K.P.Madhusudhanan v. CIT

251 ITR 99Supreme Court of India2001#468 most cited

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

Voluntary disclosures or explanations offered by an assessee do not automatically absolve them from penalty under section 271(1)(c) if the explanation is not substantiated by credible evidence.

199

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

K.P. Madhusudhanan v. CIT · section 271(1)(c) · penalty · furnishing inaccurate particulars · concealment of income · voluntary disclosure · unsubstantiated explanation · credible evidence · section 274

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
Read the full judgment

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

ACIT-23(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chamber vs. Chetan Pravin Chitalia, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2100/MUM/2025[2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2025

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c)Section 690

…Chitalia 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) ? 6. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty levied, 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 assessee did not furnish particulars or inaccu…

ACIT-23(1), Mumbai vs. Anil Kishanchand Bhatia, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the R

ITA 720/MUM/2025[2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009 Acit-23(1), Mumbai Anil Kishanchand Bhatia Room No. 511, 5Th Floor, D2, 67/68, Green Field Chs, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Near Majas Depot. Jvlr Road Lower Parel. Mumbai-400093 Mumbai-400012 Pan No. Aaapb 9588 J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: 13/03/2025
Section 271(1)(c)

…and explanation which attracts the provision of section 271(1)(c) and explanation thereto, as held in the care of K.P. Madhusudhan Vs. CIT reported in d in the care of K.P. Madhusudhan Vs. CIT reported in d in the care of K.P. Madhusudhan Vs. CIT reported in 251 ITR 99 (SC) ?" 251 ITR 99 (SC) ?" 4. "Whether on the facts and "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in l circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in delet A) has erred in deleting the penalty levied of of 1,01,663/ ing the penalty levied of of 1,01,663/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, by ignoring the observations of Hon'bl…

Mr. Chittaranjan Trimbak Gaikwad, Pune vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 759/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri B.C. MalakarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.759/PUN/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Mr. Chittaranjan Trimbak Gaikwad, The Asst. Commissioner At Post Kadamwak Wasti, of Income Tax, Loni Kalbhor, Pune – 412201 Vs. Circle – 4, Pune PAN : AEBPT5707L अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri B.C. Malakar Department by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of hearing : 28-10-2024 Date of 10-01-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / ORDER PER A…

Naveen Kumar, I.T.O.-19(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ashok Industrial Corporation, Mumbai

ITA 4160/MUM/2024[2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2024

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal SethiyaFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…there is no further onus on the AO to establish mens rea and it for the assessee to satisfactorily discharge the onus of proving the bonafide with regard to claim expenses, as is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.P.Madhusudhan Vs CIT reported in 251 ITR 99(SC)? 5. This appeal is being filed as it is covered under the exception clause provided in para 3.1(h) of the CBDT's Circular No.5 of 2024 dated 15.03.2024, as amended vide F.No.279/Misc. 142/2007-ITJ(Pt) dated 15.03.2024 ". 6. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any grounds or add a new ground which may be necessary." 2 Assessment Year…

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)

…of the Act of Rs. x,xx,xx,xxx/- for furnishing in accurate particulars. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the cases, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K P Madhusudan Vs CIT (251 ITR 99) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the view taken in the case of Shadilal Sugar & General Mills Ltd. Vs CIT can no longer be said to be applicable to section 271(1)(c). ITA No 410/PUN/2024 [Penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act] 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts by deleting…

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)

…of the Act of Rs. x,xx,xx,xxx/- for furnishing in accurate particulars. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the cases, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K P Madhusudan Vs CIT (251 ITR 99) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the view taken in the case of Shadilal Sugar & General Mills Ltd. Vs CIT can no longer be said to be applicable to section 271(1)(c). ITA No 410/PUN/2024 [Penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act] 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts by deleting…

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)

…of the Act of Rs. x,xx,xx,xxx/- for furnishing in accurate particulars. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the cases, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K P Madhusudan Vs CIT (251 ITR 99) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the view taken in the case of Shadilal Sugar & General Mills Ltd. Vs CIT can no longer be said to be applicable to section 271(1)(c). ITA No 410/PUN/2024 [Penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act] 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts by deleting…

