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 366,005 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 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

M/S N N Jewellers, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2-1, Jaipur

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in

ITA 64/JPR/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA)For Respondent: Ms. Anuradha (JCIT)

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR Jh jes'k lh 'kekZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 63 to 68/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2005-06 to 2010-11 cuke M/s N N Jewellers, I.T.O., Vs. 3261-3262, Majid Mansion, Ward 2(1), Nawab Ka Chouraha, Ghat Gate, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABFN 3331 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Ms. Anuradha (JCIT) lquo…

Punjab Sind Dairy Products P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 33, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 6247/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6246 & 6247/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 & 2007-08) बिाम/ Punjab Sind Dairy Product Acit Central Circle- P. Ltd., 33,Room No. 32(3), Ag-2 Cama Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, V. Estate, Walbhatt Road, Mumbai-400020 Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400063 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aadcp5419Q (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. K.K. Lalkaka (Ar) Revenue By: Shri. D.G Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 16.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 6246 & 6247/Mum/2017, Are Directed Against Two Separate Appellate Orders Both Dated 22.08.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It- 123/2012-13 & Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It-124/2012-13 Respectively, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2006-07 & 2007- 08 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Two Separate Penalty Orders Both Dated 29.03.2012 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(C)

For Appellant: Shri. K.K. Lalkaka (AR)For Respondent: Shri. D.G Pansari (DR)

Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “C” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6246 & 6247/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 & 2007-08) बिाम/ Punjab Sind Dairy Product ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- P. Ltd., 33,Room No. 32(3), AG-2 Cama Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, v. Estate, Walbhatt Road, Mumbai-400020 Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400063 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN: AADCP5419Q (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri. K.K. Lalkaka (AR) Revenue by: Shri. D.G Pansari (DR)…

Punjab Sind Dairy Products P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 33, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 6246/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri. K.K. Lalkaka (AR)For Respondent: Shri. D.G Pansari (DR)

Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

Sh. Ruchi Sharma, Jammu vs. The Income Tax Officer, Jammu

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

ITA 135/ASR/2017[200910]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar08 Mar 2019

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 135/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Pankaj Gandotra (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

…he matter well settled per a series of decisions by the Apex Court, for which one may refer to (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 and Bros v. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 977 (SC); Addl. CIT vs. Jeevan Lal Shah [1994] 205 3 Ruchi Sharma v. ITO 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, as by the jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Lalchand Tirath Ram [1997] 225 ITR 6…

M/S. Padmini Infrastructure Developers India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1002/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri K.N. Chary & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, FCA and Shri Somil Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…etc. (from which A.O. could with due diligence discover something) does not amount to true, full and correct disclosure on the part of the assessee so far as taxing of income is concerned. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P.Madhusudan vs. CIT", 251 ITR 99 has held that the onus is on the assessee to prove that he has not concealed or furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. Ti e Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UOI vs. Dharmendra Textile Processor has held that the penalty is a civil liability and mens rea is not required to be established by the revenue. Similarly, Hon’ble Supreme Court in…

Vaswani Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3005/MUM/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Mohan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra, DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 166Section 24Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ncome so as to levy penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. The AO after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also considering certain judicial precedents including decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Madhusudan Vs. CIT [251 ITR 99] (SC) held that assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and concealed the particulars of its income in terms of Explanation-1 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, he opined that it is a fit case for levying penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) and accordingly levied penalty of Rs. 3,99,356/-, which is 100% of tax sought to be awarded. T…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Action Ispat and Power Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 3021/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Action Ispat & Power Pvt. Ltd., 5Th Floor, Itl Twin Tower, Circle-1(2), . New Delhi. Block A, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi. Pan: Aaeca9671L

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. DR

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…ase of CIT vs. Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd., 327 ITR 51, the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors, 166 taxman 65; Guljag Industries Ltd. vs. CPO, 293 ITR 584 (SC);and K.P. Madhusudan vs. CIT, 251 ITR 99 (SC), the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.45,59,500/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. 8. Before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the genuineness of the term loan taken for purchase of Plant & Machinery and genuineness of the interest paid on the said term loan is not in dispute. The payment of interest was disclosed in the return of…

M/S Mann & Hummel Filter Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 798/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)(Bengaluru)

