K.P.Madhusudhanan v. CIT

251 ITR 99Supreme Court of India2001#464 most cited

What is K.P.Madhusudhanan v. CIT authority for?

A difference between returned and assessed income creates an inference of concealment, activating the presumption under Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c). The onus is on the assessee to rebut this presumption by providing a plausible explanation; failure to do so attracts penalty.

199

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

K.P. Madhusudhanan v. CIT · Section 271(1)(c) · penalty · concealment of income · inaccurate particulars · Explanation 1 · onus on assessee · difference between returned and assessed income · levy of penalty · rebut presumption · Supreme Court · 251 ITR 99

Also reported as

118 Taxmann 324169 CTR 489

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 274Section 139Section 149Section 153A

Issues it is cited on

penalty under section 271(1)(c)furnishing inaccurate particulars of incomepenalty u/s 271(1)(c)furnishing inaccurate particularsconcealment of incomesection 274section 271(1)levy of penaltysection 271section 271(1)(c)section 27commissioner (appeals)

Judgments citing K.P.Madhusudhanan v. CIT

SHRI AJAY MAYOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1607/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…of the Act as income from other sources since it was received without consideration. The CIT(Appeals) also referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mak Data Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2013) 38 taxmann.com 448 (SC) and K.P. Madhusudhanan vs. CIT (2001) 251 ITR 99 (SC) to hold that voluntary disclosure or explanation offered by the assessee does not automatically absolve the assessee from penalty where the explanation is not substantiated by credible evidence. In view of these findings, the CIT(Appeals) upheld the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and dismissed the…

PEDA SUBBA RAO UNNAM,ADDANKI vs. ITO , WARD-1, ONGOLE

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

ITA 1664/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(a)Section 69A

…lanation. The burden then shifted to the AO to disprove this claim with concrete evidence, not just allege that the 4 Peda Subba Rao explanation was insufficient. The AO and CIT(A) acted on suspicion, not evidence. Case Law: K.P. Madhusudhanan vs. CIT (2001) 251 ITR 99 (SC): 5. The CIT(A) erred in relying on judicial precedents inappropriately and failed to apply the binding principles from case laws cited by the appellant, thereby passing an order that is legally untenable. a) The learned CIT(A), in paragraph 5.1.1 of the impugned order, dismissed the appellant's reliance on the legal principle established in C…

INCOME TAX OFFICER 19.1.1, PIRAMAL CHAMBER LAL BAUG vs. A J DIAM, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed in the above terms

ITA 3845/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhanito-19(1)(1), Mumbai A. J. Diam Room No. 501, Piramal Chamber, Vs. 304, 3Rd Floor, Deccan Vikas Chs Lalbaug, Mumbai-400 012. Ltd. 584/1/584, Vithalbhai Patel Road, Kothachiwadi, Mumbai- 400 004 Pan: Aaofa4830G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ilure to furnish accurate particulars of the income and relevant evidences by the assessee, even at the penalty proceedings, which attracts the provision of section 271(1)(c) and explanation thereto, as held in the case of K.P. Madhusudhan Vs. CIT reported in 251 ITR 99 (SC) ? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) is right in deleting the penalty, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court Mumbai, in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax- 5, Mumbai Vs Kanak Impex (India) Ltd (2015)172 Taxmann.com 283(Bombay) Dated. 03.03.2025, wherein it was…

INCOME TAX OFFICER 23 2 6 , MUMBAI vs. MANMOHAN DAULAL RATHI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5467/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2025AY 2010-11
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…re to furnish accurate particulars of the income and relevant evidences\nby the assessee, even at the penalty proceedings, which attracts the\nprovision of section 271(1)(c) and explanation thereto, as held in the case of\nK.P. Madhusudhan Vs. CIT reported in 251 ITR 99 (SC) ?\"\n7. \"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld.\nCIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty levied, without appreciating the\ndecision of the Hon'ble Supreme court in case of Union of India Vs\nDharmendra Textiles Processors & ors 306 ITR 277), wherein it was held\nthat explanation appended to sec. 271(1)(c) of the…

HIGH VOIT ELECTICALS P LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 , PALGHAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4465/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4462, 4463, 4464 & 4465/Mum/2025 A.Ys: 2013-14 High Voit Electicals P Vs ITO, Ward – 1 Ltd., MQP8+5Q3, Amba Wadi J-46 MIDC Tarpur, Palghar - 401404 Boisar, S.O Salwad, Boisar – 401506, Dist – Palghar PAN – AABFH1723L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 14.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 10.11.2025 ORDER Per Bench.: These fourappeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the different impugned…

HIGH VOIT ELECTICALS P LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 , PALGHAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4464/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4462, 4463, 4464 & 4465/Mum/2025 A.Ys: 2013-14 High Voit Electicals P Vs ITO, Ward – 1 Ltd., MQP8+5Q3, Amba Wadi J-46 MIDC Tarpur, Palghar - 401404 Boisar, S.O Salwad, Boisar – 401506, Dist – Palghar PAN – AABFH1723L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 14.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 10.11.2025 ORDER Per Bench.: These fourappeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the different impugned…

