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.

How many judgments cite Mak Data Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT?

443 judgments on BharatTax cite Mak Data Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (358 ITR 593), spanning 2014 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Mak Data Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 271(1)(c), Section 143(3), Section 139(1), Section 147, Section 1961, Section 132.

Mak Data Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (358 ITR 593)

Minu Bakshi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3118/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 3118/Del/2017 (A.Y 2007-08) Minu Bakshi, Vs Acit, 4, Kautilya Marg, Central Circle-26, New Delhi. Room No.323, Ara Centre, E-2, (Aaepb 1799 F) Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ssee’s case. Besides this, the present case is relating to search conducted by the Revenue in the premises of the assessee, while the decision relied by the Assessing Officer as well as CIT (A) that of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mak Data P. Ltd. vs. CIT 358 ITR 593 is relating to survey and there is no issue involved about the notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act. This case relied by the Revenue is not applicable in the present case due to the distinguishing facts. Similarly, the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd. 4 327 ITR 510 will also no…

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

…s clarificatory 16 I.T.A. No. 1617 to 1620/Mum/2018 Sandeep Bhimrao Lad & Sunny Ashok Lad and, therefore, will have retrospective effect. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could be levied in case of loss return 6. MAK Data P. Ltd vs. CIT f38 taxmann.com 448 (SC)/[2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC)/[2013]263 CTR11 Where Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Under Explanation 1 to s. 271(1)(c), voluntary disclosure of concealed income does not absolve assessee of s. 271(1)(c) penalty if the assessee fails to offer an explanation which is bona fide and proves that all the material facts have been disclosed "9. We are of the view that the sur…

Sunil Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-26, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7704/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 139Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 275Section 275(1)(a)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F+SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 7704/Del./2018 A.Y. : 2013-14 Mr. Sunil Kumar vs. ACIT, 14, Ashoka Avenue Road, Central Circle-26 DLF Farms, Chattarpur, New Delhi New Delhi PAN : AIAPK9773A (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by Sh. S.L.Anuragi, Sr. DR Assessee by Sh. Rajesh Malhotra, CA Date of Hearing 25.07.2019 Date of Pronouncement 21.10.2019 ORDER PER AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER : The foresaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against impugned order dated 30.10.2018 passe…

Shri Pranav Dhanibhai Patel, Surat vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 152/SRT/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.152/Srt/2018: "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Pranav Dhanibhai Patel, V Dcit, Central Circle-4, Surat. 2, Tirupati Society, Ajrmar Chowk, . B/H. Navyug College, Surat. [Pan: Adipp 5397 G] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 54B

…urn disclosing additional income, imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) is upon the assessee on the plea that furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income was not justified. The decision relied by the Ld. CIT (A) of Mak Data (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [2013] 358 ITR 593(SC) / [2013] 38 taxmann.com 448(SC) is not applicable in the case as the disclosure Pranav Dhanibhai Patel Vs. DCIT, Cen. Cir.-4, Surat/ITA No.152/SRT/2018 for A.Y. 2011-12 Page 5 of 5 made on incorrect assumption of facts and due to provision of section 50C of the Act. The other decision relied by the learned counsel for the assessee and plac…

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

…s. 5. CIT vs. Gold Coin Health Food It deals with the levy of penalty in case of a loss by (P) Ltd. [2008] 304 ITR 308 virtue of Explanation 4 which is not the case here. (SC) 6. MAK Data P. Ltd. vs. CIT It merely provides that the AO is not required to 2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC) record his satisfaction in a particular manner. It does not deal with non-striking off issue. 7. B. A. Balasubramaniam & It deals with the old Explanation providing for Bros. Co. vs. CIT 236 ITR 977 deemed concealment of the particulars of income where there was a difference of 20% between the assessed income and returned income M/s Ashtavi…

M/S Ratna Commercial Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 280/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 45

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’ NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.280/Del/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ratna Commercial Enterprises P. Ltd. vs DCIT, Circle –15(1), 4th Floor, Punjabi Bhavan, New Delhi. 10 Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. (PAN: AAACR0354B) New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri M.P. Rastogi, Advocate Respondent by: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR Date of hearing: 18.07.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 03.09.2019 ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JM Challenging the order dated 04.12.2015 of the learned Commission…

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)

…without any basis and explanation 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 3. MAK Data P. Ltd vs. cn [38 taxmann.com 448 (SC)/[2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC)/[2013] 263 CTR 1] Where Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Under Explanation 1 to s. 271 (1 )(c), voluntary disclosure of concealed income does not absolve assessee of s. 271 (1 )(c) penalty if the assessee fails to offer an explanation which is bona fide and proves that all the material facts have been disclosed “9. We are of the view that the…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle Itarsi, Bhopal vs. Shri Amit Kumar Agrawal, Hoshangabad

In the result, legal ground raised in Cross Objection by the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 513/IND/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Circle- Shri Amit Kumar Agrawal C/O Prop. बनाम/