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2010-11 M/s. Mann & Hummel Filter Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Plot No.231/1, 11th Main Road, Income Tax, 1st Stage, 3rd Phase, Circle 12(1), Peenya Industrial Area, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 058. PAN: AAECM 4056D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue by : Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)(Bengaluru) Date of hearing : 04.12.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 31.12.2018 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudeva…

Sh. Maninder Singh Prop. M/S Dashmesh Bricks, Bathinda vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Bathinda

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 440/ASR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A No.440/Asr/2017 Assessment Year:2011-12

For Appellant: Written SubmissionsFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R)

Section 268ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…The law in the matter is trite, explained by the Hon’ble Apex Court per a series of decisions, 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 and 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 7 Maninder Singh, Bathinda vs. ITO (SC), to cite some, followed by Hon’ble High Courts throughout the country, as by the jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Lalchand Tirath Ram [19…

Sh. Ashok Kumar Chauhan, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2988/DEL/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri N.S.Saini

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI N.S.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.-2988/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2002-03) Ashok Kumar Chauhan vs ITO Prop. M/s. Gurucharan Ward-26(2) Jewellers 17/2, Tilak Nagar New Delhi New Delhi PAN : AAAPC1500F Assessee by Shri S.Singhvi, & Sh. Satyajit Goel, CA Revenue by Shri S.S,Rana, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing 19.12.2018 Date of Pronouncement 21.12.2018 ORDER PER N.S.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, New Delhi…

Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, Ludhiana vs. ITO, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 372/CHANDI/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Us Challenging The Levy Of Penalty Both On Legal Ground As Well As On Merits Of The Case :

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Garg, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40

…appended to sec 271(l)(c) indicate the element of strict liability of the assessee and the penalty is a civil liability and willful concealment is not an essential ingredient. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of K.P.Madhusudanan vs. CIT 251 ITR 99 that by virtue of the notice u/s 271, the assessee is put to notice that if he does not prove that his failure to return his correct income was not due to fraud or neglect, he shall be deemed to have concealed particulars of income or furnish inaccurate particulars thereof. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court held in the case of CIT vs. M. Habibullah…

Shri Hasmukhbhai Bachubhai Radadia, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2742/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2742/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Hashmukhbhai Bachubhai Vs. Dcit, Radadia, Circle – 3(3), 492, Avadh, Opp. Amul Ice- Ahmedabad. Cream Parlour, Lad Society Road, Vastrapur, Ahmedabad. (Pan No. Aaqpr 7176 N) , , अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri U. S. Bhati & Abhimanyu Bhati, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02.08.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2018 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Appellate Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Ahmedabad [“Cit(A)” In Short] Dated 22.09.2016 Relevant To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1.0 The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Penalty Order. 2.0 The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Concluding That Mistake Committed By The Appellant Was Intentional. He Has Further Erred In Not Considering The Explanation Of The Appellant Duly Supported By The Affidavits To The Effect That The Advocate

For Appellant: Shri U. S. Bhati & AbhimanyuFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R

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

…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.) Naram 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 27l(1)(c) does no…

The DCIT, Circle-3(1), Baroda vs. M/S/ Amar Mining Company, Baroda

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1032/AHD/2016[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Oct 2018AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 1998-99

For Appellant: Apoorva Bharadwaj, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Soparkar &

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

…ed in the case of CIT vs. Mussadilal Rambharose, 165 ITR, 14, 20 (SC); CIT vs. K.R. Sadyappan, 185 ITR 49 (SC), CIT (Addl.) vs. Jeevan Lal Shah, 205 ITR 244 (SC), B.A. Balasurbramaniam and Brothers Co. vs. CIT 236 ITR 977, 978 (SC) and KP Madhusudhan vs. CIT, 251 ITR 99 (SC). Reliance is also placed on the recent decision of Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Dharmendra Textile Processors Ltd., 306 ITR 277 (SC), wherein it has been held that "the explanations appended to Section 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961 indicate the element of strict liability on the assessee for concealment or for giving inaccurate p…

Sanjay Namdeo Bharti, Nashik vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 155/PUN/2016[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Oct 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri "ी "ी क"णाकरा राव क"णाकरा राव लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी "याियक सद"य के सम" "याियक सद"य के सम" D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 155/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2001-02 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri M. K. Verma