HIGH VOIT ELECTICALS P LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 , PALGHAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4463/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4462, 4463, 4464 & 4465/Mum/2025 A.Ys: 2013-14 High Voit Electicals P Vs ITO, Ward – 1 Ltd., MQP8+5Q3, Amba Wadi J-46 MIDC Tarpur, Palghar - 401404 Boisar, S.O Salwad, Boisar – 401506, Dist – Palghar PAN – AABFH1723L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 14.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 10.11.2025 ORDER Per Bench.: These fourappeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the different impugned…

HIGH VOIT ELECTICALS P LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 , PALGHAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4462/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4462, 4463, 4464 & 4465/Mum/2025 A.Ys: 2013-14 High Voit Electicals P Vs ITO, Ward – 1 Ltd., MQP8+5Q3, Amba Wadi J-46 MIDC Tarpur, Palghar - 401404 Boisar, S.O Salwad, Boisar – 401506, Dist – Palghar PAN – AABFH1723L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 14.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 10.11.2025 ORDER Per Bench.: These fourappeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the different impugned…

BUL MSK INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 15(1)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, the matter is set aside to the file of Ld. CIT(A) and both the appeals of appellant are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4108/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali AafaquiFor Respondent: Ms. Sachi R. Purswami
Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

…quently. Appellant company is in appeal against penalties levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for both the assessment years. While levying penalty, the Ld. AO relied on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri K. Madhusoodanan Vs. CIT (251 ITR 99) and Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors & Ors. (306 ITR 277) and held that explanation appended to section 271(1)(c) of the Act comes into play when the appellant conceals or gives inaccurate particulars while filing returns. It was also observed from the penalty order that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is a civil liabil…

BUL MSK INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF TAX CIRCLE 15(1)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, the matter is set aside to the file of Ld. CIT(A) and both the appeals of appellant are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4107/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali AafaquiFor Respondent: Ms. Sachi R. Purswami
Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

…quently. Appellant company is in appeal against penalties levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for both the assessment years. While levying penalty, the Ld. AO relied on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri K. Madhusoodanan Vs. CIT (251 ITR 99) and Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors & Ors. (306 ITR 277) and held that explanation appended to section 271(1)(c) of the Act comes into play when the appellant conceals or gives inaccurate particulars while filing returns. It was also observed from the penalty order that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is a civil liabil…

DIALNET COMMUNICATIONS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 7(3), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7885/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year: 2015-16 Dial Net Communications Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, C-31, Ground Floor, Greater Ward-7(3), New Delhi. Kailash, Part-I, Delhi-110048. Pan: Aabcd 5472 D Appellant Respondent

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

…ITA No. 7885/Del/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year: 2015-16 Dial net Communications Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, C-31, Ground Floor, Greater Ward-7(3), New Delhi. Kailash, Part-I, Delhi-110048. PAN: AABCD 5472 D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Harsh Gollmudi, Adv. Department represented by Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR Date of hearing 24.07.2025 Date of pronouncement 19.09.2025 O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M: This appeal, preferred by the assessee for…

ITO 19(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ANITA DINESH DHOKAR, MUMBAI

Accordingly, in terms of the aforesaid CBDT circular, the present appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 2457/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms. Ridhisha Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

…ilure to furnish accurate particulars of the income and relevant evidences by the assessee, even at the penalty proceedings, which attracts the provision of section 271(1)(c) and explanation thereto, as held in the case of E.P. Madhusudhan Vs. CIT reported in 251 ITR 99 (SC) ?" 4.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the decision of the Lad. CITTA) is right in deleting the penalty, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court Mumbai, in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax 5, Mumbai Va Kanak Impex (India) Ltd (2015)172 Taxmann.com 283(Bombay) Dated. 03.03.2025, wherein it was…

R V R NAGESH LEGAL HEIR OF LATE VENGATTARAYALU RAJAN,KANCHIPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORP WARD - 22(4), TAMBARAM, TAMBARAM

ITA 789/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.789/Chny/2025

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री अमिताभ शुक्ला, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.789/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2011-12 RVR Nagesh Legal Heir of Late Vengattarayalu Rajan, No.119/2, Balakrishna Nagar, 1 Main Road, Gerugambakkam, Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu-600 122. [PAN: AHJPR9558A] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee by प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by Income Tax Officer, Non-Corp Ward-22(4), Tambaram…

JAR METAL INDUSTRIES(P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-13(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

ITA 9695/DEL/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.9694 & 9695/Del/2019 [Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2006-07] M/s Jar Metal Industries (P) Income Tax Officer, Ltd. Ward-13(2), Plot No.55, F.I.E. Patparganj, Vs Room No.324, Industrial Area, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Delhi-110092 New Delh-110002 PAN-AAACJ0108R Appellant Respondent Appellant by Shri Vivek Aggarwal, CA Respondent by Shri Om Prakash Sr. DR Date of Hearing 13.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement 07.08.2025 ORDER PER BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, AM…

