Mak Data Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

358 ITR 593Supreme Court of India2013#154 most cited

What is Mak Data Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Once the Assessing Officer records satisfaction regarding concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, the onus shifts to the assessee, and if not discharged, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be levied without requiring separate detailed satisfaction.

443

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2014 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Mak Data Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT · 358 ITR 593 · Section 271(1)(c) penalty · concealment of income · furnishing inaccurate particulars · onus framework · AO satisfaction · levy of penalty · Income Tax Act 1961

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 139(1)Section 147Section 1961Section 132Section 148Section 153A

Issues it is cited on

section 271aabsection 271aafurnishing inaccurate particulars of incomefurnishing inaccurate particularspenalty u/s 271(1)(c)penalty under section 271(1)(c)section 271asection 274concealment of incomelevy of penaltysection 271(1)section 271(1)(c)

Judgments citing Mak Data Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

SHREE KRISHNA WOOLLEN MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6025/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Prusethshree Krishna Woollen Vs. Dcit Circle 15(3)(2), Aayakar Bhawan, Mills Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai-400020. Krishna Mills Compound, L. B.S. Marg, Bhandup West S.O, 400078, Mumbai. Pan/Gir No: Aabcs9353G (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

…ollen Mills Pvt. Ltd. explanation is not substantiated or is found to be untenable. The assessee has failed to prove that its explanation was bona fide and based on due diligence. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mak Data (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [(2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC)] is directly applicable, where the Hon'ble Court held that merely stating facts in a note or claiming an exemption does not absolve the assessee of the charge of furnishing inaccurate particulars, especially when the claim lacks legal merit and the particulars furnished are misleading. Further, the plea that the matter is sub-judice before t…

PRIME PRODUCTS LIMITED,KANPUR vs. D.C.I.T. CIRCLE 2(1)(1), KANPUR

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

ITA 514/LKW/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2013-14 M/S Prime Products Ltd., 87/8, Kalpi Vs. The Dy. Cit, Road, Kanpur Circle-2(1)(1), Kanpur Pan: Aaacp8239K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Ashish Jaiswal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.01.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac In Confirming The Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Levied By The Ld. Assessing Officer On 23.01.2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That On The Facts & In Law, The Order Passed By Ld. Cit (Appeals), Nfac U/S 250 Of The Act Is Bad In Law. 2 That On The Facts & In Law, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac Has Erred In Upholding Action Of Learned Ao In Levying Penalty Of Rs. 94,000/- Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3 That On The Facts & In Law, The Notice Issued For Levy Of Penalty Under Section 274 R.W.S 271(1)(C) Dated 14/02/2020 Is Vague & Defective Since, It Does Not Specify The Limb Under Which Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Was Initiated. 4 That On The Facts & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac Has Erred In Not Appreciating That The Assessee Had Offered An Explanation. The Penalty Proceedings & The Consequent Order Are Invalid & Void Ab Initio As The Same Were Initiated & Levied Solely On The Basis Of An Affidavit Without Independent Evidence Of Concealment.

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Jaiswal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69

…Rs. 3,13,000/- 2 Prime Products Limited A.Y. 2013-14 and thereafter relying upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors and Ors (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC) and MAK Data Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2013) 358 ITR 593, he levied a penalty of Rs. 94,000/-, being 100 percent of the tax sought to be evaded. 3. Aggrieved with the said levy of penalty, the assessee went in appeal before the NFAC. The ld. CIT(A) to whom the case was allotted went through the order of the ld. AO and confirmed the same. Ongoing through the said appeal order, it is not clear as to whet…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. AJAY GOLECHAA, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 454/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.454/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: None (Petition filed)For Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…ing the fact that the surrender was not voluntary but was made only after detection by the department. 3. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in ignoring the binding judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT-II (2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC), wherein it was held that voluntary disclosure does not release the assessee from the rigours of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to consider that the transactions relating to Long-Term Capital Gains from penny stock (NCL Research and Financial Services Ltd.) were found to be non- genuine and w…

ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PHI SEEDS PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and both the Rule 27 application of the assessee are allowed for A