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…aised following grounds of appeal: “1.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs.34,00,000/- ignoring the decision of the Apex Court in the case of MAK Data Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2013) 358 ITR 593 (Hon'ble Supreme Court) dated 30.10.2013. 2.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case3, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act Rs.34,00,000/- ignoring the decision of the Hon'ble High Court Delhi in the case of Pr. CIT-21 vs. Dr. Vandana Gupta in ITANo.218/2017 dated 20.02.2018.” 3. In its Cross Objecti…

Suresh B Desai, Surat vs. DCIT Central Circle-3, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1721/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A.No’S.1720 & 1721/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Suresh B Desai, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 101, Vishal Apartment, Near Jamna Income Tax, Central Circle – Nagar Bus Stand, Ghod Dod Road, 3, Surat. Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Aappd 7237 H] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Rasesh Shah – Ca िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri S.R.Meena –Sr.Dr राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By 26.07.2019 सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 26.07.2019 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On: आदेश /O R D E R Per O.P.Meena, Am: The Above Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The 1. Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Surat (In Short The “Cit(A)”) Dated 29.05.2017 For The A.Y. 2011-12 & 2012-13 Challenging The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act Amounting To Rs.2,01,980/- & Rs.18,370/- Respectively.

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…Suresh B Desai Vs. DCIT, C.C.-3, Surat /ITA No’s.1720 & 1721/AHD/2017 A.Y. 2011-12 & 12-13 Page 1 of 9 आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण,सुरत"यायपीठ,सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./I.T.A.No’s.1720 & 1721/AHD/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 and 2012-13 Suresh B Desai, Vs. Deputy Commissioner of 101, Vishal Apartment, NEar Jamna Income Tax, Central Circle – Nagar Bus Stand, Ghod Dod Road, 3, Surat. Surat – 395 007. [PAN: AAPPD 7237 H] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Rasesh Shah – CA िनधा"रतीक"ओरस…

Suresh B Desai, Surat vs. DCIT Central Circle-3, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1720/AHD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A.No’S.1720 & 1721/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Suresh B Desai, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 101, Vishal Apartment, Near Jamna Income Tax, Central Circle – Nagar Bus Stand, Ghod Dod Road, 3, Surat. Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Aappd 7237 H] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Rasesh Shah – Ca िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri S.R.Meena –Sr.Dr राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By 26.07.2019 सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 26.07.2019 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On: आदेश /O R D E R Per O.P.Meena, Am: The Above Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The 1. Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Surat (In Short The “Cit(A)”) Dated 29.05.2017 For The A.Y. 2011-12 & 2012-13 Challenging The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act Amounting To Rs.2,01,980/- & Rs.18,370/- Respectively.

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…Suresh B Desai Vs. DCIT, C.C.-3, Surat /ITA No’s.1720 & 1721/AHD/2017 A.Y. 2011-12 & 12-13 Page 1 of 9 आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण,सुरत"यायपीठ,सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./I.T.A.No’s.1720 & 1721/AHD/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 and 2012-13 Suresh B Desai, Vs. Deputy Commissioner of 101, Vishal Apartment, NEar Jamna Income Tax, Central Circle – Nagar Bus Stand, Ghod Dod Road, 3, Surat. Surat – 395 007. [PAN: AAPPD 7237 H] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Rasesh Shah – CA िनधा"रतीक"ओरस…

Yuvraj Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-30(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6594/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaassessment Year: 2010-11 Yuvraj Singh Income Tax Officer S-337, Ground Floor, Greater Vs Ward – 30 (1) Kailash, Part-Ii New Delhi New Delhi-110048 Pan No.Bieps9585D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…tax when specifically confronted by the Assessing Officer while matter was under investigation that too after so many hearings before the AO. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mak Data P. Ltd vs CIT 358 ITR 593 (SC) The Hon’ble Court has held that - “The statute does not recognize those types of defences under Explanation 1 to sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is trite law that the voluntary disclosure does not release the assessee from the mischief of penal proceedings. The law does not provide that when an assessee makes a voluntary disclosure of his conc…

Income Tax Officer 10(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Kantilal G. Kotecha, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 205/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Income Tax Officer- Vs. Shri Kantilal G. Kotecha 10(3)(2), Road No.8, Sanskar Room No.621, 6Th Floor Ground Floor, Jvpd Scheme Aayakar Bhavan Vile Parle (W) M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 049 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aafpk5229G (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 45Section 47

…that the ld CITA had deleted the penalty on the basis of mercy ignoring the fact that the assessee had indeed furnished inaccurate particulars of income. He also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mak Data reported in 358 ITR 593 6 Shri Kantilal G. Kotecha (SC). Per Contra, the ld AR submitted that the tribunal had sustained the addition made towards quantum by denying the exemption u/s 47(xiv) of the Act partially to the extent of self-generated Goodwill. The assessee’s further appeal to Hon’ble Bombay High Court was dismissed at the admission stage itself and hence no…