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

91 ITR 467High Court1973#3027 most cited

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.

39

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Gates Foam & Rubber Co · section 271(1)(c) · concealment of income · excessive deduction · bogus claim · penalty for concealment · Explanation to section 271(1)(c) · furnishing inaccurate particulars

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

Issues it is cited on

furnishing inaccurate particularscommissioner (appeals)long term capital gainsection 271(1)(c)section 271(1)section 271section 27section 143(1)previous yearsection 143(2)section 143prescribed

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

Dr. Sunil Khosla, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 182/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishia.Y. : 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 54F

…mmunication (P) Ltd. 191 Taxmann 179 (Delhi). - CIT vs. Moser Baer India Ltd. 184 Taxman 8 (SC) - Mak Data P Ltd. vs. CIT 38 taxmann.com 448. - Khandelwal Steel and Tube Traders vs. ITO (2018) 95 taxamann.com 15 (Madras) - CIT vs. Gates Foam and Rubber Co. 91 ITR 467 - CIT vs. India Seafood (105 ITR 708) - Steel Ingots Ltd. vs. CIT 296 ITR 228. 7. We have heard both the counsel and perused the orders passed by the Revenue authorities. We find that assessee is an individual, a doctor, practicing dentistry who returned his income of Rs. 53,39,120/-. Against this, assessment was completed at Rs. 75,95,770/-.…

Crew Bos Products Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Faridabad

ITA 5236/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Beg, Senior DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘B’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.5235/Del./2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) ITA No.5236/Del./2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) Crew BOS Products Ltd., vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1, 37, Sector 4, IMT Manesar, Faridabad. Gurgaon. (PAN : AAACC3222F) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri K. Sampath, Advocate REVENUE BY : Ms. Ashima Beg, Senior DR Date of Hearing : 18.12.2018 Date of Order : 19.12.2018 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : The appellant, Crew BOS Products Ltd. (her…

Crew Bos Products Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Faridabad

ITA 5235/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Beg, Senior DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘B’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.5235/Del./2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) ITA No.5236/Del./2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) Crew BOS Products Ltd., vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1, 37, Sector 4, IMT Manesar, Faridabad. Gurgaon. (PAN : AAACC3222F) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri K. Sampath, Advocate REVENUE BY : Ms. Ashima Beg, Senior DR Date of Hearing : 18.12.2018 Date of Order : 19.12.2018 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : The appellant, Crew BOS Products Ltd. (her…

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

…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 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) r…

M/S. Capital Power Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2257/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13 Capital Power Infrastructure Pvt. Acit, Circle- 5(2), Ltd., New Delhi. A- 156, Lower Ground Floor, Vs. New Friends Colony, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Ms. Himani Agrawal, CA
Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…TR 510. (iv) CIT vs. Moser Baer India Ltd., 315 ITR 460. (v) CIT vs. Gold Coin Health Food (P.) Ltd., 304 ITR 308. (vi) MAK Data P. Ltd. vs. CIT, 358 ITR 593. (vii) B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co. vs. CIT, 236 ITR 977. (viii) CIT vs. Gates Foam & Rubber Co., 91 ITR 467. (ix) Steel Ingots Ltd. vs. CIT, 296 ITR 228. (x) CIT vs. Escorts Finance Ltd., 328 ITR 44. (xi) CIT vs. R.M.P. Plasto (P.) Ltd., 313 ITR 397. (xii) K.P. Madhusudhanan vs. CIT, 251 ITR 99. (xiii) CIT vs. Splender Construction, 208 taxmann.com 302. 9. He submitted that since the assessee in the instant case could not justify the expenses claimed b…