Jamna Devi Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 7(2), Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 540/JPR/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC’’ JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 540 & 541/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2007-08 & 2008-09 cuke Smt. Jamna Devi Sharma The ITO Vs. Meena Ka Mohalla, Ward No. 2 Ward 7(2) Goner Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: BXNPD 0140 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Rohan Sogani, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR lquokb…

Suresh Chand Bansal, Haryana vs. ACIT, Central Circle-16, Delhi

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

ITA 3666/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3665/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16) Amit Bansal ACIT C/o M/s Ganesh Lal Central Circle-16 Shri Chand, Janta Bazzar Vs. Delhi Jind, SCH No.6, Jind Haryana-126102 PAN-AGBPB 2366DJ (Appellant) (Respondent) Suresh Chand Bansal ACIT C/o M/s Ganesh Lal Central Circle-16 Shri Chand, Janta Bazzar Vs. Delhi Jind, SCH No.6, Jind Haryana-126102 PAN-AANPC 3204B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Ruchesh Sinha, Adv. Respondent by Shri Om Parkash, S…

Amit Bansal, Haryana vs. ACIT, Central Circle-16, Delhi

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

ITA 3665/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3665/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16) Amit Bansal ACIT C/o M/s Ganesh Lal Central Circle-16 Shri Chand, Janta Bazzar Vs. Delhi Jind, SCH No.6, Jind Haryana-126102 PAN-AGBPB 2366DJ (Appellant) (Respondent) Suresh Chand Bansal ACIT C/o M/s Ganesh Lal Central Circle-16 Shri Chand, Janta Bazzar Vs. Delhi Jind, SCH No.6, Jind Haryana-126102 PAN-AANPC 3204B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Ruchesh Sinha, Adv. Respondent by Shri Om Parkash, S…

Amit Bansal, Haryana vs. ACIT Central Circle-16, Delhi

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

ITA 3664/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3665/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16) Amit Bansal ACIT C/o M/s Ganesh Lal Central Circle-16 Shri Chand, Janta Bazzar Vs. Delhi Jind, SCH No.6, Jind Haryana-126102 PAN-AGBPB 2366DJ (Appellant) (Respondent) Suresh Chand Bansal ACIT C/o M/s Ganesh Lal Central Circle-16 Shri Chand, Janta Bazzar Vs. Delhi Jind, SCH No.6, Jind Haryana-126102 PAN-AANPC 3204B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Ruchesh Sinha, Adv. Respondent by Shri Om Parkash, S…

Shiv Shraddha Developer, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle -3 Kalyan, Kalyan

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

ITA 944/PUN/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.944/Pun/2023 "नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Kumar ParidaFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

…grieved by the above penalty order, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) who vide impugned order confirmed the levy of penalty placing reliance on the decision of Dharmendra Textile Processors & Others (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC) and Shri K.P, Madhusudan Vs. CIT 251 ITR 99 etc. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 6. We heard both the sides and perused the relevant material on record. The issue in the present appeal is whether or not in the facts and circumstances of the case the AO was justified in levying penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of the addition made…

Amit Kapoor, Chennai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

ITA 1445/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1415/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Shri Samiappagounder Dharmaraj, The Addl.Cit, 56/88, Rayapuram Extension, Range-1, 1St Street, Tirupur. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Adypd 3863 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. SridharFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 270ASection 271D

…IT v. Paripushpam (S. I.) [2001] 249 ITR 550 (Mad) (para 38) xiii) CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC) (paras 3, 36) xiv) CIT D. SSA Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 taxmann.com 241 (Karn) (para 14) xv) Madhusudhanan (K. P.) ข. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC) (para 29) xvi) Mak Data (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC) (paras 28, 29) xvii) National Textiles v. CIT [2001] 249 ITR 125 (Guj) (para 37) xviii) Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2018] 403 ITR 407 (Mad) (para 16) 11. Moreover, we note from the totality of the facts of this case, that it is not a fit case for levy of penalty, becaus…

Samiappagounder Dharmaraj, Tirupur vs. Addl. CIT, Range-1, Tirupur

ITA 1415/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1415/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Shri Samiappagounder Dharmaraj, The Addl.Cit, 56/88, Rayapuram Extension, Range-1, 1St Street, Tirupur. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Adypd 3863 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. SridharFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 270ASection 271D

