MAK Data Pvt.Ltd. v. CIT

368 ITR 593Supreme Court of India#20629 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2017.

Judgments citing MAK Data Pvt.Ltd. v. CIT

D.Shantha, Villupuram vs. ITO, Villupuram

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1829/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nataraja, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…of penalty but would not absolve her completely from the levy of penalty. The case would squarely fall within the provisions of section 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 1 to the said section. The Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data Pvt.Ltd. v. CIT [2013U 368 ITR 593 (SC) has held that merely because the assessee claims the admission to be voluntary by using such phrases like "buying peace", "avoid' litigation" or "amicablesettlement", the assessee's conduct in not offering the income in the return cannot be explained away and penalty is exigible. Since the AO has levied only minimum penalty at 100% instea…

D.Shantha, Villupuram vs. ITO, Villupuram

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1828/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nataraja, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…of penalty but would not absolve her completely from the levy of penalty. The case would squarely fall within the provisions of section 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 1 to the said section. The Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data Pvt.Ltd. v. CIT [2013U 368 ITR 593 (SC) has held that merely because the assessee claims the admission to be voluntary by using such phrases like "buying peace", "avoid' litigation" or "amicablesettlement", the assessee's conduct in not offering the income in the return cannot be explained away and penalty is exigible. Since the AO has levied only minimum penalty at 100% instea…

DCIT, Villupuram vs. D.Santha, Kallakurichi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1803/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nataraja, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…of penalty but would not absolve her completely from the levy of penalty. The case would squarely fall within the provisions of section 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 1 to the said section. The Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data Pvt.Ltd. v. CIT [2013U 368 ITR 593 (SC) has held that merely because the assessee claims the admission to be voluntary by using such phrases like "buying peace", "avoid' litigation" or "amicablesettlement", the assessee's conduct in not offering the income in the return cannot be explained away and penalty is exigible. Since the AO has levied only minimum penalty at 100% instea…

D.Shantha, Villupuram vs. ITO, Villupuram

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1593/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nataraja, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…of penalty but would not absolve her completely from the levy of penalty. The case would squarely fall within the provisions of section 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 1 to the said section. The Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data Pvt.Ltd. v. CIT [2013U 368 ITR 593 (SC) has held that merely because the assessee claims the admission to be voluntary by using such phrases like "buying peace", "avoid' litigation" or "amicablesettlement", the assessee's conduct in not offering the income in the return cannot be explained away and penalty is exigible. Since the AO has levied only minimum penalty at 100% instea…

MAK Data Pvt.Ltd. v. CIT (368 ITR 593) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax