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 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 366,314 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 147 Section 148 Section 274 Section 139 Section 149 Section 153A

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

penalty under section 271(1)(c)furnishing inaccurate particulars of income penalty u/s 271(1)(c)furnishing inaccurate particulars concealment of income section 274 section 271(1)levy of penalty section 271 section 271(1)(c)section 27 commissioner (appeals)

Judgments citing K.P.Madhusudhanan v. CIT

Sumita Shreegopal Barasia, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 16(1), Mumbai

ITA 4909/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble G. Manjunatha, Ajm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4909/Mum/2015 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi TFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Soni

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

…specified that the Assessee has concealed particulars of income?” 12. As per learned AR, in the case of Baisetty Revathi before the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court, the department had relied on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of K P Madhusudhan, 251 ITR 99 and the same was distinguished and penalty was deleted following ratio laid down in case of Manjunatha (supra). The relevant of the said judgment is reproduced below:- "Smt. Kiranmayee, learned counsel, placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.P. MADHUSUDHAN'AN V/s. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN . Therein, ?the Supreme Court…

Harish Kumar HUF, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-34(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1469/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Dr. B.R.R. Kumara.Y. : 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Naveen ND Gupta, CA & Sh. AshuFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 288ASection 94(7)

…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 VsCIT [[2001] 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 (B) of the section.” “…

Gaurav Garg, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5716/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 132ASection 13ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69A

…and Haryana High Court in Viswakarma Industries Vs. CIT (1982) 135 ITR 652. (vii) Similar view has been expressed by the Kerala High Court in the ease of CIT Vs. K.P. Madhusudana 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 ShadiLal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 168 ITR 705 (SC) was no longer applicable. (viii) The Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sohan Singh 254 ITR 170 has. held that for…

Mitsuboshi Belting India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Range 15(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 448/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 37Section 44A

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Amarjit Singh (JM) I.T.A. No. 448/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2013-14) Mitsuboshi Belting India P. Ltd. ACIT Range 15(2)(2) Vs. R-672, Ground & Upper Floor Aayakar Bhavan Next to Alpha Laval, Pipeline M.K. Road Road, TTC Industrial Area Mumbai-400 020. Rabale MIDC, Navi Mumbai. PAN : AAGCM9369K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri M.P.Lohia Department by Shri S.K. Mitra Date of Hearing 9.5.2019 Date of Pronouncement 9.7.2019 O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM):- This appeal by the assessee is directed against the orde…

Mesers Malwa Motors, Bathinda vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Bathinda

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

ITA 131/ASR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 131/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

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

…s income. Reference in this context may be drawn to a series of decisions by the Apex Court in the matter, viz. Mak Data (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC); UoI 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); CIT (Addl.) vs. Jeevan Lal Shah [1994] 205 ITR 244 (SC); CIT vs. K. R. Sadayappan [1990] 185 ITR 49 (SC)), to cite some, followed by Hon’ble High Courts throughout the country, including the jurisdictional High Court, as in CIT v. Lalchand Tirath Ram [1997] 225 ITR 675 (P&H); Prem…

Puneet Saluja, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3497/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 133ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…152 ITR 529 / 20 Taxman 215(Mad.), CIT v. Mussadilal Ram Bharose [1987] 165 ITR 14 /30 Taxman 546H; CIT v. K.R. Sadayappan [1990] 185 ITR 49/51 Taxman 304 , Addl. CIT v. Jeevan Lai Sah[1994] 205 ITR 244 / 73 Taxman 182 (SC) and K.P. Madhusudanan v. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99/ 118 Taxman 324 (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 sec. 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 inf…

Manish Goyal, Ajmer vs. DCIT, Ajmer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 653/JPR/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Jun 2019AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Roshanta Meena (JCIT)

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

…to addition to his income it does not follow that the amount agreed to be added was concealed income. However, this decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considered by the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Madhusudhanan Vs CIT 251 ITR 99 and it was overruled and held to be no longer a good law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the proposition laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sir Shadi Lal Sugar & General Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) is not applicable after addition of explanation to Section 271 of the Act. In the instant case, which relates to the A.Y. 2005-06, p…

Transwind Communication Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, (OSD), Circle-8, Ahmedabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1538/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Jignesh Kumar Parikh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri James Kurian, Sr. D.R

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…s of revenue. The penalty under that provision is a civil liability. Wilful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability as is the case in the matter of prosecution under Section 276Cofthe I.T. Act. 10.2.3 CIT vs K. P. Madhusudnan 251 ITR 99(SC). The verbatim quote of Supereme Court is as below: [2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC).: When the Income-tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner issues to an assessee a notice under section 271, he makes the assessee aware that the provisions thereof are to be used against him. These provisions include the Explanation. ....... The assessee is…

Sony Dadc Manufacturing (India ) P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 11(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3648/MUM/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Sheth, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…vs. Escorts Finance Ltd. (183 Taxman 453 (Delhi)/(2010) 328 ITR 44 (Delhi)/(2009) 226 CTR 105 11. CIT vs. R.M.P. Plasto (P.) Ltd. (184 Taxman 372 (SC)/(2009) 313 ITR 397 (SC)/(2009) 227 CTR 635) 12. K.P. Madhusudhanan vs. CIT (2010) 118 Taxman 324 (SC)/(2001) 251 ITR 99 (SC)/(2001) 169 CTR 489 (SC) 5 M/s. Sony DADC Manufacturing (India) Pvt. Ltd. 7. The Ld. D.R. also filed the written submissions at the time of hearing. 8. After hearing both the parties and perusing the material on record, we observe that in this case the AO initiated penalty proceedings in the assessment order dated 23.3.2014 for furnishing of…

Sonali D. Mehta, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17 (3) Erstwhile Deputy Commissioner Income Tax 12(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6708/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Paresh Shaparia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…(183 Taxman 453 (Delhi)/(2010) 328 ITR 44 (Delhi)/(2009) 226 CTR 105 6 Mrs. Sonali D. Mehta 11. CIT vs. R.M.P. Plasto (P.) Ltd. (184 Taxman 372 (SC)/(2009) 313 ITR 397 (SC)/(2009) 227 CTR 635) 12. K.P. Madhusudhanan vs. CIT (2010) 118 Taxman 324 (SC)/(2001) 251 ITR 99 (SC)/(2001) 169 CTR 489 (SC) 7. The Ld. D.R. also filed the written submissions at the time of hearing. 8. After hearing both the parties and perusing the material on record, we observe that in this case the AO initiated penalty proceedings in the assessment order dated 06.12.2010 for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income at page No.6 o…