Finance Ltd. 328 ITR 44, Steel Ingots Ltd. vs. CIT 296 ITR 228, CIT v. Zoom Communication (P.) Ltd. (91 ITR 467)

Q: What is Finance Ltd. 328 ITR 44, Steel Ingots Ltd. vs. CIT 296 ITR 228, CIT v. Zoom Communication (P.) Ltd. authority for?

Claiming an excessive deduction or making a bogus claim in the return of income, where the assessed income exceeds the returned income by more than 20%, constitutes concealment of income and justifies the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Q: How many judgments cite Finance Ltd. 328 ITR 44, Steel Ingots Ltd. vs. CIT 296 ITR 228, CIT v. Zoom Communication (P.) Ltd.?

39 judgments on BharatTax cite Finance Ltd. 328 ITR 44, Steel Ingots Ltd. vs. CIT 296 ITR 228, CIT v. Zoom Communication (P.) Ltd. (91 ITR 467), spanning 2009 to 2025.

Q: Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Finance Ltd. 328 ITR 44, Steel Ingots Ltd. vs. CIT 296 ITR 228, CIT v. Zoom Communication (P.) Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 271(1)(c), Section 54F.

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

…ection 271(1)(c) became applicable and assessee having failed to discharge onus being cast on assessee by virtue of said Explanation, Assessing Officer was justified in imposing penalty. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the cases of Gates 23 Foam & Rubber Co 91 ITR 467 and India Seafood 105 ITR 708 held that claiming excessive deduction also amounts to concealment of income. Similarly the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Steel Ingots Ltd. 296 ITR 228 held that in case of concealment of true income chargeable to tax by making bogus claim, levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 1 is ju…

M/S Sanofi India Ltd (Formerly Known As Aventis Pharma Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT RG 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1606/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 271(1)(c)

…ome as well as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Penalty may be imposed for either or both such attempts [CIT v. India Sea Foods (1976) 105 ITR 708 (ker.) Nagin Chand Shiv Sahai v CIT (1938) 6 ITR 534 (Lah), CIT v. Gates Foam & Rubber Co. (1973) 91 ITR 467 (Ker.)] 9. Under the Act, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is leviable not only for concealing the income but also for furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. In the instant case, the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income. By furnishing inaccurate particulars of income the assessee has tried to get undue benefit and thus has c…

ACIT- 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Mm/S Sanofi India Limited (Formerly Known As Aventis Pharma Ltd)., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1302/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 271(1)(c)

…ome as well as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Penalty may be imposed for either or both such attempts [CIT v. India Sea Foods (1976) 105 ITR 708 (ker.) Nagin Chand Shiv Sahai v CIT (1938) 6 ITR 534 (Lah), CIT v. Gates Foam & Rubber Co. (1973) 91 ITR 467 (Ker.)] 9. Under the Act, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is leviable not only for concealing the income but also for furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. In the instant case, the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income. By furnishing inaccurate particulars of income the assessee has tried to get undue benefit and thus has c…

Rajesh Kumar Baid, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 5(2) Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 501/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 501, 494 & 499/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Year :2015-16 (u/s 271(1)(c) 271B & 271A of the Act,1961) Shri Rajesh Kumar Baid B-10, Tulsidasji Ki Bagichi Janta Colony, Jaipur 302 004 (Raj) cuke Vs. The ITO Ward 5(2) Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABZPB 7205 M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : None jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Mrs. Mo

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 271B

…y may be imposed for either or both such attempts. In this regard, reliance is placed on the case law in the case of CIT v. India Sea Foods (1976) 105 ITR 708 (Ker.), Nagin Chand Shiv Sahal v. CIT: (1938) 6 ITR 537 (Lah); CIT v. Gates Foam & Rubber Co. (1972) 91 ITR 467 (Ker)). 5.10 Under the Act, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is leviable not only for concealing the income but also for furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. It has been held the word 'income' in section 271(1)(c) is not used in the popular sense of money received but connotes the assessable figures arrived at after accounting for all the legi…

Phoenix International Freight Services P. Ltd( Now Known As As C.H. Robinson International (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3206/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shripavankumargadale,Judicialmember & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S. Phoenix Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of International Freight Income Tax, Range-2(1) Services Pvt. Ltd. (Now Mumbai-400050 Known As C.H. Robinson International (India) Pvt. Ltd.) Excom House 7, Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai-400072 Pan No.Aabce0443R Appellant Respondent

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “G” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRIPAVANKUMARGADALE,JUDICIALMEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Phoenix Vs. Dy. Commissioner of International Freight Income Tax, Range-2(1) Services Pvt. Ltd. (Now Mumbai-400050 known as C.H. Robinson International (India) Pvt. Ltd.) Excom House 7, Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai-400072 Pan No.AABCE0443R Appellant Respondent Appellant by None Respondent by Smt. Sonia Kumar Sr. AR Date of Hearing 29.09.2022 Date of 14.10.2022 Pronouncement ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM: The assessee has filed the appeal against the order…

George Kutty, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-13(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3788/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] George Kutty, Vs Dcit, C/O-M/S. Oasis Tours India (P.) Circle-13(1), Ltd., C-40, Middle Circle, Dwarka New Delhi. Sadan, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aajpk4005H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Manish Malik, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2022

