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

Bermaco Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-8(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2825/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Bermaco Industries Limited The Asst. Commissioner D-73/1, Ttc Industries Area, Of Income Tax Midc, Turbhe Central Circle-8(4), Vs. Navi Mumbai-400 705 Mumbai

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM Bermaco Industries Limited The Asst. Commissioner D-73/1, TTC Industries Area, of Income Tax MIDC, Turbhe Central Circle-8(4), Vs. Navi Mumbai-400 705 Mumbai Appellant .. Respondent PAN No.AAACB4325J Assessee by .. Ms. Shraddha Gor, AR Revenue by .. Kumar Sanjay, Ld. CIT DR Date of hearing .. 05-10-2017 Date of pronouncement .. 10-11-2017 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: 1. This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-47 Mumbai [in short CIT(A)]…

M/S Naresh Katare, Contractor, Gwalior vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-3, Gwalior

In the result, appeals of the assessee is allowed

ITA 53/AGR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra09 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Washim Arshad, Sr. DR
Section 145(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…an not be ruled out. III. 124 ITR 376 (Madras HC) Rathnam& co. vs. IAC. IV. 236 ITR 977 (SC) the apex court in the case of CIT vs B.A. Balasubramanian & Brothers Co. decision of hon’ble Madras High Court affirmed, cited 124 ITR 376. V. 118 Taxman 324 (SC) and 251 ITR 99 (SC) Maka Data VI. ITA. No. 3009/Ahd/2007/A.Y. 2001-02 M/s Harish Hosiery Mart. 6 ITA 53/Agra/2016 8. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the facts and written submissions placed on record. It is undisputed fact that the assessee’s taxable income was 9. assessed on estimated basis. In quantum appeal, before us, the net profit rate is re…

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/s Hyderabad Security and Off Set Printers Ltd

ITTA/500/2017HC Telangana07 Nov 2017

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

R.Vasuki, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 899/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Mrs. Veni Raj, Jt. CITFor Respondent: 03.08.2017
Section 131Section 133ASection 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…ce in this context; the law being trite, apart from the decision in Mak Data (supra), be made to the following decisions settling the law in the matter: 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); Sharma Alloys (India) Ltd. v. ITO [2013] 357 ITR 379 (Mad); and CIT vs. Nathulal Agarwala & Sons [1985] 153 ITR 292 (Pat)(FB), to name some. The ld. counsel, adducing a copy of the notice u/s. 274 dated 07.02.2014, argued befo…

M/S Sanraj Engineering Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5988/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh.G.D.Agarwal, Hon’Ble & Sh.K.N.Charysanraj Engineering Pvt.Ltd., Vs Ito, A-4/B-1, Mohan Coop Indl. Estate, Ward-7(3), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan-Aaccs6897E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Adv. Respondent By Sh. S.S.Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 27.10.2017 Order Per K.N.Chary

Section 133(6)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 46ASection 68

…essee’s own funds through such creditors, the assessee devised these unsecured loans and thereby they are guilty of furnishing of inaccurate particulars as such in view of the additions reported in K.P.Madhusudhanan vs CIT [2001] 118 Taxman 324 (SC)/[2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC)/ [2001] 169 CTR 489 (SC); Union of India vs Dharamendra Textile Processors [2007] 295 ITR 244; CIT vs Zoom Communication P.Ltd. (191 Taxman 179 [Delhi])/[2010] 327 ITR 510 (Delhi)/ [2010]233 CTR 465; MAK Data P.Ltd. vs CIT [38 taxmann.com 448 (SC)/ [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC)/(2013) 263 CTR 1]; B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co vs CIT [116 taxm…

P.Srinivasan, Salem vs. ITO, Salem

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is disposed of in the foregoing terms

ITA 1280/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Smt. Veni S.Raj, Jt. CITFor Respondent: 01.08.2017
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH ‘B’, CHENNAI "ी संजय अरोड़ा, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1280/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 P.Srinivasan, Income Tax Officer, Prop: M/s. Sri Dhanashree Textiles, Vs. Ward – I(1), Shop No.101, 102, Kamalam Complex, Salem. Dadubai Nagar, Salem – 636 001. [PAN: BXCPS 8105G] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Shri Lakshmi Venkatraman, FCA अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by :…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. American Express India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4422/DEL/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.C. Danday, Sr. DR
Section 10BSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 80H

