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)

The Income Tax Officer Ward-7(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S Triad Resorts and Hotels Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3324/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Dr. C.P. Ramaswami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…be reversed and that of AO should be restored. He also drawn our attention to Para 8 of the penalty order and submitted that in this Para, the AO has considered the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of MAK Data P. Ltd. Vs. CIT as reported in 358 ITR 593. He also submitted that in this para, the AO has given a categorical finding that the assessee company has concealed particulars of income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income. He submitted that it is clear from the penalty order that the assessee is guilty of both i.e. concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of i…

Mesers Malwa Motors, Bathinda vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Bathinda

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 131/ASR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 131/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

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

…is income, or the explanation furnished is found false, he shall be deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income. Reference in this context may be drawn to a series of decisions by the Apex Court in the matter, viz. Mak Data (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC); UoI v. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC); K.P. Madhusudhanan vs. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC); B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. v. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 977 (SC); CIT (Addl.) vs. Jeevan Lal Shah [1994] 205 ITR 244 (SC); CIT vs. K. R. Sadayappan [1990] 185 ITR 49 (SC)), to cite some, followed by Hon’ble High Courts throughout the…

Shri H.K. Gandotra, Gurgaon vs. The Inocme-Tax Officer, Jammu

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 594/ASR/2014[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Jun 2019AY 1997-98

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 594/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 1997-98

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 246Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (SMC) BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 594/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 1997-98 H. K. Gandotra, r/o 733, vs. Income Tax Officer, Prem Nagar, New Plots, Ward-2(1), Jammu Jammu (presently, F-2555, Ansal Palam Vihar, Gurgaon) [PAN: ACBPG 1745P] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.) Respondent by: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.) Date of Hearing: 02.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 28.06.2019 ORDER Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the Assessee directed against the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (…

Garron Trading Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-8(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 5936/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri M. Balaganeshgarron Trading Company Pvt. Ito -8(1)(4) Room No. 206, 2Nd Floor, Ltd., B-202, New Usha Nagar, Vs. Village Road, Bhandup (West), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400078 Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaacg8957B Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri P.V. Thombre (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Satish Rajore (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.06.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri P.V. Thombre (AR)For Respondent: Shri Satish Rajore (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…t was detected by the Assessing Officer during the assessment. In support of his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd. (327 ITR 510), Supreme Court in MAK Data Pvt. Ltd. (358 ITR 593 SC) 8. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and have gone through the orders of authorities below. There is no dispute that while filing the return of income, the assessee has offered Interest Income of Rs. 1,35,986/-. During the assessment, the Assessing Officer noted that assessee received refund of Rs. 18,21,969/- pertai…

Harish C. Mehta, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-24, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 298/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Ravish Soodharish C. Mehta Pr. Cit-24, Times Square, 602 B, Piramal Chambers, „B‟ Wing, Nr. Marol Mumbai – 400 012 Vs. Metro Station, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 059

For Appellant: Shri Reepal C. Tralshawala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivas, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…ion of mind, therefore, the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction by the Pr. CIT under Sec. 263 was clearly excluded. As regards the reliance placed by the Pr. CIT on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data Pvt. ltd. Vs. CIT (2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC), it was submitted by the ld. A.R that the facts involved in the case of the assessee were clearly distinguishable as against those involved in the case before the Hon‟ble Apex Court. Alternatively, it was submitted by the ld. A.R, that as the A.O had dropped the penalty proceedings under Sec.271(1)(c) by way of an „order sheet‟ noting and no…

Arun Ravindranath Sawhney, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 7192/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 7192/Mum/2016 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2007-08) Arun Ravindranath Sawhney The Dy. Commissioner Of 502, Daisylea Apartment, 17- Income Tax, Central Circle A Mount Pleasant Road, 3(4), Old Acit Central Vs. Mumbai-400 006 Circle 24& 26 Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aafps4688F

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: S/shri Anadi Varma

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

…llers, ITA No. 2083 (Mds)/2011 12. CIT vs. Munish Iron Store (2003) 263 0484 (2004) 13. Mahendra Mital vs. ACiT (2011) 139 TTJ 513 (Mum) 14. Mrs. SArita Kaur Manjeet Singh Chopra V. ITO (2017) 88 Taxmann.com 360 (Pune-Trib) 15. MAK Data (P) Ltd. v. CIT (2013) 358 ITR 593 16. m/S Madhushree Gupta vs. UOI & Anr. (2009) 317 ITR 107 (Delhi) 12. On the other hand, the learned CIT DR, Shri Anadi Verma countered the arguments and stated that there is clear admission by the assessee regarding non disclosure of income under section 132(4) of the Act and accordingly, the concealed income was brought to tax by assessing the…

Sh. Tarun Arora, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4989/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Abhimanyu Jhamba, Adv., MsFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT-D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 43B

…was in the knowledge of the assessee and assessee cannot take the shelter that it has acted upon the end of the auditors. In the written submission, she has strongly relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Mak Data Pvt. Ltd., 358 ITR 593 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: “The Assessing Officer, shall not be carried away by the plea of the assessee like 'voluntary disclosure', 'buy peace', 'avoid litigation', 'amicable settlement', etc. to explain away its conduct. • The question is whether the assessee has offered any explanation for concealment of particulars…

Sony Dadc Manufacturing (India ) P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 11(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3648/MUM/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Sheth, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IT vs. Moser Baer India Ltd. (184 Taxman 8 (SC)/ (2009) 315 ITR 460 (SC)/(2009) 222 CTR 213 5. CIT vs. Gold Coin Health Food (P.) LTd. (172 Taxman 386 (SC)/(2008) 304 ITR 308 (SC)/(2008) 218 CTR 359) 6. MAK Data P. Ltd. vs. CIT (38 taxmann.com 448 (SC)/(2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC)/(2013) 263 CTR 1 7. B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co vs. CIT (116 Taxman 842, 236 ITR 977, 157 CTR 556) 8. CIT vs. Gates Foam & Rubber Co (91 ITR 467) 9. Steel Ingots Ltd. vs. CIT (296 ITR 228) 10. CIT vs. Escorts Finance Ltd. (183 Taxman 453 (Delhi)/(2010) 328 ITR 44 (Delhi)/(2009) 226 CTR 105 11. CIT vs. R.M.P. Plasto (P.) Ltd. (184 Taxman…

Sonali D. Mehta, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17 (3) Erstwhile Deputy Commissioner Income Tax 12(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6708/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Paresh Shaparia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IT vs. Moser Baer India Ltd. (184 Taxman 8 (SC)/ (2009) 315 ITR 460 (SC)/(2009) 222 CTR 213 5. CIT vs. Gold Coin Health Food (P.) LTd. (172 Taxman 386 (SC)/(2008) 304 ITR 308 (SC)/(2008) 218 CTR 359) 6. MAK Data P. Ltd. vs. CIT (38 taxmann.com 448 (SC)/(2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC)/(2013) 263 CTR 1 7. B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co vs. CIT (116 Taxman 842, 236 ITR 977, 157 CTR 556) 8. CIT vs. Gates Foam & Rubber Co (91 ITR 467) 9. Steel Ingots Ltd. vs. CIT (296 ITR 228) 10. CIT vs. Escorts Finance Ltd. (183 Taxman 453 (Delhi)/(2010) 328 ITR 44 (Delhi)/(2009) 226 CTR 105 6 Mrs. Sonali D. Mehta 11. CIT vs. R.M.P. Plast…

Manjit Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 30(4), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee dismissed

ITA 6098/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri Naveen KumarFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R

Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 68

…The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the explanation of assessee, noted that Explanation-1 to Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, is attracted in the case. The Ld. CIT(A) relied upon Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mak Data P. Ltd., vs. CIT [2013] 358 ITR 593 [SC] and held that “assessee failed to discharge the onus to prove and justify its claim. No explanation have been given. The assessee agreed for these additions. Merely because assessee surrendered the amount to buy peace of mind and to avoid further litigation will in no way exonerate the assessee from penal provisions contained under section 6…

Pankaj P. Saraiya, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 31 Cen RG 7, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1130/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2005-06 Shri Pankaj P. Saraiya, Flat Acit, Central Circle-31, No. 801, 8Th Floor, Shiv Vs. Central Range-7 Prisha, Plot, No. 65, Jvpd Mumbai, 4Th Floor, Link Road Scheme, Vile Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Parle (W), Mumbai-400049. Road, Mumbai-400023. Pan No. Amzps1044F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Pankaj P. Saraiya, Dcit, Central Circle- 5/E Vaibhav, 140, S V Road, Vs. 4(3), Mumbai, 19Th Floor, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai- Air India Building, 400056. Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. Pan No. Amzps1044F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. Awungshi Gimsan, Cit Dr & Mr. Abirama Karthikeyan Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 04/04/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 22/04/2019

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Awungshi Gimsan, CIT DR &

Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…filed by the assessee, reproduced at page 4-6 of the order dated 17.08.2016 and the facts of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) referred to Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) and the decision in CIT v. Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 327 ITR 510, MAK Data v. CIT 358 ITR 593 (SC) and CIT v. Lal Chand Tirath Ram (1997) 225 ITR 684 (P&H), the Ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income within the meaning of Explanation 1 to section Shri Pankaj P. Saraiya 271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation 5A and confirmed the penalty of Rs.40,73,990/- imposed by the AO. 10. Before us, the Ld. DR submits that t…