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.

How many judgments cite K.P.Madhusudhanan v. CIT?

199 judgments on BharatTax cite K.P.Madhusudhanan v. CIT (251 ITR 99), spanning 2008 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does K.P.Madhusudhanan v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 271(1)(c), Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 274, Section 139.

K.P.Madhusudhanan v. CIT (251 ITR 99)

D.Senthil Kumar, Chennai vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1209/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate ) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “सी” "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी वी. दुगा1 राव, "ाियक सद2 एवं माननीय +ी मनोज कुमार अ7वाल ,लेखा सद2 के सम9। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.1209/Chny/2017 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri D. Senthil Kumar The ACIT बनाम/ No.25, Rathinasabapathy Street, Circle-II Co-operative A Colony, K.K.Pudur Coimbatore. Vs. Coimbatore-641 038. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AJUPS-1904-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ("#थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri S. Sridha…

Paramount Blankets Private Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-3, Panipat

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6869/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 271(1)(c)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 6869 /DEL/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Paramount Blankets Private Ltd., Vs Income-tax Officer, 312, Ansal Bhawan, Ward-3, Panipat. 16, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001. PAN- AADCP3611Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by None Department represented by Sh. Akhilesh Gupa, Sr. DR Date of hearing 11.04.2023 Date of pronouncement 04.05.2023 O R D E R PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: The assessee has come in appeal against the order dated 28.05.2019 pass…

Kaveri Polymers, Warangal vs. DCIT, Central Circle -1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 513/HYD/2022[2015-165]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Mar 2023AY 2015-165

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri KPRR Murthy

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…nt the manner in which such income has been derived and pays the tax together with interest, if any, in respect of such income. 24. The purpose of inserting Explanation-5 in the statute books was explained by the Supreme Court in K.P. Madhusudan v. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99/118 Taxman 324, wherein the Court held- "Learned Counsel for the assessee then drew our attention to the judgement of this Court in Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1987] 168 ITR 705. He submitted that the assessee had agreed to the additions to his income referred to hereinabove to buy peace and it did not follow therefrom that t…

Kaveri Infra Project Pvt Ltd, Warangal vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 511/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri KPRR Murthy

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…nt the manner in which such income has been derived and pays the tax together with interest, if any, in respect of such income. 24. The purpose of inserting Explanation-5 in the statute books was explained by the Supreme Court in K.P. Madhusudan v. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99/118 Taxman 324, wherein the Court held- "Learned Counsel for the assessee then drew our attention to the judgement of this Court in Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1987] 168 ITR 705. He submitted that the assessee had agreed to the additions to his income referred to hereinabove to buy peace and it did not follow therefrom that t…

Kaveri Infra Project Pvt Ltd, Warangal vs. DCIT, Central Circle -1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 510/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri KPRR Murthy

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…nt the manner in which such income has been derived and pays the tax together with interest, if any, in respect of such income. 24. The purpose of inserting Explanation-5 in the statute books was explained by the Supreme Court in K.P. Madhusudan v. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99/118 Taxman 324, wherein the Court held- "Learned Counsel for the assessee then drew our attention to the judgement of this Court in Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1987] 168 ITR 705. He submitted that the assessee had agreed to the additions to his income referred to hereinabove to buy peace and it did not follow therefrom that t…

M/S Delux Polymes P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 924/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Delux Polymers Pvt. Ltd., V. Dcit – Central Circle – 5(3) Air India Building, Nariman Point Raghuvanshi Mills Compound Mumbai – 400 021 Senapati Bapat Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400013 Pan: Aaacd4132B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 271(1)(c)

…hat penalty proceedings were initiated by the AO in the assessment order. The Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) does not have to be specifically invoked, as it is part of the substantive provision as held by the Apex Court (refer KP Madhusudhanan vs CIT (SC) 251 ITR 99). After insertion of Expn. 1 to sec. 271(1)(c), the law on concealment has become stiffer. The Explanation as it stands now is a complete code having the following features: (i) Every difference between reported and assessed income needs an explanation. (ii) If no explanation is offered, levy of penalty may be justified (iii) if explanation is off…

M/S Delux Polymers P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 922/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Delux Polymers Pvt. Ltd., V. Dcit – Central Circle – 5(3) Air India Building, Nariman Point Raghuvanshi Mills Compound Mumbai – 400 021 Senapati Bapat Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400013 Pan: Aaacd4132B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 271(1)(c)

…hat penalty proceedings were initiated by the AO in the assessment order. The Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) does not have to be specifically invoked, as it is part of the substantive provision as held by the Apex Court (refer KP Madhusudhanan vs CIT (SC) 251 ITR 99). After insertion of Expn. 1 to sec. 271(1)(c), the law on concealment has become stiffer. The Explanation as it stands now is a complete code having the following features: (i) Every difference between reported and assessed income needs an explanation. (ii) If no explanation is offered, levy of penalty may be justified (iii) if explanation is off…

M/S. Realtime Properties Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 920/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Delux Polymers Pvt. Ltd., V. Dcit – Central Circle – 5(3) Air India Building, Nariman Point Raghuvanshi Mills Compound Mumbai – 400 021 Senapati Bapat Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400013 Pan: Aaacd4132B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 271(1)(c)

…hat penalty proceedings were initiated by the AO in the assessment order. The Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) does not have to be specifically invoked, as it is part of the substantive provision as held by the Apex Court (refer KP Madhusudhanan vs CIT (SC) 251 ITR 99). After insertion of Expn. 1 to sec. 271(1)(c), the law on concealment has become stiffer. The Explanation as it stands now is a complete code having the following features: (i) Every difference between reported and assessed income needs an explanation. (ii) If no explanation is offered, levy of penalty may be justified (iii) if explanation is off…

Delux Polymers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6378/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Delux Polymers Pvt. Ltd., V. Dcit – Central Circle – 5(3) Air India Building, Nariman Point Raghuvanshi Mills Compound Mumbai – 400 021 Senapati Bapat Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400013 Pan: Aaacd4132B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 271(1)(c)

…hat penalty proceedings were initiated by the AO in the assessment order. The Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) does not have to be specifically invoked, as it is part of the substantive provision as held by the Apex Court (refer KP Madhusudhanan vs CIT (SC) 251 ITR 99). After insertion of Expn. 1 to sec. 271(1)(c), the law on concealment has become stiffer. The Explanation as it stands now is a complete code having the following features: (i) Every difference between reported and assessed income needs an explanation. (ii) If no explanation is offered, levy of penalty may be justified (iii) if explanation is off…

D.C.I.T., CC-4(4), Kolkata vs. Gallon Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 590/KOL/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. CIT, DRFor Respondent: Shri Miraj D. Shah, AR

Section 133ASection 147Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…order, in paragraph 4.d.,Ld. AO has admitted that he did not specify the particular limb in his notice u/s 274 rws271(1)c of the Act. On the contrary, he has placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.P. Madhusudhananv. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99 to argue that there was no need to strike out the limb not relevant, meaning thereby that there was no need to strike out one of the-two limbs mentioned on the said notice…"concealment of particulars of income" and "furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income". Therefore, it is undisputed that Ld. AO did, indeed not strike out the limb, not app…

D.C.I.T., CC-4(4), Kolkata vs. Eversight Tradecomm Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

ITA 589/KOL/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Jan 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 139(2)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 22(1)Section 22(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…has admitted that he did not specify the particular limb in his notice u/s 274 r/w section 271(1)(c) of the Act. On the contrary, he has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon ble Apex court in the case of K.P. Madhusudhanan Vs CIT [2001] 118 Taxman 324/251 ITR 99 to argue that there was no need to strike out the limb not relevant, meaning thereby that there was no need to strike out one of the two limbs mentioned on the said notice – “concealment of particulars of income" and "furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.” Therefore, it is undisputed that the AO did indeed not strike out the limb not app…

D.C.I.T., CC-4(4), Kolkata vs. Eversight Trade Comm Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

ITA 588/KOL/2022[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Jan 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 139(2)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 22(1)Section 22(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…has admitted that he did not specify the particular limb in his notice u/s 274 r/w section 271(1)(c) of the Act. On the contrary, he has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon ble Apex court in the case of K.P. Madhusudhanan Vs CIT [2001] 118 Taxman 324/251 ITR 99 to argue that there was no need to strike out the limb not relevant, meaning thereby that there was no need to strike out one of the two limbs mentioned on the said notice – “concealment of particulars of income" and "furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.” Therefore, it is undisputed that the AO did indeed not strike out the limb not app…

D.C.I.T., CC-4(4), Kolkata vs. Eversight Trade Comm Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

ITA 587/KOL/2022[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Jan 2023AY 2008-2009

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 139(2)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 22(1)Section 22(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…has admitted that he did not specify the particular limb in his notice u/s 274 r/w section 271(1)(c) of the Act. On the contrary, he has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon ble Apex court in the case of K.P. Madhusudhanan Vs CIT [2001] 118 Taxman 324/251 ITR 99 to argue that there was no need to strike out the limb not relevant, meaning thereby that there was no need to strike out one of the two limbs mentioned on the said notice – “concealment of particulars of income" and "furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.” Therefore, it is undisputed that the AO did indeed not strike out the limb not app…

Arjun Singh, Kota vs. ACIT, Circle-I

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 106/JPR/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT

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

…Punjab and Haryana High Court in Viswakarma Industries Vs. CIT (1982) 135 ITR 652. Similar view has been expressed by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs. K.P. Madhusudan reported in 246 ITR 218. This decision has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in 251 ITR 99. Affirming the aforesaid decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that after insertion of explanation its earlier decision in the case of Sir Shadi Lal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 168 ITR 705 (SC) was no longer applicable. The Kerala High Court at page 244 has observed as under:- "The question of onus is of primary…

Shri Shwetal J. Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 493/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Jha, Sr.D.R

Section 143(3)Section 254(2)Section 271(1)(c)

…mann Com 448 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ruled, "voluntary disclosure does not absolve assessee, bonafide explanation of income required". The facts of the case also make it amenable to the judgment against it in the case of K.P. Madhusudhanan Vs. CIT 251 ITR 99 (SC). Further, as per judgments, additional income in response to notice u/s. 148, penalty on additional income confirmed in the case laws PC Joseph & Bros. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 818 (Ker.) Narain Das Suraj Bhan Vs. CST 21 STC 104 (SC) The dictionary meaning of the word concealment is to hide, to keep secret. The Explanation to section 271(1)(c) does no…

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

…me cases, there can be overlapping of the two offences. In this case, the appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and concealed its income. 5.8. Hon'ble Supreme Court, Three Member Bench, decided in the case of K.PMadhusudhanan Vs CIT (20O1) 251 ITR 99 (SC) as below: (a) Explanation - 1 below Section 271(1) being integral part of Section 271 (1) (c) can be used even where it was not invoked in the show cause notice u/s.274 r.w.s,271(1) (c). Thus, the contrary decision of the Mumbai High Court in the case of CITVs P.M. Shah (1993) 204 ITR 462 (Bom) stands overruled. (b) After introduction of the…

Jain Peripherals P.Ltd, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-13(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 7640/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Jain, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ravi Kant Choudhary, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…e particulars, thereby claiming losses, instead of actual long term capital gain, as held by the AO. Reliance is placed to the judgment by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd. 327 ITR 51 and also KP Madhusudan vs. CIT, 251 ITR 99 (SC), Thakur Hariprasad vs. CIT, 167 ITR 603 (AP). 5.6 Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of this case and following the above referred judgments and as discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, no interference is made with reference to the imposition of penalty on additions amounting to Rs.78,95,407/-, @ 100% of tax sought to be evade…

Giovanni John Manuel Vaz, Vasco-Da-Gama vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Margao

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 392/PAN/2018[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji02 Sept 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2001-02 Giovanni John Acit, Circle-1, Margao Manuel Vaz Vs. Karma Plaza, Vasco-Da- Gama, Goa - 403701 Pan: Acepv 5611 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-1, Panaji In Ita No.53/Mrg/2007-08 Dated 02.07.2018 Against The Order Passed By Ito, Ward-5, Margao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) For A.Y. 2001-02. 2. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee In The Present Appeal Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. DR

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 5A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘PANAJI’ BENCH, PANAJI-GOA BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2001-02 GIOVANNI JOHN ACIT, Circle-1, Margao MANUEL VAZ Vs. Karma Plaza, Vasco-da- Gama, Goa - 403701 PAN: ACEPV 5611 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 15.06.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 02.09.2022 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of Ld. CIT(A)-1, Panaji in ITA No.53/MRG/2007-08 dated 0…

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

…f his income, consequently, case is befitting the levy without any express invocation of the explanation, and to buttress the said argument, reliance is also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in 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). ITAT-Pune Page 7 of 14 Shri Praphull Kaluram Shivale PAN :BFQPS4176B Asstt Yr.: 2015-16 6. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties; and subject to the provisions of rule 18 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 [for short “ITAT, Rules”] perused t…

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

…d penalty upon assessee for concealment of income under section 271(1 )(c) because positive income of assessee was reduced to nil after allowing set-off of carried forward losses of earlier years 10. K.P. Madhusudhanan Vs CIT [2001] 118 Taxman 324 (SC)/[2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC)/[2001] 169 CTR 489 (SC)] 4 | P a g e The Hon’ble Apex Court held that the onus is on the assessee to prove that he has not concealed or furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where assessee was unable to furnish evidence for loans and it offered amount of transaction as additional income, Assessing Of…

K.P.Madhusudhanan v. CIT

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

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing K.P.Madhusudhanan v. CIT

D.Senthil Kumar, Chennai vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

Paramount Blankets Private Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-3, Panipat

Kaveri Polymers, Warangal vs. DCIT, Central Circle -1(3), Hyderabad

Kaveri Infra Project Pvt Ltd, Warangal vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

Kaveri Infra Project Pvt Ltd, Warangal vs. DCIT, Central Circle -1(3), Hyderabad

M/S Delux Polymes P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 5(3), Mumbai

M/S Delux Polymers P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-5(3), Mumbai

M/S. Realtime Properties Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-5(3), Mumbai

Delux Polymers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(3), Mumbai

D.C.I.T., CC-4(4), Kolkata vs. Gallon Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

D.C.I.T., CC-4(4), Kolkata vs. Eversight Tradecomm Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

D.C.I.T., CC-4(4), Kolkata vs. Eversight Trade Comm Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

D.C.I.T., CC-4(4), Kolkata vs. Eversight Trade Comm Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

Arjun Singh, Kota vs. ACIT, Circle-I

Shri Shwetal J. Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

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

Jain Peripherals P.Ltd, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-13(1), New Delhi

Giovanni John Manuel Vaz, Vasco-Da-Gama vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Margao

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

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