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

ITA 212/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

For Appellant: Shri C.L. Yadav, CA and Shri Vikas Yadav AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary
Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

…following case laws. 1. Union of India & Ors M/s. Dharmendra Textile Processors (on 29-09-2008 SC Civil Appeal Nos. 10289-10303 [ 2008)306 ITR 277SC]- pages 1 to 22 2. M/s. K.P. Madhusudhanan vs CIT, Cochin ( on 21-08-2001 Appeal (Civil) 6465 of 2000 [(2001) 251 ITR 99]- pages 23 to 27. 3.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Brief facts of the case are that the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS which was finalized u/s 143(3) of the 15 RAKESH KUMAR JAIN VS DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR Act, 1961 determining total income at Rs.1,14,75,900/- vide assess…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 13(1), NEW DELHI, I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI vs. LOGIC EASTERN (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, NOIDA, UTTAR PRADESH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 437/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17] Deputy Commissioner Of Logic Eastern (India) Private Income Tax, Circle-13(1), Limited, Room No.316A, 3Rd Floor, Vs C-56/39, 5Th Floor, Sector-62, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301 New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aaacl3539Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Amisha S. Gupta, Cit(Dr) Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 07.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07.07.2025 Order Per Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am

Section 143(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 37Section 40

…e case of Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors 166 taxmann 65 (SC), judgement of Hon'ble Delhi Court in the case of CIT vs. Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd. 327 ITR 51 and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. P. Madhusudhan vs. CIT 251 ITR 99 held the appellant in default of furnishing inaccurate particulars of its income in respect of the said additions made. Accordingly, the A.O. vide impugned order levied penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the I. T. Act amounting to Rs. 1,79,05,055/-. The relevant extract of the penalty order levying the penalty in para 4.2 to 5 is reproduced as under:- 4.2.…

INCOME TAX OFFICER- 23(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TISYA JEWELS, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are accordingly partly allowed

ITA 870/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer- 23(3)(1), Tisya Jewels Mumbai G-2 Sagar Fortune, 184 525A, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Waterfield Road, Bandra West, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai- 400050 Pan No. Aadft 8056 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi A/W Ms. Aadnya Bhandari Revenue By : Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Nishit Gandhi a/wFor Respondent: Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 298

…ilure to furnish accurate particulars of the income and relevant evidences by the assessee, even at the penalty proceedings, which attracts the provision of section 271(1)(c) and explanation thereto, as held in the case of K.P. Madhusudhan Vs. CIT reported in 251 ITR 99 (SC) ?" 5. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty levied of Rs. 21,005/ u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, by ignoring the observations of Hon'ble High Court in the CIT Vs Chanchal Katiyal 173 Taxman 71(all), which is relevant in the facts and circumstances of this case, that if the asse…

INCOME TAX OFFICIER- 23(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TISYA JEWELS, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are accordingly partly allowed

ITA 869/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer- 23(3)(1), Tisya Jewels Mumbai G-2 Sagar Fortune, 184 525A, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Waterfield Road, Bandra West, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai- 400050 Pan No. Aadft 8056 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi A/W Ms. Aadnya Bhandari Revenue By : Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Nishit Gandhi a/wFor Respondent: Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 298

…ilure to furnish accurate particulars of the income and relevant evidences by the assessee, even at the penalty proceedings, which attracts the provision of section 271(1)(c) and explanation thereto, as held in the case of K.P. Madhusudhan Vs. CIT reported in 251 ITR 99 (SC) ?" 5. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty levied of Rs. 21,005/ u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, by ignoring the observations of Hon'ble High Court in the CIT Vs Chanchal Katiyal 173 Taxman 71(all), which is relevant in the facts and circumstances of this case, that if the asse…

DCIT, CIRCLE 22(2), NEW DELHI, 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

…icial 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 with reference to facts of the case. Thus, the onus is on the assessee to rebut the inference of conce…

ACIT-23(1), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBER, PAREL vs. CHETAN PRAVIN CHITALIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2101/MUM/2025[2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2025
Section 271(1)(c)Section 690

…e to\nfurnish accurate particulars of the income and relevant evidences by the\nassessee, even at the penalty proceedings, which attracts the provision of\nsection 271(1)(c) and explanation thereto, as held in the case of K.P.\nMadhusudhan Vs. CIT reported in 251 ITR 99 (SC) ?\n6. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A)\nhas erred in deleting the penalty levied, by ignoring the observations of\nHon'ble High Court in the CIT VS Chanchal Katiyal 173 Taxman 71(all), which\nis relevant in the facts and circumstances of this case, that if the assessee did\nnot furnish particulars or i…

Showing 1–20 of 199 · Page 1 of 10

...