….M.P. Plasto (P.) Ltd [184 Taxman 372 (SC)/[2009] 313 ITR 397 (SC)/[2009] 227 CTR 635] 10. CIT Vs Zoom Communication (P.) Ltd. [191 Taxman 179 (Delhi)/[2010] 327 ITR 510 (Delhi)/[2010] 233 CTR 465] 11. K.P. Madhusudhanan Vs CIT 2001 118 Taxman 324 (SC)/[2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC)/[2001] 169 CTR 489 (SC)].” He further submitted that penalty has rightly been levied by the Assessing Officer, because interest on income tax refund can never be treated or can be held as income from business activities or profits derived from the undertaking. Accordingly, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer should be confirmed. 9.…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Harveer Singh Kalra, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 6441/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita Nos. 6438 & 6439/Del/2016 : Asstt. Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Acit, Vs Smt. Mehar Anand, Central Circle-14, A-29, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110065 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afepa9193B Ita Nos. 6440 & 6441/Del/2016 : Asstt. Years : 2009-10 & 2011-12 Acit, Vs Sh. Harveer Singh Kalra, Central Circle-14, A-29, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110065 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afbpk6171Q Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ashish Chadha, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.05.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2017 Order These Appeals By The Department Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Each Dated 07.09.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xxvi, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…respect of which inaccurate particulars were furnished by the assessee. He, therefore, initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied the penalty of Rs.355/-. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " K. P. Madhusudan Vs CIT 251 ITR 99 (SC) " Tirupati Kumar Khemka & Another Vs CIT (2007) 291 ITR 122 (Mad.) " CIT Vs Escorts Finance Ltd. (2010) 328 ITR 44 (Del.) " CIT Vs Zoom Communications Ltd. (2010) 327 ITR 510 (Del.) " CIT Vs Harparshad and Company Ltd. (2010) 328 ITR 53 (Del.) " ACIT-CC-II(5) Vs Smt. J. Mythili (2014) 49 ITD 275 (Chennai) 7. Being aggrieved the assessee carri…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Smt. Mehar Anand, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 6438/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita Nos. 6438 & 6439/Del/2016 : Asstt. Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Acit, Vs Smt. Mehar Anand, Central Circle-14, A-29, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110065 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afepa9193B Ita Nos. 6440 & 6441/Del/2016 : Asstt. Years : 2009-10 & 2011-12 Acit, Vs Sh. Harveer Singh Kalra, Central Circle-14, A-29, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110065 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afbpk6171Q Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ashish Chadha, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.05.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2017 Order These Appeals By The Department Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Each Dated 07.09.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xxvi, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…respect of which inaccurate particulars were furnished by the assessee. He, therefore, initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied the penalty of Rs.355/-. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " K. P. Madhusudan Vs CIT 251 ITR 99 (SC) " Tirupati Kumar Khemka & Another Vs CIT (2007) 291 ITR 122 (Mad.) " CIT Vs Escorts Finance Ltd. (2010) 328 ITR 44 (Del.) " CIT Vs Zoom Communications Ltd. (2010) 327 ITR 510 (Del.) " CIT Vs Harparshad and Company Ltd. (2010) 328 ITR 53 (Del.) " ACIT-CC-II(5) Vs Smt. J. Mythili (2014) 49 ITD 275 (Chennai) 7. Being aggrieved the assessee carri…

Radha Govind Lashkari, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, it cannot be said to be case of concealment of income and the penalty to this extent stand deleted

ITA 141/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 May 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S. R. Sharma (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri O.P. Bhateja (Addl.CIT)
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 153ASection 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…oncealment. Here it would be relevant to refer to para 24 of the said decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court which reads as under: “The purpose of inserting Explanation 5 in the statute books was explained by the Supreme Court in K.P. Madhusudhanan v. CIT [2001]251 ITR 99 (SC), wherein the court held (page 104): “Learned counsel for the assessee then drew our attention to the judgment of this court in Sir Shadilal sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT Vs. ACIT Circle-2,Jaipur [1987] 168 ITR 705 (SC). He submitted that the assessee had agreed to the additions to his income referred to hereinabove to buy peace and it…

Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5865/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. K.V.S.R. Krishna, CAFor Respondent: None(application rejected)
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 43(1)Section 43(6)Section 45(7)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE : SHRI I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 5865/Del./2013 Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Oriental Bank of Commerce, vs. A.C.I.T., Circle 13(1), Central Accounts Officer, New Delhi. Plot No. 5, Sector-32, Institutional Area, Gurgaon. (PAN: AAACO 0191M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. K.V.S.R. Krishna, CA Respondent by : None(application rejected) Date of hearing : 07.04.2017 Date of pronouncement : 21.04.2017 ORDER Per L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member: This is an appeal filed by the assessee, M/s.…

Dhanraj Mills P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT (OSD)-II Cen RG-7, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3830/MUM/2009[1987-88]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2017AY 1987-88

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 271(1)(c)Section 273Section 68

…which was found during the course of search. The penalty was held to be rightly imposed. It is pertinent to mention here that the aforesaid conclusion was arrived at by the Tribunal even after considering the following cases. i. K.P. Madhusudan vs CIT (2001) 251 ITR 99 (SC)(Para -3) ii. CIT vs Reliance Petro Product Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (SC) (Para-5). iii. Sheraton Appealers vs. ACIT 256 ITR 20 (Bom) (para-6) iv. CIT vs Kanhaiyalal Sarupaia 299 ITR 19 (Raj.)(Para-11) v. ACIT vs Kirit Dahyabhai Patel 121 ITD 159 (Ahd.)(para-12) vi. CIT vs S.D.V. Chandru 266 ITR 175 (mad.)(Para-12) vii. Ajit B. Zota vs ACIT 40 SOT543…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-19 vs. Shri Neeraj Jindal

ITA/464/2016HC Delhi09 Feb 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 260Section 263Section 264Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…ncome 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…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-19 vs. Shri Ankur Aggarwal

ITA/465/2016HC Delhi09 Feb 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 260Section 263Section 264Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…ncome 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…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-19 vs. Shri Ankur Aggarwal

ITA/466/2016HC Delhi09 Feb 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 260Section 263Section 264Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…ncome 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…

M/S. Mount Everest Mineral Water Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and assessee are partly

ITA 1498/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

…alty on the basis of this addition : (i). CIT vs. Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd., 327 ITR 51 (Del.) (ii). Thakur V. Hari Prasad vs. CIT, 167 ITR 603 (AP) (iii). Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors, 166 Taxman 65(SC) (iv). K.P. Madhusudan vs. CIT, 251 ITR 99. (v). Mussadilal Ram Bharose’s case, 165 ITR 14 (SC). 5. As far as the disallowance u/s. 14A is concerned, it was noticed that the assessee earned an income of Rs.3,06,59,085/- from dividends and claimed exemption u/s. 10(33) of the Act. As per computation of income, the assessee disallowed a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- in view of section 14A read wit…

Tukaram Mahadev Bhor, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee’s are allowed

ITA 1872/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ashwani Taneja, Am

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54Section 54F

…t, wherein the actual income was grossly under reported, amount to gross negligence on the part of the assessee and his CA and that itself is sufficient to attract the levy of penalty as was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case o K.P. Madhusudan Vs. CIT 251 ITR 99 (SC) that is for the assessee to prove that his failure to return the correct income was not due to fraud or attract the levy of penalty as was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K.P. Madhusudan Vs. CIT 251 ITR 99 (SC) that is for the assessee to prove that his failure to return the correct income was not due to fraud or negligence...”…

Sharda Tukaram Bhor, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee’s are allowed

ITA 1871/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ashwani Taneja, Am

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54Section 54F

…t, wherein the actual income was grossly under reported, amount to gross negligence on the part of the assessee and his CA and that itself is sufficient to attract the levy of penalty as was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case o K.P. Madhusudan Vs. CIT 251 ITR 99 (SC) that is for the assessee to prove that his failure to return the correct income was not due to fraud or attract the levy of penalty as was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K.P. Madhusudan Vs. CIT 251 ITR 99 (SC) that is for the assessee to prove that his failure to return the correct income was not due to fraud or negligence...”…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Granite Gate Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2239/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadi N Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Sapra, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT (DR)
Section 271

…FIT FOR PUBLICATION (JM) (AM) ITA Nos. 2239, 2240/Del/2014 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH "C", NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADI N MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.:- 2239, 2240/Del/2014 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 DCIT, Circle 12 (1) M/s. Granite Gate Properties Pvt. New Delhi. Ltd. Vs. C-23, Greater Kailash Part-1, New Delhi - 110 048 PAN AADCR6248M (Appellant) (Respondent) Department by : Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT (DR) Assessee by: Shri Sanjeev Sapra, CA Date of Hearing 19/10/2016 Date of pronouncement 16/12/2016 O R D E R Per ANADI N MISHRA. A.M. (A)These a…

Anil Kumar Garg, Mumbai vs. ACIT 21(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1845/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1845/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Shri Anil Kumar Garg, Acit – 23(3), बनाम/ D-1404, Lake Pleasant, Mumbai. V. Lake Home, A.S. Marg, Mumbai -400076. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaupg1553C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri A. Ramachandran
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 68

…HELD THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FALLS BEYOND THE KEN OF EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271(l}(C), THE CONCLUSION IS IRRESISTIBLE THAT THE CASE DOES NOT COME WITHIN THE SWEEP OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF K.P. MADHUSUDHANAN V. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99. IT COMES WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE DECISION LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF CIT V. SURESH CHANDRA MITIAL [2001] 2511TR 9 (SC}. SO THERE IS NO MISSTATEMENT OF PERTICULARS, OR CONCEALMENT OF THE PERTICULARS OF THE INCOME,HENCE OUR CASE IS NOT COVERED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C}. IN VIEW OF THIS THE DEMAND RAISED BY THE LEARNED ITO IS BAD IN LAW ,AND SHOULD BE S…