ITA 3084/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 1Section 10(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…d had adequate opportunity to defend its case, as evidenced by the detailed written submissions filed by the assessee before the Tribunal. D. ASSESSMENT ORDER CONTAINS ADEQUATE SATISFACTION 3.7 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in MAK Data Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT-11 [2013] 358 ITR 593 has clarified the onus framework under Section 271(1)(c). The Court held that once the AO records satisfaction about concealment/inaccurate particulars, and the assessee fails to discharge the initial onus, penalty can be levied without separate detailed satisfaction. 3.8 The assessment order in the present case contains adequate reasons and sati…

ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PHI SEEDS PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and both the Rule 27 application of the assessee are allowed for A

ITA 3083/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 1Section 10(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…d had adequate opportunity to defend its case, as evidenced by the detailed written submissions filed by the assessee before the Tribunal. D. ASSESSMENT ORDER CONTAINS ADEQUATE SATISFACTION 3.7 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in MAK Data Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT-11 [2013] 358 ITR 593 has clarified the onus framework under Section 271(1)(c). The Court held that once the AO records satisfaction about concealment/inaccurate particulars, and the assessee fails to discharge the initial onus, penalty can be levied without separate detailed satisfaction. 3.8 The assessment order in the present case contains adequate reasons and sati…

M/S. SABARI DIAMONDS & JEWELS,TIRUPUR vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1999/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1996 To 1999/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2021-22 V. M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, The Dcit, 6, Sabari Street, Central Circle-3(3), Binny Compound, Chennai. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Abgfs 4243 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)(e)

…correctness of the additions forming the basis for the penalty during the course of penalty proceedings. 9. During the hearing, the Bench sought clarification on the applicability of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in MAK Data (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC), which held that where income was surrendered following detection by the Assessing Officer, such surrender could not be regarded as voluntary, and penalty under section 271(1)(c) was justified. The Ld. AR submitted that the facts of MAK Data differ from the present case. In MAK Data, the assessee merely disclosed income to “buy peace” wi…

M/S. SABARI DIAMONDS & JEWELS,TIRUPUR vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1998/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1996 To 1999/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2021-22 V. M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, The Dcit, 6, Sabari Street, Central Circle-3(3), Binny Compound, Chennai. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Abgfs 4243 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)(e)

…correctness of the additions forming the basis for the penalty during the course of penalty proceedings. 9. During the hearing, the Bench sought clarification on the applicability of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in MAK Data (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC), which held that where income was surrendered following detection by the Assessing Officer, such surrender could not be regarded as voluntary, and penalty under section 271(1)(c) was justified. The Ld. AR submitted that the facts of MAK Data differ from the present case. In MAK Data, the assessee merely disclosed income to “buy peace” wi…

M/S. SABARI DIAMONDS & JEWELS,TIRUPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1997/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1996 To 1999/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2021-22 V. M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, The Dcit, 6, Sabari Street, Central Circle-3(3), Binny Compound, Chennai. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Abgfs 4243 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)(e)

…correctness of the additions forming the basis for the penalty during the course of penalty proceedings. 9. During the hearing, the Bench sought clarification on the applicability of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in MAK Data (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC), which held that where income was surrendered following detection by the Assessing Officer, such surrender could not be regarded as voluntary, and penalty under section 271(1)(c) was justified. The Ld. AR submitted that the facts of MAK Data differ from the present case. In MAK Data, the assessee merely disclosed income to “buy peace” wi…

M/S. SABARI DIAMONDS & JEWELS,TIRUPUR vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1996/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1996 To 1999/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2021-22 V. M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, The Dcit, 6, Sabari Street, Central Circle-3(3), Binny Compound, Chennai. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Abgfs 4243 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)(e)

…correctness of the additions forming the basis for the penalty during the course of penalty proceedings. 9. During the hearing, the Bench sought clarification on the applicability of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in MAK Data (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC), which held that where income was surrendered following detection by the Assessing Officer, such surrender could not be regarded as voluntary, and penalty under section 271(1)(c) was justified. The Ld. AR submitted that the facts of MAK Data differ from the present case. In MAK Data, the assessee merely disclosed income to “buy peace” wi…

JAYANTIBHAI DAHYABHAI PATEL,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , FACELESS ASSESSMENT UNIT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 408/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Surat07 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Jayantibhai Dahyabhai Patel, Ito, New Delhi, 283, Padm Punj, Siddhanth Bharuch-392001. Nagar Soceity, Gujarat Housing Vs. Board, Bharuch-392001. Pan No. Aebpp 3770 P Appellant Respondent : None For Assessee Assessee By : Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. Dr Revenue By : 06/10/2025 Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. DRFor Respondent: None for
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…Assessing Officer had been sustained by the first appellate authority, and the assessee had not preferred any further appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. CIT(A), relying upon the binding ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mak Data Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [(2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC)], held that once the assessee fails to substantiate the explanation relating to any fact material to the computation of total income, the deeming fiction under Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) automatically comes into operation. 4.1. The Ld. CIT(A) recorded that the assessee had not offered any credible explanation for the cash deposits a…

BHAGYA KALITA,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 257/GTY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati29 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 271A

…is not tenable in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data (P.) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax - II [2013] 38 I.T.A. Nos.: 256 & 257/GTY/2024 Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22 Bhagya Kalita. taxmann.com 448 (SC)/[2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC)/[2013] 263 CTR 1 (SC)[30-10-2013], wherein it has been held that voluntary disclosure does not relieve the assessee from the mischief of penal proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, in the case of the assessee, the penalty was liable to be levied as per the provisions of sub-section (1A) of section 271AAB of the Act even if he had made t…

BHAGYA KALITA,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 256/GTY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati29 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 271A

…is not tenable in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data (P.) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax - II [2013] 38 I.T.A. Nos.: 256 & 257/GTY/2024 Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22 Bhagya Kalita. taxmann.com 448 (SC)/[2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC)/[2013] 263 CTR 1 (SC)[30-10-2013], wherein it has been held that voluntary disclosure does not relieve the assessee from the mischief of penal proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, in the case of the assessee, the penalty was liable to be levied as per the provisions of sub-section (1A) of section 271AAB of the Act even if he had made t…

SHRI YASH PAUL MALHOTRA,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 379/ASR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…f. The appellant submitted that penalty was imposed amounting to Rs. 17,68,888/- on account of surrendered income and on account of disallowance of personal expenses pertaining to car expenses and depreciation. In the case of MAK Data (P.) Ltd. -vs.- CIT- II, 358 ITR 593 (SC), The Hon’ble Apex Court had held that: “9. We are of the view that the surrender of income in this case fs not voluntary in the sense that the offer of surrender was made in view of detection made by the AO in the search conducted in the sister concern of the assessee. In that situation, it cannot be said that the surrender of income was vol…

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 310/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80

…ms made by the assessee would have remained unnoticed had the case not been selected for scrutiny. This reflects an intended concealment of income and misreporting of facts to unduly reduce tax liability. The Supreme Court in Mak Data Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [(2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC)] held that: “Voluntary disclosure does not release the assessee from the mischief of penalty proceedings... such surrender after detection is not a defence.” This applies squarely here — where detection occurred only due to scrutiny, not voluntary compliance. 3. Disallowance of CSR Expenditure – Clear Misinterpretation of Settled Law The as…

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated\nhereinabove

ITA 309/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80

…e by the assessee\nwould have remained unnoticed had the case not been selected for scrutiny.\nThis reflects an intended concealment of income and misreporting of facts to\nunduly reduce tax liability.\n\nThe Supreme Court in Mak Data Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [(2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC)]\nheld that:\n\n\"Voluntary disclosure does not release the assessee from the mischief of penalty\nproceedings... such surrender after detection is not a defence.\"\n\nThis applies squarely here where detection occurred only due to scrutiny, not\nvoluntary compliance.\n\n3. Disallowance of CSR Expenditure – Clear Misinterpretation of Settled…

CREATIVE ASHTECH POWER PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-14(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1587/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarcreative Ashtech Power V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Projects Private Limited, 7Th बनाम Income Tax, Circle– Floor, Raheja Point 1, Opp. 14(1)(2), Room No. 455, Vakola Market Nehru Road, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Santacruz (East), Mumbai– Marg, Mumbai – 400020, 400055, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcd1054F Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi,ARFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(e)

…ccepted the addition made by the AO. However, this does not absolve the assessee from penalty liability if the income disclosed in the return was previously undisclosed or underreported. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mak Data P. Ltd. Vs. CIT [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC) has observed that it is trite law that voluntary disclosure does not release the assessee from the mischief of penal proceedings and the law does not provide that when an assessee makes a voluntary disclosure of his concealed income, he had to be absolved from penalty. 7.2 We do not find any infirmity in the order of ld.CIT(A) in holding th…

SAINI CO-OPERATIVE THARIFT AND CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-48(1), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4912/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Saini Co-Operative Tharift & Vs Ito, Credit Society, 2429-21, Ward-48(1), Bazar Kamra Bangash, Darya New Delhi Ganj, New Delhi-110002. Pan-Aabas8396K Appellant Respondent Shri K.Sampath, Adv. & Appellant By Shri V.Raj Kumar, Adv. Respondent By Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jaiswal, Sr.Dr 01.07.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 09.07.2025

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 80P

…appeal, the same is admitted by the assessee as concealed income on which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has rightly been levied by the AO. He further placed reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mak Data Pvt.Ltd. vs CIT-2 (2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC) and other judgements as relied by Ld.CIT(A) and prayed for confirmation of penalty so levied. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on records. From the facts of the case, it is seen that though in the year under appeal, assessee has not challenged the order of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the additions on accou…

DCIT, CIRCLE 22(2), NEW DELHI, 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

…. The reasons was that ultimately construction of building could not take place due to inability of the builder and/or default on the part of the builder. 8.6 In regard to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data P. Ltd. V CIT, (2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC) as per Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, admittedly the disclosure of concealed income does not absolve assesse of rigours of section 271(1)(c) of the Act if the assesse fails to offer any explanation which is bonafide. Similar is the situation with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P.Madhusudanan vs CIT…

ST. JOSEPHS INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

ITA 3297/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jun 2025AY 2020-21
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 270ASection 271A

…alty is justified, and the\nchallenge to the notice is a technical ploy to avoid liability.\n•\nInvalidating the notice would undermine the deterrent purpose of\nSection 270A.\n•\nh. Judicial Precedents Supporting Revenue\n•\nIn Mak Data P. Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC), the Supreme\nCourt upheld penalties despite procedural lapses, as the assessee was\naware of the allegations and participated in proceedings.\nBurden on Assessee to Prove Misreporting\n•\nThe assessee must show that the AO intended to penalize for\nmisreporting (200%) but failed to establish it. Absent evidence of\nfalsification or misrepre…

ST. JOSHEPHS INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-193), CHENNAI

ITA 3296/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3293 & 3294/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2020-21 St. Joseph'S Educational Trust, 56-C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. (Pan: Aamts 3888 G) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3295 To 3297/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 To 2020-21 St. Joseph'S Institute Of Science & Technology Trust, 56-C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. [Pan: Aahts 9943 B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. V. Balaji, Ca & Mr. K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate By Virtual प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.04.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2025 :: 2 ::

For Appellant: Mr. V. Balaji, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 270ASection 271A

…he 50% penalty is justified, and the challenge to the notice is a technical ploy to avoid liability. • Invalidating the notice would undermine the deterrent purpose of Section 270A. h. Judicial Precedents Supporting Revenue • In Mak Data P. Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC), the Supreme Court upheld penalties despite procedural lapses, as the assessee was aware of the allegations and participated in proceedings. Burden on Assessee to Prove Misreporting The assessee must show that the AO intended to penalize for misreporting (200%) but failed to establish it. Absent evidence of falsification or misrepresentation…

Showing 1–20 of 443 · Page 1 of 23

...