…IT v. Paripushpam (S. I.) [2001] 249 ITR 550 (Mad) (para 38) xiii) CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC) (paras 3, 36) xiv) CIT D. SSA Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 taxmann.com 241 (Karn) (para 14) xv) Madhusudhanan (K. P.) ข. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC) (para 29) xvi) Mak Data (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC) (paras 28, 29) xvii) National Textiles v. CIT [2001] 249 ITR 125 (Guj) (para 37) xviii) Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2018] 403 ITR 407 (Mad) (para 16) 11. Moreover, we note from the totality of the facts of this case, that it is not a fit case for levy of penalty, becaus…

M/S.Enrica Enterprises Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1165/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271ASection 274

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी मंजूनाथा. जी, लेखा सद" एवं "ी मनोमोहनदास, "ाियक सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA. G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1164 & 1165/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 M/s.Enrica Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner of – v. No.85, Matruvazhi Salai, Income Tax, (Bypass Road), Poonamallee, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai-600 056. Chennai. [PAN: AAACE 9199 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by Shri D. Anand,…

M/S Enrica Enterprises Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1164/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271ASection 274

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी मंजूनाथा. जी, लेखा सद" एवं "ी मनोमोहनदास, "ाियक सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA. G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1164 & 1165/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 M/s.Enrica Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner of – v. No.85, Matruvazhi Salai, Income Tax, (Bypass Road), Poonamallee, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai-600 056. Chennai. [PAN: AAACE 9199 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by Shri D. Anand,…

Shri.Prakash R. Nair, Kollam vs. DCIT, Kollam

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 141/COCH/2021[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2024AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasprakash R. Nair Dy.Cit, Central Circle Prop. Dhanya Foods Kollam Kochuppilammoodu Vs. Kollam 691001 [Pan:Abfpn4424P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 148(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80Section 801A(9)Section 80HSection 80I

…(1)(c) (refer Mak Data (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC); CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal [2009] 317 ITR 1 (SC); UoI v. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC); Guljag Industries v. CTO [2007] 293 ITR 584 (SC); K.P. Madhusudhanan vs. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC); B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros v. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 977 (SC), to cite some), is on the assessee who makes the claim. 6.6 Next, we consider the assessee’s legal ground, i.e., of the notice u/s. 274 not striking off one of the two limbs attracting penalty u/s. 271(1)(c), charging it therefore of being vague. The Revenues’ sole case is of the as…

DCIT 3(1), Mumbai vs. Icici Bank Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4305/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2003-04

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl Counsel
Section 10Section 10(5)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…tion was found to be inadmissible, penalty does not necessarily follow. 8 M/s. ICICI Bank Ltd. 5.5 In view of the factual matrix narrated at para 5.1 here-in- above, the decisions in the case of CIT vs.K.P.Madhusudan 246 ITR 218 (Ker), K.P.Madhusudan vs. CIT 251 ITR 99 (SC) and UOI Vs. Dharmendra Textiles Processors (2008) 14 DTR judgements relied on by the AO is distinguishable from the case of the appellant. 5.6 In view of the ratio laid down in the judgements mentioned at para 5.2, 5.3 & para 5.4 here-in-above the penalty of Rs.21,07,00,000/- imposed by the AO u/s.271(1)© is deleted.” 12. By now it is settle…

Shri. Krishnamurthy Naryanamurthy, Bengaluru vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 485/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sukruth N Segu, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year : 2015-16 Krishnamurthy Narayanamurthy, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 90/1, Yathindralaya, 7th Main Road, Ward 4(3)(4), 2nd Cross, Begur Road, Hongasandra, Bangalore. Bengaluru – 560 068. PAN: ACUPN 6583F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Sukruth N Segu, CA Respondent by : Shri Subramanian S., Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 04.09.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 04.09.2023 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member This a…

M.Arun, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-2(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 573/CHNY/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.573/Chny/2021 िनधा)रण वष) /Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद$ एवं "ी मनोमोहन दास, "ाियक सद$ के सम( BEFORE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.573/Chny/2021 िनधा)रण वष) /Assessment Year: 2008-09 M. Arun DCIT No.53, Rajasekaran Street, Vs. Central Circle-II(4), Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. Chennai. [PAN: AAGPA-8202-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT : 09.05.…