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…addition in the quantum case but is not sufficient to penalise the assessee under section 271(l)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. We are unable to agree with the learned Departmental Representative that the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in [2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC) (supra) shall be applied being later in time than the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in [2001] 251 ITR 9 (SC) (supra) for the reason that both the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court were declared on different grounds. We are also not impressed with the argument of the learned Departmental Representative that the decision of the Hon'ble Apex…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sitashri Trading & Finance Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2295/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Tiwari, Sr.DR

Section 10Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 14Section 143(2)Section 14A

…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 12. K.P. Madhusudhanan Vs CIT [[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 (8) of the section 13.A…

M/S. Capital Power Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2257/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13 Capital Power Infrastructure Pvt. Acit, Circle- 5(2), Ltd., New Delhi. A- 156, Lower Ground Floor, Vs. New Friends Colony, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Ms. Himani Agrawal, CA

Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…Bros. Co. vs. CIT, 236 ITR 977. (viii) CIT vs. Gates Foam & Rubber Co., 91 ITR 467. (ix) Steel Ingots Ltd. vs. CIT, 296 ITR 228. (x) CIT vs. Escorts Finance Ltd., 328 ITR 44. (xi) CIT vs. R.M.P. Plasto (P.) Ltd., 313 ITR 397. (xii) K.P. Madhusudhanan vs. CIT, 251 ITR 99. (xiii) CIT vs. Splender Construction, 208 taxmann.com 302. 9. He submitted that since the assessee in the instant case could not justify the expenses claimed by it in the Profit & Loss Account and has surrendered the income during the course of assessment proceeding, therefore, the assessee has concealed its particulars of income and furnished i…

Smt. Kamal Gandhi, Nawanshehar vs. A.C.I.T, Central Circle- II, Jalandhar

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 458/ASR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 458/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. M. R. Bhagat & Rajinder Kumar ChopraFor Respondent: Smt. Parwinder Kaur, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I. T. A. No. 458/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Kamal Gandhi, Bhatti Colony, Vs. Asst. C.I.T., Central Circle-II, Chandigarh Road, Nawanshahar Jalandhar [PAN: ADWPG 0708N] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. M. R. Bhagat & Rajinder Kumar Chopra Respondent by: Smt. Parwinder Kaur, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 07.08.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 28.08.2018 ORDER Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the Assessee directed against the Order by the Co…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - Central -3 vs. Oriental Pathways ( Nagpur) Pvt. Ltd

ITA/929/2018HC Delhi28 Aug 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 260ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 32

…of the Board's circular. With respect to the ratio laid down in ITA 929/2018+connected Page 13 of 16 the case of KP Madhusudan vs. CIT 251 ITR 99, it is seen that the same is not applicable in the present case because the appellant itself offered the withdrawal of depreciation, which was even not detected by the then AO in the first round of scrutiny proceedings. All the facts regarding claim of depreciation on road was clearly mentioned in the details submitted by the appellant and…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - Central -3 vs. Oriental Pathways ( Nagpur) Pvt. Ltd

ITA/932/2018HC Delhi28 Aug 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 260ASection 27Section 271Section 32

…ant is not related to survey proceedings nor a disclosure of additional income but claim of depreciation, revised in view of the Board's circular. With respect to the ratio laid down in ITA 929/2018+connected Page 12 of 16 the case of KP Madhusudan V5. CIT 251 ITR 99, it is seen that the same is not applicable in the present case because the appellant itself offered the withdrawal of depreciation, which was even not detected by the then AO in the first round of scrutiny proceedings. All the facts regarding claim of depreciation on road was clearly mentioned in the details submitted by the appellant and also me…

Anisha Khanna, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward- 1(1), Meerut

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 514/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Aug 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Rajkumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay Kumar Jiwani, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘C/SMC’, NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No:- 514/Del/2018 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ms. Anisha Khanna, ITO, 65-A, Saket, Vs. Ward 1(1), Meerut. Meerut. PAN No.-BFXPK9302N APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA No:- 513/Del/2018 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Smt. Anuradha Khanna, ITO, 65-A, Saket, Vs. Ward 1(1), Meerut. Meerut. PAN No.-AEZPK2688E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Sh. Rajkumar, CA Sh. P.S. kashyep, CA Sh. Sumit Goel, CA Revenue by : Sh. Vijay Kumar Jiwani, Sr. DR Date of Hearing :…