Ltd. vs. CIT 296 ITR 228, CIT vs. Zoom Communication (P.) Ltd. 327 ITR 510 (Delhi), CIT v. Gates Foam & Rubber Co. (105 ITR 708)

Q: What is Ltd. vs. CIT 296 ITR 228, CIT vs. Zoom Communication (P.) Ltd. 327 ITR 510 (Delhi), CIT v. Gates Foam & Rubber Co. authority for?

Making a wrong claim for deduction can amount to concealment of income for the purpose of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c).

Q: How many judgments cite Ltd. vs. CIT 296 ITR 228, CIT vs. Zoom Communication (P.) Ltd. 327 ITR 510 (Delhi), CIT v. Gates Foam & Rubber Co.?

33 judgments on BharatTax cite Ltd. vs. CIT 296 ITR 228, CIT vs. Zoom Communication (P.) Ltd. 327 ITR 510 (Delhi), CIT v. Gates Foam & Rubber Co. (105 ITR 708), spanning 2005 to 2025.

Q: Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Ltd. vs. CIT 296 ITR 228, CIT vs. Zoom Communication (P.) Ltd. 327 ITR 510 (Delhi), CIT v. Gates Foam & Rubber Co. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 271(1)(c), Section 54F.

DCIT, Circle 22(2), New Delhi vs. Sahil Vachani, Delhi

Appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2604/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice Presdient (), Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shriavdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.2604/िद"ी/2023(िन.व. 2016-17)

For Appellant: S/Shri Anuj Garg & Narpat Singh, Sr.DRFor Respondent: S/Shri Rohan Khare & Priyam

Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

…cable and assessee having failed to discharge onus being cast on assessee by virtue of said Explanation, Assessing Officer was justified in imposing penalty. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the cases of Gates 23 Foam & Rubber Co 91 ITR 467 and India Seafood 105 ITR 708 held that claiming excessive deduction also amounts to concealment of income. Similarly the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Steel Ingots Ltd. 296 ITR 228 held that in case of concealment of true income chargeable to tax by making bogus claim, levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 1 is justified. 19. I find that whi…

M/S Sanofi India Ltd (Formerly Known As Aventis Pharma Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT RG 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1606/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 271(1)(c)

…h types attempt to reduce the taxable income. Both types amount of concealment of the particulars of one's income as well as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Penalty may be imposed for either or both such attempts [CIT v. India Sea Foods (1976) 105 ITR 708 (ker.) Nagin Chand Shiv Sahai v CIT (1938) 6 ITR 534 (Lah), CIT v. Gates Foam & Rubber Co. (1973) 91 ITR 467 (Ker.)] 9. Under the Act, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is leviable not only for concealing the income but also for furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. In the instant case, the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its inc…

ACIT- 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Mm/S Sanofi India Limited (Formerly Known As Aventis Pharma Ltd)., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1302/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 271(1)(c)

…h types attempt to reduce the taxable income. Both types amount of concealment of the particulars of one's income as well as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Penalty may be imposed for either or both such attempts [CIT v. India Sea Foods (1976) 105 ITR 708 (ker.) Nagin Chand Shiv Sahai v CIT (1938) 6 ITR 534 (Lah), CIT v. Gates Foam & Rubber Co. (1973) 91 ITR 467 (Ker.)] 9. Under the Act, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is leviable not only for concealing the income but also for furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. In the instant case, the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its inc…

Rajesh Kumar Baid, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 5(2) Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 501/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 501, 494 & 499/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Year :2015-16 (u/s 271(1)(c) 271B & 271A of the Act,1961) Shri Rajesh Kumar Baid B-10, Tulsidasji Ki Bagichi Janta Colony, Jaipur 302 004 (Raj) cuke Vs. The ITO Ward 5(2) Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABZPB 7205 M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : None jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Mrs. Mo

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 271B

…concealment of the particulars of one's income as well as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Penalty may be imposed for either or both such attempts. In this regard, reliance is placed on the case law in the case of CIT v. India Sea Foods (1976) 105 ITR 708 (Ker.), Nagin Chand Shiv Sahal v. CIT: (1938) 6 ITR 537 (Lah); CIT v. Gates Foam & Rubber Co. (1972) 91 ITR 467 (Ker)). 5.10 Under the Act, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is leviable not only for concealing the income but also for furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. It has been held the word 'income' in section 271(1)(c) is not used in the…

ACIT Circle-11(1), New Delhi vs. Hello Retail India Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3049/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M. Baranwal, CIT-DR

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

…ty levied by the Assessing Officer. 14. Before us, the ld. DR strongly supported the findings of the Assessing Officer and relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 295 ITR 244, Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision in 328 ITR 44 and 105 ITR 708. 15. We have carefully considered the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute that the expenses incurred by the assessee on the rented premises were written off as loss on surrender of the rented property on discontinuance of running business. 16. It is also not in dispute that all the entries were duly recorded in the books of ac…

M/S Om Plantation, 22, Path No.6, Vijay Bari, Teen Dukan, Sikar Road, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-4(3), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 158/JPR/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Ms Runi Pal (Addl.CIT) a

Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…on furnished by him for making such a claim is not found to be bona fide, Explanation 1 to section 271 (1)(c) would come into play and assessee will be liable to penalty. 7.13 In the case of CIT vs Gates Foam & Rubber Co [91 ITR 467] and CIT vs India Seafood [105 ITR 708] the Hon'ble Kerala High Court held that Claiming excessive deduction also amounts to concealment of income. 7.14 In the case of Steel Ingots Ltd vs. CIT [296 ITR 228] the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court held that in case of concealment of true income chargeable to tax by making bogus claim, levy of penalty u/s 271 (1)( c) read with Explanation…

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)

…ce. • When the initial onus placed by the explanation, has been discharged by him, the onus shifts on the revenue to show that the amount in question constituted the income and not otherwise. 7. CIT vs Gates Foam & Rubber Co [91 ITR 467] ClT vs India Seafood [105 ITR 708] where Hon'ble Kerala High Court held that Claiming excessive deduction also amounts to concealment of income. 8. Steel Ingots Ltd vs. CIT [296 ITR 228] where Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court held that in case of concealment of true income chargeable to tax by making bogus claim, levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 1 is justified…

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

…harge onus being cast on assessee by virtue of said Explanation, Assessing Officer was justified in imposing penalty 18 I.T.A. No. 1617 to 1620/Mum/2018 Sandeep Bhimrao Lad & Sunny Ashok Lad 8. CIT vs Gates Foam & Rubber Co [91 ITR 467] CIT vs India Seafood [105 ITR 708] where Hon'ble Kerala High Court held that Claiming excessive deduction also amounts to concealment of income 9. Steel Ingots Ltd vs. CIT [296 ITR 228] where Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court held that in case of concealment of true income chargeable to tax by making bogus claim, levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 1 is justifi…

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

…er India Ltd. 184 Taxman 8 (SC), CIT v. Gold Coin Health Food (P.) Ltd. 172 Taxman 386 (SC), MAK Data P. Ltd. v. CIT 38 taxmann.com 448 (SC), B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co v. CIT 116 Taxman 842, CIT v. Gates Foam & Rubber Co 91 ITR 467, CIT v. India Seafood 105 ITR 708, Steel Ingots Ltd v. CIT 296 ITR 228, CIT Vs Escorts Finance Ltd 183 Taxman 453 (Delhi), CIT v. R.M.P. Plasto (P.) Ltd 184 Taxman 372 (SC), K.P. Madhusudhanan v. CIT [2001] 118 Taxman 324 (SC), Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation v. DCIT 22(2) Mumbai, Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT (2007) 291 ITR 519 (SC), CIT M/s Ashtavinayaka Constructions 5 v.…

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)

…o section 271 (1 )(c) became applicable and assessee having failed to discharge onus being cast on assessee by virtue of said Explanation, Assessing Officer was justified in imposing penalty. 6. CIT vs Gates Foam & Rubber Co [91 ITR 467] CIT vs India Seafood [105 ITR 708] where Hon'ble Kerala High Court held that Claiming excessive deduction also amounts to concealment of income. 24 7. Steel Ingots Ltd vs. CIT [296 ITR 228] /. where Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court held that in case of concealment of true income chargeable to tax by making bogus claim, levy of penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) read with Explanation 1 is j…