Quantum Coders Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5766/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 5766/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Quantum Coders Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 501-502, Plot No. 1, Dda Ward-14(4), Building, Distt. Centre, Janak New Delhi Puri, New Delhi-110058 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacq1197M Assessee By : Ms. Devina Sharma, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.06.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.08.2015 Of Ld. Cit(A)-7, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Ms. Devina Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…nd relied on the following case laws: " Union of India Vs Dharamendra Textile Processors (2007) 295 ITR 244 (SC) " CIT Vs Zoom Communication (P.) Ltd. (2010) 327 ITR 510 (Del.) " MAK Data P. Ltd. Vs CIT (2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC) " CIT Vs Gates Foam & Rubber Co. 91 ITR 467 (Ker.) " CIT Vs India Seafood 105 ITR 708 (Ker.) " Steel Ingots Ltd. Vs CIT 296 ITR 228 (MP) " CIT Vs Escorts Finance Ltd. (2010) 328 ITR 44 (Del.) " K.P. Madhusudhanan Vs CIT (2001) 251 ITR 99 (SC) 8. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, it is…

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…

Abr Auto Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 6236/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Amarjeeet Singh, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)(ii)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…(1)©, voluntary disclosure of concealed income does not absolve assessee of section 271(1)© penalty if the assessee fails to offer an explanation which is bonafide and proves that all the material facts have been disclosed. 5. 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 6. 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 )…

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

…le 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 Taxman 372 (SC)/[2009] 313 ITR 397 (SC)/[2009] 227 CTR 635] 10. CIT Vs Zoom Communication (P.) Ltd. [191 Taxman 179 (Delhi)/[2010] 32…

Manu Bali, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 790/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishia.Y. : 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Kumar Matta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 57

…218 CTR 359) (Copy Enclosed) where Hon'ble Delhi Supreme Court held that amendment made in Explanation 4 to section 271(1)(c)(iii) with effect from 1-4-2003 is clarificatory and, therefore, will have retrospective effect 5. 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 6. 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…

Trade Wings Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 2(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result , appeal of the assessee company in ITA No

ITA 3419/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3416/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3417/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3418/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3419/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Trade Wings Limited, Income Tax Officer – Ward बनाम/ 18/20-K, Dubash Marg, 2(3)(3), V. Fort,Mumbai – 400 023. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact4639F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra,DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…ed inaccurate particulars of income which resulted into evading of tax liability. The A.O. relied on the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. India Sea Food, (1976) 105 ITR 708(Ker.) and in the case of Gates Foam & Rubber Company, (1973)91 ITR 467 (Ker.–HC). The A.O. accordingly levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,71,482/- , vide penalty orders dated 31-03-2011. 6. Aggrieved by the penalty orders dated 31-03-2011 passed by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee company filed first appeal before the learned CIT(A). 7. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee c…

Trade Wings Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 2(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result , appeal of the assessee company in ITA No

ITA 3418/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3416/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3417/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3418/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3419/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Trade Wings Limited, Income Tax Officer – Ward बनाम/ 18/20-K, Dubash Marg, 2(3)(3), V. Fort,Mumbai – 400 023. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact4639F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra,DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…ed inaccurate particulars of income which resulted into evading of tax liability. The A.O. relied on the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. India Sea Food, (1976) 105 ITR 708(Ker.) and in the case of Gates Foam & Rubber Company, (1973)91 ITR 467 (Ker.–HC). The A.O. accordingly levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,71,482/- , vide penalty orders dated 31-03-2011. 6. Aggrieved by the penalty orders dated 31-03-2011 passed by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee company filed first appeal before the learned CIT(A). 7. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee c…

Trade Wings Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 2(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result , appeal of the assessee company in ITA No

ITA 3417/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3416/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3417/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3418/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3419/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Trade Wings Limited, Income Tax Officer – Ward बनाम/ 18/20-K, Dubash Marg, 2(3)(3), V. Fort,Mumbai – 400 023. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact4639F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra,DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…ed inaccurate particulars of income which resulted into evading of tax liability. The A.O. relied on the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. India Sea Food, (1976) 105 ITR 708(Ker.) and in the case of Gates Foam & Rubber Company, (1973)91 ITR 467 (Ker.–HC). The A.O. accordingly levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,71,482/- , vide penalty orders dated 31-03-2011. 6. Aggrieved by the penalty orders dated 31-03-2011 passed by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee company filed first appeal before the learned CIT(A). 7. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee c…

Trade Wings Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 2(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result , appeal of the assessee company in ITA No

ITA 3416/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3416/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3417/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3418/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3419/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Trade Wings Limited, Income Tax Officer – Ward बनाम/ 18/20-K, Dubash Marg, 2(3)(3), V. Fort,Mumbai – 400 023. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact4639F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra,DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…ed inaccurate particulars of income which resulted into evading of tax liability. The A.O. relied on the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. India Sea Food, (1976) 105 ITR 708(Ker.) and in the case of Gates Foam & Rubber Company, (1973)91 ITR 467 (Ker.–HC). The A.O. accordingly levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,71,482/- , vide penalty orders dated 31-03-2011. 6. Aggrieved by the penalty orders dated 31-03-2011 passed by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee company filed first appeal before the learned CIT(A). 7. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee c…

DCIT - 8(3), Mumbai vs. M/S S.M.Energ Teknik and Electronics Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0

ITA 2663/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2663/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04) Deputy Commissioner Of M/S S.M. Energy Teknik बनाम/ Income Tax – 8(3) & Electronics Limited, V. R. No. 217, Sm Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Marg, Andheri Kurla Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Marol Naka, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 059 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacs7312L .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: None
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 271(1)(c)

…e and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is imposable in the instant case and in support the following decisions have been relied upon:- 1. CIT v. India Sea Foods, 105 ITR 708 (Ker) 2. Naginchand Shiv Sahai v. CIT, 61 ITR 534 3. CIT v. Gates Foam & Rubber Co., 91 ITR 467 (Ker). The AO held that the assessee being a company is required to maintain its books of accounts which reflect true picture of the transaction. The A.O. also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of L.K. Sheikh Mohammed Bros v. CIT (1977) 110 ITR 808 (Madras). The onus was on the assessee company to produce genuinene…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shyam Tex International Ltd

Accordingly, present appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed

ITA/321/2010HC Delhi06 Aug 2010

Bench: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)

…Page 3 of 7 The learned DR had relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Gates Foam & Rubber Company (1973) 91 ITR 467, in which it was held that to rebut the charge of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income under the fiction created by the Explanation to section 271(1)(c), the assessee has to show that his failiure to file the correct return of income did not arise from any fraud or willful neglect on its part. That was a case where a large portion of…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ecs Limited

ITA - 1003 / 2008HC Delhi05 Feb 2010
Section 271(1)(c)Section 80

…l as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Penalty may be imposed for either or both such attempts CIT v/s India Sea Foods, 1976 105 ITR 708, Kerala; Nagin Chand Shiv Sahai v/s CIT (1938) 6 ITR 534 (Lah); CIT v/s Gates Foan and Rubber Company (1973) 91 ITR 467 (Ker). It is not right to say on the part of the appellant that the Assessing Officer has to record the satisfaction before initiating the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) for the reason that the factum of concealment on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars of one's income clearly emanates from the assessment order and I conside…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ecs Ltd

ITA - 1030 / 2008HC Delhi05 Feb 2010
Section 271(1)(c)Section 80

…as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Penalty may be imposed for either or both such attempts [CIT v/s India Sea Foods, 1976 105 ITR 708, Kerala; Nagin Chand Shiv Sahai v/s CIT (1938) 6 ITR 534 (Lah): CIT v/s Gates Foan and Rubber Company (1973) 91 ITR 467 (Ker) 7. It is not right to say on the part of the appellant that the Assessing Officer has to record the satisfaction before initiating the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) for the reason that the factum of concealment on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars of one's income clearly emanates from the assessment order and I consi…

Ecs Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA - 1248 / 2008HC Delhi26 Oct 2009
Section 271(1)(c)Section 80

…as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Penalty may be imposed for either or both such attempts [CIT v/s India Sea Foods, 1976 105 ITR 708, Kerala; Nagin Chand Shiv Sahai v/s CIT (1938) 6 ITR 534 (Lah); CIT v/s Gates Foan and Rubber Company (1973) 91 ITR 467 (Ker)]. It is not right to say on the part of the appellant that the Assessing Officer has to record the satisfaction before initiating the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) for the reason that the factum of concealment on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars of one's income clearly emanates from the assessment order and I consid…