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 276CSection 68

…more than 20 per cent, Explanation to section 271(1)(c) became applicable and assessee having failed to discharge onus being cast on assessee by virtue of said Explanation, Assessing Officer was justified in imposing penalty 6. CIT vs Gates Foam & Rubber Co [91 ITR 467] CIT vs India Seafood M05 ITR 708] where Hon’ble Kerala High Court held that Claiming excessive deduction also amounts to concealment of income 7. Steel Ingots Ltd vs. CIT [296 ITR 228] where Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court held that in case of concealment of true income chargeable to tax by making bogus claim, levy of penalty u/s 271(1 )(c) rea…

M/S Om Plantation, 22, Path No.6, Vijay Bari, Teen Dukan, Sikar Road, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-4(3), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 158/JPR/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Ms Runi Pal (Addl.CIT) a

Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…wholly without any basis and explanation furnished by him for making such a claim is not found to be bona fide, Explanation 1 to section 271 (1)(c) would come into play and assessee will be liable to penalty. 7.13 In the case of CIT vs Gates Foam & Rubber Co [91 ITR 467] and CIT vs India Seafood [105 ITR 708] the Hon'ble Kerala High Court held that Claiming excessive deduction also amounts to concealment of income. 7.14 In the case of Steel Ingots Ltd vs. CIT [296 ITR 228] the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court held that in case of concealment of true income chargeable to tax by making bogus claim, levy of penalty…

DCIT, Chandigarh vs. Chandigarh Housing Board, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 102/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Jindal, CA &For Respondent: Smt.C. Chandrakanta, CIT DR

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

…ise, by cogent and reliable evidence. • When the initial onus placed by the explanation, has been discharged by him, the onus shifts on the revenue to show that the amount in question constituted the income and not otherwise. 7. CIT vs Gates Foam & Rubber Co [91 ITR 467] ClT vs India Seafood [105 ITR 708] where Hon'ble Kerala High Court held that Claiming excessive deduction also amounts to concealment of income. 8. Steel Ingots Ltd vs. CIT [296 ITR 228] where Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court held that in case of concealment of true income chargeable to tax by making bogus claim, levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) re…

Sandeep Bhimrao Lad, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle-3, Thane

ITA 1620/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1620/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar, DR

Section 133(6)Section 148Section 271Section 274

…and assessee having failed to discharge onus being cast on assessee by virtue of said Explanation, Assessing Officer was justified in imposing penalty 18 I.T.A. No. 1617 to 1620/Mum/2018 Sandeep Bhimrao Lad & Sunny Ashok Lad 8. CIT vs Gates Foam & Rubber Co [91 ITR 467] CIT vs India Seafood [105 ITR 708] where Hon'ble Kerala High Court held that Claiming excessive deduction also amounts to concealment of income 9. Steel Ingots Ltd vs. CIT [296 ITR 228] where Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court held that in case of concealment of true income chargeable to tax by making bogus claim, levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c)…

Ashtavinayak Construction, Navi Mumbai vs. JCIT Cir. 22(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5367/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Ashtavinayaka Jcit Circle 22(3), Mumbai. Construction, Vs. Plot No. R-478, Ttc Industrial Area, Midc, Rabale, Navi Mumbai- 400701. Pan No. Aadfa1724G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Bhadresh Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. S.K. Mishra, DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…xman 179 (Delhi), CIT v. Moser Baer India Ltd. 184 Taxman 8 (SC), CIT v. Gold Coin Health Food (P.) Ltd. 172 Taxman 386 (SC), MAK Data P. Ltd. v. CIT 38 taxmann.com 448 (SC), B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co v. CIT 116 Taxman 842, CIT v. Gates Foam & Rubber Co 91 ITR 467, CIT v. India Seafood 105 ITR 708, Steel Ingots Ltd v. CIT 296 ITR 228, CIT Vs Escorts Finance Ltd 183 Taxman 453 (Delhi), CIT v. R.M.P. Plasto (P.) Ltd 184 Taxman 372 (SC), K.P. Madhusudhanan v. CIT [2001] 118 Taxman 324 (SC), Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation v. DCIT 22(2) Mumbai, Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT (2007) 291 ITR 519 (SC), CIT M/s…

Harish Kumar HUF, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-34(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1469/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Dr. B.R.R. Kumara.Y. : 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Naveen ND Gupta, CA & Sh. AshuFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 288ASection 94(7)

…re than 20 per cent, Explanation to section 271 (1 )(c) became applicable and assessee having failed to discharge onus being cast on assessee by virtue of said Explanation, Assessing Officer was justified in imposing penalty. 6. CIT vs Gates Foam & Rubber Co [91 ITR 467] CIT vs India Seafood [105 ITR 708] where Hon'ble Kerala High Court held that Claiming excessive deduction also amounts to concealment of income. 24 7. Steel Ingots Ltd vs. CIT [296 ITR 228] /. where Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court held that in case of concealment of true income chargeable to tax by making bogus claim, levy of penalty u/s 271 (…

Mitesh Pravin Vador, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-55(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1176/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69C

…ied upon the following decisions: 8 ITA.No.1176/Del./2019 1. PCIT vs. Dr. Vandana Gupta (2018) 92 taxmann.com 229 (Delhi High Court), 2. VSB Investment (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2012) 21 taxmann.com 162 (Punjab & Haryana), 3. CIT vs. Gates Foam & Rubber Co. (1973) 91 ITR 467 (Kerala) He has submitted that ITAT, Chennai Bench in the case of ITO vs. Shri Rajan Kalimuthu ITA No. 2900/Chny./2018 vide order dated 22nd May, 2019 has restored the matter back to the file of CIT(A) in which AO had not struck off the relevant column of the show cause notice. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the materia…