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

105 ITR 708High Court1976#3535 most cited

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).

33

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2005 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. India Seafood 105 ITR 708 · Section 271(1)(c) · concealment of income · wrong claim of deduction · penalty proceedings · Assessing Officer · inaccurate particulars

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

Issues it is cited on

commissioner (appeals)long term capital gainsection 271(1)(c)previous yearsection 143(2)prescribedtransfersection 143personindiabusinesscompany

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

ITO 2(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Transtec Overseas P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 5308/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5308/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) The Income Tax Officer बिधम/ M/S. Transtec Overseas Pvt. Ltd. 70, Podar Chambers, 3Rd 2(3)(3), Room No. 555, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Floor, S.A. Brelvi Marg, Road, New Marine Lines, Fort, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp2309N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Ashish Kumar (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11.05.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11.05.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 27.08.2015 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The Ay.2009-10 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Order To Be Deleted. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Allowing Relief To The Assessee To The Extent Impugned In The Grounds Enumerated Below:

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar (DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…to educe the profits and taxable income, the provisions of section 271(1)(c) are clearly applicable. He relied on the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Rakesh Suri (2010) 233 CTR (All) 184. CIT Vs. Zoom Communication P. Ltd. (233 CTR 465 (Del), Indian Seafoods 105 ITR 708 and CIT Vs. HCIL Kalindee Aprsspl. 37 taxmann. 347 (Delhi). On the other hand, the Ld. AR has argued that rejection of a legal claim for deduction u/s 10AA does not amount to concealment. He also stated that deemed export were held to be allowable in some cases by the Hon’ble ITAT. Hence the present case is a debatable one. It was further stated…

Abr Auto Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 6236/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Amarjeeet Singh, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)(ii)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…aled income does not absolve assessee of section 271(1)© penalty if the assessee fails to offer an explanation which is bonafide and proves that all the material facts have been disclosed. 5. 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 6. 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 jus…

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

…Page 5 of 10 4. MAK Data P. Ltd vs. CIT T38 taxmann.com 448 (SC)/2013l 358 ITR 593 (SC)/2013 263 CTR 1. 5. B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co Vs CIT [116 Taxman 842, 236 ITR 977, 157 CTR 556]. 6. CIT vs Gates Foam & Rubber Co [91 ITR 467] CIT vs India Seafood [105 ITR 708] 7. Steel Ingots Ltd vs. CIT T296 ITR 228] 8. CIT Vs Escorts Finance Ltd [183 Taxman 453 (Delhi)/[2010] 328 ITR 44 (Delhi)/[2009] 226 CTR 105] 9. CIT Vs R.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 4…

Manu Bali, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 790/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishia.Y. : 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Kumar Matta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 57

…Hon'ble Delhi Supreme Court held that amendment made in Explanation 4 to section 271(1)(c)(iii) with effect from 1-4-2003 is clarificatory and, therefore, will have retrospective effect 5. 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 6. 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 ju…

Trade Wings Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 2(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result , appeal of the assessee company in ITA No

ITA 3419/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3416/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3417/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3418/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3419/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Trade Wings Limited, Income Tax Officer – Ward बनाम/ 18/20-K, Dubash Marg, 2(3)(3), V. Fort,Mumbai – 400 023. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact4639F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra,DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…of additions in respect of fixed assets and the assessee company has filed inaccurate particulars of income which resulted into evading of tax liability. The A.O. relied on the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. India Sea Food, (1976) 105 ITR 708(Ker.) and in the case of Gates Foam & Rubber Company, (1973)91 ITR 467 (Ker.–HC). The A.O. accordingly levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,71,482/- , vide penalty orders dated 31-03-2011. 6. Aggrieved by the penalty orders dated 31-03-2011 passed by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee company filed first appeal…

Trade Wings Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 2(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result , appeal of the assessee company in ITA No

ITA 3418/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3416/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3417/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3418/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3419/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Trade Wings Limited, Income Tax Officer – Ward बनाम/ 18/20-K, Dubash Marg, 2(3)(3), V. Fort,Mumbai – 400 023. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact4639F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra,DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…of additions in respect of fixed assets and the assessee company has filed inaccurate particulars of income which resulted into evading of tax liability. The A.O. relied on the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. India Sea Food, (1976) 105 ITR 708(Ker.) and in the case of Gates Foam & Rubber Company, (1973)91 ITR 467 (Ker.–HC). The A.O. accordingly levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,71,482/- , vide penalty orders dated 31-03-2011. 6. Aggrieved by the penalty orders dated 31-03-2011 passed by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee company filed first appeal…

Trade Wings Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 2(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result , appeal of the assessee company in ITA No

ITA 3417/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3416/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3417/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3418/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3419/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Trade Wings Limited, Income Tax Officer – Ward बनाम/ 18/20-K, Dubash Marg, 2(3)(3), V. Fort,Mumbai – 400 023. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact4639F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra,DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…of additions in respect of fixed assets and the assessee company has filed inaccurate particulars of income which resulted into evading of tax liability. The A.O. relied on the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. India Sea Food, (1976) 105 ITR 708(Ker.) and in the case of Gates Foam & Rubber Company, (1973)91 ITR 467 (Ker.–HC). The A.O. accordingly levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,71,482/- , vide penalty orders dated 31-03-2011. 6. Aggrieved by the penalty orders dated 31-03-2011 passed by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee company filed first appeal…

Trade Wings Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 2(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result , appeal of the assessee company in ITA No

ITA 3416/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3416/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3417/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3418/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3419/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Trade Wings Limited, Income Tax Officer – Ward बनाम/ 18/20-K, Dubash Marg, 2(3)(3), V. Fort,Mumbai – 400 023. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact4639F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra,DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…of additions in respect of fixed assets and the assessee company has filed inaccurate particulars of income which resulted into evading of tax liability. The A.O. relied on the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. India Sea Food, (1976) 105 ITR 708(Ker.) and in the case of Gates Foam & Rubber Company, (1973)91 ITR 467 (Ker.–HC). The A.O. accordingly levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,71,482/- , vide penalty orders dated 31-03-2011. 6. Aggrieved by the penalty orders dated 31-03-2011 passed by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee company filed first appeal…

DCIT - 8(3), Mumbai vs. M/S S.M.Energ Teknik and Electronics Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0

ITA 2663/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2663/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04) Deputy Commissioner Of M/S S.M. Energy Teknik बनाम/ Income Tax – 8(3) & Electronics Limited, V. R. No. 217, Sm Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Marg, Andheri Kurla Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Marol Naka, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 059 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacs7312L .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: None
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 271(1)(c)

…r suppression of receipts or exaggeration of expenditure are attempts to reduce the taxable income and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is imposable in the instant case and in support the following decisions have been relied upon:- 1. CIT v. India Sea Foods, 105 ITR 708 (Ker) 2. Naginchand Shiv Sahai v. CIT, 61 ITR 534 3. CIT v. Gates Foam & Rubber Co., 91 ITR 467 (Ker). The AO held that the assessee being a company is required to maintain its books of accounts which reflect true picture of the transaction. The A.O. also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of L.K. Sheikh Mohammed B…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ecs Limited

ITA - 1003 / 2008HC Delhi05 Feb 2010
Section 271(1)(c)Section 80

…. Both types attempt to reduce the taxable income. Both types amount to concealment of 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/s India Sea Foods, 1976 105 ITR 708, Kerala; Nagin Chand Shiv Sahai v/s CIT (1938) 6 ITR 534 (Lah); CIT v/s Gates Foan and Rubber Company (1973) 91 ITR 467 (Ker). It is not right to say on the part of the appellant that the Assessing Officer has to record the satisfaction before initiating the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) for the reason that the factum of concealment…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ecs Ltd

ITA - 1030 / 2008HC Delhi05 Feb 2010
Section 271(1)(c)Section 80

…Both types attempt to reduce the taxable income. Both types amount to concealment of 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/s India Sea Foods, 1976 105 ITR 708, Kerala; Nagin Chand Shiv Sahai v/s CIT (1938) 6 ITR 534 (Lah): CIT v/s Gates Foan and Rubber Company (1973) 91 ITR 467 (Ker) 7. It is not right to say on the part of the appellant that the Assessing Officer has to record the satisfaction before initiating the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) for the reason that the factum of concealme…

Ecs Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA - 1248 / 2008HC Delhi26 Oct 2009
Section 271(1)(c)Section 80

…Both types attempt to reduce the taxable income. Both types amount to concealment of 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/s India Sea Foods, 1976 105 ITR 708, Kerala; Nagin Chand Shiv Sahai v/s CIT (1938) 6 ITR 534 (Lah); CIT v/s Gates Foan and Rubber Company (1973) 91 ITR 467 (Ker)]. It is not right to say on the part of the appellant that the Assessing Officer has to record the satisfaction before initiating the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) for the reason that the factum of concealmen…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Welcome Seeds Ltd

ITA/183/2001HC Delhi29 Jul 2005

…nalty under s.271(1)(c) cannot be levied. This decision is in respect of asst. yr. 1970-71 i.e., before the insertion of above explanation and hence cannot help the case of the assessee. For the same reason the decisions glven in CIT vs. India Sea Food (1976) 105 ITR 708 (Kar) : TC 50R.148, asst. yr. 1968-69, CIT vs. C. R. Niranjan (1991) 187 ITR 280 (Mad) : TC 50R.1014, asst. yr. 1969-70 and CIT vs. Jaora Oil Mill (1981) 129 ITR 423 (MP) : TC 50R.486, asst. yr. 1968-69, are not applicable." ITA 205.0Ietc Page No. I3 of 37 ,. 3s Of course, when these observations were made, the Supreme Court order \n dismissing…