace, Durgadbail, Hubballi. … Respondent Pan: Acvpp 8998B & Cross Objn.No.12/Bang/2016 (In Ita No.1180/Bang/2015) (Assessment Year: 201-011) Shri Raju H Patadia, Hubballi. … Cross-Objector Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Hubballi. … Respondent Revenue By : Shri V.Sridhar, Ca Assessee By : Smt.Meera Srivastava, Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 29/09/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/10/2016

For Appellant: Smt.Meera Srivastava, Addl.CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri V.Sridhar, CA
Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

…sent case as no addition was made on estimate basis and the CIT(A) has allowed appeal on wrong premise. We reverse the finding of the CIT(A) and in this context ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2013) 358 ITR 598 is squarely applicable wherein, it has been held that ITA No1180/B/2015 & CO 12/Bang/2016 Page 6 of 10 addition made on voluntary disclosure does not absolve the assessee from penal provisions of the Act. The relevant paras. are reproduced below: “6. We have heard counsel on either side. We fully concur with the view of the High Court that the Tr…

Data Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (358 ITR 598) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax