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

United Airlines vs. DDIT Non- Resident, Circle

ITA 1692/DEL/2008[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2022AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 1996-97 & Assessment Year: 1997-98 & Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-00 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 United Airlines, Vs. Dcit/Ddit Amba Deep Building, Non-Resident Circle, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaacu4427C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)(i)Section 271(1)(c)

…958/Del/2014 7. B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co Vs CIT [116 Taxman 842, 236 ITR 977, 157 CTR 556] 8. CIT Vs R.M.P. Plasto (P.) Ltd [184 Taxman 372 (SC)/[2009] 313 ITR 397 (SC)/[2009] 227 CTR 635] 9. K.P. Madhusudhanan Vs CIT [[2001] 118 Taxman 324 (SC)/[2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC)/[2001] 169 CTR 489 (SC) 10. Delta Airlines, Inc. Vs. ADIT, [2015] 57 taxmann.com 1 (Mumbai – Trib.) 11. ADIT Vs. Delta Airlines Inc. (ITA No. 2801/Mum/2002 & Ors., dt. 29.09.2008) 8. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the assessee submitted, the ratio laid down by the Tribunal in case of British Airways (supra) is not applicable to assessee’…

United Airlines vs. DDIT Non- Resident, Circle

ITA 1691/DEL/2008[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2022AY 1998-1999

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 1996-97 & Assessment Year: 1997-98 & Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-00 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 United Airlines, Vs. Dcit/Ddit Amba Deep Building, Non-Resident Circle, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaacu4427C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)(i)Section 271(1)(c)

…958/Del/2014 7. B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co Vs CIT [116 Taxman 842, 236 ITR 977, 157 CTR 556] 8. CIT Vs R.M.P. Plasto (P.) Ltd [184 Taxman 372 (SC)/[2009] 313 ITR 397 (SC)/[2009] 227 CTR 635] 9. K.P. Madhusudhanan Vs CIT [[2001] 118 Taxman 324 (SC)/[2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC)/[2001] 169 CTR 489 (SC) 10. Delta Airlines, Inc. Vs. ADIT, [2015] 57 taxmann.com 1 (Mumbai – Trib.) 11. ADIT Vs. Delta Airlines Inc. (ITA No. 2801/Mum/2002 & Ors., dt. 29.09.2008) 8. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the assessee submitted, the ratio laid down by the Tribunal in case of British Airways (supra) is not applicable to assessee’…

United Airlines vs. DCIT, Non Resident Cir

ITA 217/DEL/2000[1997-1998]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2022AY 1997-1998

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 1996-97 & Assessment Year: 1997-98 & Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-00 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 United Airlines, Vs. Dcit/Ddit Amba Deep Building, Non-Resident Circle, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaacu4427C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)(i)Section 271(1)(c)

…958/Del/2014 7. B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co Vs CIT [116 Taxman 842, 236 ITR 977, 157 CTR 556] 8. CIT Vs R.M.P. Plasto (P.) Ltd [184 Taxman 372 (SC)/[2009] 313 ITR 397 (SC)/[2009] 227 CTR 635] 9. K.P. Madhusudhanan Vs CIT [[2001] 118 Taxman 324 (SC)/[2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC)/[2001] 169 CTR 489 (SC) 10. Delta Airlines, Inc. Vs. ADIT, [2015] 57 taxmann.com 1 (Mumbai – Trib.) 11. ADIT Vs. Delta Airlines Inc. (ITA No. 2801/Mum/2002 & Ors., dt. 29.09.2008) 8. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the assessee submitted, the ratio laid down by the Tribunal in case of British Airways (supra) is not applicable to assessee’…

United Airlines vs. DCIT, Non Resident Cir

ITA 216/DEL/2000[1996-1997]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2022AY 1996-1997

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 1996-97 & Assessment Year: 1997-98 & Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-00 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 United Airlines, Vs. Dcit/Ddit Amba Deep Building, Non-Resident Circle, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaacu4427C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)(i)Section 271(1)(c)

…958/Del/2014 7. B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co Vs CIT [116 Taxman 842, 236 ITR 977, 157 CTR 556] 8. CIT Vs R.M.P. Plasto (P.) Ltd [184 Taxman 372 (SC)/[2009] 313 ITR 397 (SC)/[2009] 227 CTR 635] 9. K.P. Madhusudhanan Vs CIT [[2001] 118 Taxman 324 (SC)/[2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC)/[2001] 169 CTR 489 (SC) 10. Delta Airlines, Inc. Vs. ADIT, [2015] 57 taxmann.com 1 (Mumbai – Trib.) 11. ADIT Vs. Delta Airlines Inc. (ITA No. 2801/Mum/2002 & Ors., dt. 29.09.2008) 8. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the assessee submitted, the ratio laid down by the Tribunal in case of British Airways (supra) is not applicable to assessee’…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Jabalpur vs. Madhya Pradesh Power Generating Co. Ltd., Jabalpur

In the result, the Revenue's appeal is dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 251/JAB/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur23 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Bardia, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Halder, DR
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

…ioned in the show cause notice, and not de hors the same. The case law in the matter is legion (viz. Mak Data (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC); Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC); K.P. Madhusudhanan vs. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC); B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. v. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 977 (SC); Addl. CIT vs. Jeevan Lal Shah [1994] 205 ITR 244 (SC); CIT vs. K.R. Sadayappan [1990] 185 ITR 49 (SC)), so that the law in its respect, succinctly stated, is that a plausible explanation, supported by facts, saves penalty. Rather, inasmuch as implicit therein is the concept of 'rea…

Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Satara vs. Karad Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd, Satara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2600/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2600/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward- 1, Vs. Karad Janata Sahakari Bank Satara. Ltd., A/P. 100/101, Shivaji Nagar, Karad, Tal. Karad, Dist. Satara-415110. Pan : Aaaat7863R Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare : Date Of Hearing : 18.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.01.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 4, Pune [‘Cit(A)’ For Short] Dated 08.05.2017 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Revenue Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. C I T (A) Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs. 59,00,884/- Levied U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act Holding That The Ao Was Not Able To Prove That Is A Fit Case For Imposition Of Penalty Either Under The Main Part Of Section U/S. 271(1)(C) Or Under The Deeming Provisions Of Explanation 1 To Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 3Section 36(1)(viia)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE – VIRTUAL COURT BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2600/PUN/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 ITO, Ward- 1, Vs. Karad Janata Sahakari Bank Satara. Ltd., A/p. 100/101, Shivaji Nagar, Karad, Tal. Karad, Dist. Satara-415110. PAN : AAAAT7863R Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Shri M. G. Jasnani Assessee by Smt. Deepa Khare : Date of hearing : 18.01.2022 Date of pronouncement : 18.01.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by the Revenue d…

Peartree Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-19(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7225/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Shivani Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 2(24)(x)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35DSection 36(1)(v)Section 40Section 40A(3)

…/- on account of unverifiable expenses out of expenditure claimed under the head machinery, running and maintenance. 6. While confirming the penalty, the ld. CIT (A) relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. P. Madhusudan vs. CIT, 251 ITR 99 wherein it was held that the onus is on the assessee to prove that he has not concealed or furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. Further, he relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UOI & Others vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors & Others 306 ITR 277 wherein it was held that the penalty is a civil liability and mens…

Cheraku Sarotham Reddy, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1162/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Smt. V. Srilatha, ARFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, DR
Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…llery or entry in books of accounts u/s 271(1)(c) Explanation 5A is attracted in the given facts and circumstances before us. It also takes care of learned CIT-DR’s contention in the light of hon’ble apex Court’s decision in K. P. Madhusudhanan Vs. CIT (2001) 251 ITR 99 (SC) that invocation of the main provision u/s 271 also includes the Explanation therein. We conclude with these facts and circumstances that the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in imposing the impugned penalties in all these assessment orders in violation of the specific conditions u/s 271(1)(c) Explanation 5A of the Act.…

Cheraku Sarotham Reddy, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1161/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Smt. V. Srilatha, ARFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, DR
Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…llery or entry in books of accounts u/s 271(1)(c) Explanation 5A is attracted in the given facts and circumstances before us. It also takes care of learned CIT-DR’s contention in the light of hon’ble apex Court’s decision in K. P. Madhusudhanan Vs. CIT (2001) 251 ITR 99 (SC) that invocation of the main provision u/s 271 also includes the Explanation therein. We conclude with these facts and circumstances that the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in imposing the impugned penalties in all these assessment orders in violation of the specific conditions u/s 271(1)(c) Explanation 5A of the Act.…

Cheraku Sarotham Redd, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1160/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Smt. V. Srilatha, ARFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, DR
Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…llery or entry in books of accounts u/s 271(1)(c) Explanation 5A is attracted in the given facts and circumstances before us. It also takes care of learned CIT-DR’s contention in the light of hon’ble apex Court’s decision in K. P. Madhusudhanan Vs. CIT (2001) 251 ITR 99 (SC) that invocation of the main provision u/s 271 also includes the Explanation therein. We conclude with these facts and circumstances that the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in imposing the impugned penalties in all these assessment orders in violation of the specific conditions u/s 271(1)(c) Explanation 5A of the Act.…

Cheraku Sarotham Reddy, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1159/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Smt. V. Srilatha, ARFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, DR
Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…llery or entry in books of accounts u/s 271(1)(c) Explanation 5A is attracted in the given facts and circumstances before us. It also takes care of learned CIT-DR’s contention in the light of hon’ble apex Court’s decision in K. P. Madhusudhanan Vs. CIT (2001) 251 ITR 99 (SC) that invocation of the main provision u/s 271 also includes the Explanation therein. We conclude with these facts and circumstances that the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in imposing the impugned penalties in all these assessment orders in violation of the specific conditions u/s 271(1)(c) Explanation 5A of the Act.…

Cheraku Sarotham Reddy, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1158/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Smt. V. Srilatha, ARFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, DR
Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…llery or entry in books of accounts u/s 271(1)(c) Explanation 5A is attracted in the given facts and circumstances before us. It also takes care of learned CIT-DR’s contention in the light of hon’ble apex Court’s decision in K. P. Madhusudhanan Vs. CIT (2001) 251 ITR 99 (SC) that invocation of the main provision u/s 271 also includes the Explanation therein. We conclude with these facts and circumstances that the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in imposing the impugned penalties in all these assessment orders in violation of the specific conditions u/s 271(1)(c) Explanation 5A of the Act.…

Pradeep Sood, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle- I, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 534/DEL/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Aug 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 534/Del/2018 (A.Y 2004-05) (Through Video Conferencing) Pradeep Sood Vs Dcit Rra Tax India, D-28, South Central Circle-1 Extension, Part-1, Faridabad, Haryana New Aezps3313K (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 534/DEL/2018 (A.Y 2004-05) (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) Pradeep Sood Vs DCIT RRA Tax India, D-28, South Central Circle-1 Extension, Part-1, Faridabad, Haryana New AEZPS3313K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Respondent by Sh. Shiv Swaroop Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 29.07.2021 Date of Pronouncement 16.08.2021 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 30/11/2017 passed by CIT…

DCIT, Chandigarh vs. Chandigarh Housing Board, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 102/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2021AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri A.K. Jindal, CA &For Respondent: Smt.C. Chandrakanta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…d penalty upon assesses 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. 11.K.P. Madhusudhanan Vs CIT [[2001l 118 Taxman 324 (SC)/[2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC}/[2001] 169 CTR 489 (SC)]where 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 Officer was justified in imposing penalty u/s271(1)(c) after finding the explanation to be unacceptable and applying Explanation 1(8) of the section. 5.2.2.…

Shri Mohamed Mohtram Farooqui, Jhunjhunu vs. ACIT, Circle, Jhunjhunu

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

ITA 1252/JPR/2019[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Dec 2020AY 1993-94
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Ms. Chanchal Meena (Addl. CIT)
Section 132(12)Section 132(4)Section 132(5)Section 132ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…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. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2001 251 ITR 99, 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 the amount that…

Coast Line Shipping (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4943/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ravi SawanaFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NOs. 4941, 4942 & 4943/MUM/2018 (A.Ys: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) M/s Coast Line Shipping (India) Pvt. Ltd., v. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 405-406-407, Mint Chambers, 45/47 Central Circle – 5(1) Mint Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 PAN: AACCC4110G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ravi Sawana Department by : Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora Date of Hearing : 13.12.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 3…

Coast Line Shipping (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4942/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ravi SawanaFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NOs. 4941, 4942 & 4943/MUM/2018 (A.Ys: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) M/s Coast Line Shipping (India) Pvt. Ltd., v. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 405-406-407, Mint Chambers, 45/47 Central Circle – 5(1) Mint Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 PAN: AACCC4110G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ravi Sawana Department by : Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora Date of Hearing : 13.12.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 3…

Coast Line Shipping (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4941/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ravi SawanaFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NOs. 4941, 4942 & 4943/MUM/2018 (A.Ys: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) M/s Coast Line Shipping (India) Pvt. Ltd., v. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 405-406-407, Mint Chambers, 45/47 Central Circle – 5(1) Mint Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 PAN: AACCC4110G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ravi Sawana Department by : Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora Date of Hearing : 13.12.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 3…

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

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

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

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar, DR
Section 133(6)Section 148Section 271Section 274

…because positive income of 19 I.T.A. No. 1617 to 1620/Mum/2018 Sandeep Bhimrao Lad & Sunny Ashok Lad assessee was reduced to nil after allowing set-off of carried forward losses of earlier years 12.K.P. Madhusudhanan Vs CIT [[2001] 118 Taxman 324 (SC)/[2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC)/[200t] 169 CTR 489 (SC)] where 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 Officer was justified in imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) after finding the explanation to be unacceptable and applying Explanation 1(B) of the section. 13.…

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

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

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

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

For Appellant: Mr. Bhadresh Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. S.K. Mishra, DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…) 12. CIT vs. R.M.P. Plasto (P) Ltd. It deals with the levy of penalty in case of a loss by [2009] 313 ITR 397 (SC) virtue of Explanation 4 which is not the case here. 13. K. P. Madhusudhanan vs. CIT It merely provides that no express invocation of the [2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC) Explanation to section 271 in the notice under section 271 is necessary before the provisions of the Explanation therein are applied. It does not deal with the non-striking off issue. 14. Earthmoving Equipment This decision has been considered in the case of Service Corporation vs. DCIT Jeetmal Choraria vs. ACIT [2018] 91 taxmann.com 166 ITD…