Mak Data Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

358 ITR 593Supreme Court of India2013#159 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 367,164 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
Read the full judgment

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

Shri Dhanjibhai N. Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-3, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2155/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: C .M. Garg, Jm & O. P. Meena, Am आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No. 2155/Ahd/2015: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Dhanjibhai N. Patel V. Deputy Commissioner Of Nanavaty& Associates A/18, Income-Tax, Circle -3, Surat 3Rd Floor Narayan Chambers Ashram Road 380009 Pan: Aezpp 9747 E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से Assessee By Shri A. P. Nanavaty, Ca राज"व क" ओर से Revenue By Shri Dilip Kumar, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तारीख Date Of Hearing 12.10.2018 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख Date Of Pronouncement 15.10.2018 आदेश /Order Per O. P. Meena, Am 1. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against An Order Dated03.06.2015 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii Surat (In Short “The Cit (A)”) For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Ground No. 1 To 4 Are Against The Confirmation Of Penalty Of Rs. 3,77,142 Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act By Cit (A). 3. The Learned Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That Cit (A) Has Failed To Appreciate The On The Basis Of Return Filed U/S.147 Of The Act , There Is No Variation In The Returned Income & Assessed Income , Hence, Penalty Based On Return Filed U/S.147 Cannot Be Levied. Further, The Partners In Survey Under Section 133A, Has Admitted Capital Gains On The Ground & The Plea Of Treating Capital Gains In Order

Section 133ASection 147Section 271Section 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 s case as the disclosure 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 placed in Paper Book of Tribunals as well as High Courts as relied by the assessee are also supports its case.…

Ratanla C. Bafna, Jalgaon vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 653/PUN/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ecorded by Assessing Officer for levying penalty and the consequent proceedings arising therefrom. The ld. DR submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mak A.Ys. 2002-03 & 2008-09 Data P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported as 358 ITR 593 has held that there is no specific format for recording of satisfaction. 4. We have heard the submissions made by representatives of rival sides and have perused the orders of authorities below. A perusal of the assessment order shows that the Assessing Officer has initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) with respect to two additions i.e. u…

Ratanla C. Bafna, Jalgaon vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 652/PUN/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Oct 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ecorded by Assessing Officer for levying penalty and the consequent proceedings arising therefrom. The ld. DR submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mak A.Ys. 2002-03 & 2008-09 Data P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported as 358 ITR 593 has held that there is no specific format for recording of satisfaction. 4. We have heard the submissions made by representatives of rival sides and have perused the orders of authorities below. A perusal of the assessment order shows that the Assessing Officer has initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) with respect to two additions i.e. u…

Smt. Tripat Kaur, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2835/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishismt. Tripat Kaur Vs. The Assistant A-29, Friends Colony, East Commissioner Of Income New Delhi Tax Pan: Aaapk8020A Central Circle- 14 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 154Section 271Section 271A

…nts to substantiation of the manner of earning income. ―15. While dealing with a case of similar surrender—but made in the course of survey proceedings, by an assessee (which led to imposition of penalty), the Supreme Court, in MAK Data (P) Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC) held as follows (page 597) : "The Assessing Officer, in our view, 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 con cealment of particulars of inco…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sitashri Trading & Finance Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2295/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Tiwari, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 14Section 143(2)Section 14A

…ade in Explanation 4 to section 271(1)(c)(iii) with effect from 1-4-2003 is clarificatory and, therefore, will have retrospective effect. Penalty u/s 271 (1 )(c) could be /vied in case of loss return v. MAK Data P. Ltd vs. CIT [38 taxmann.com 448 (SC)I[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 th…

S4 Interior, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 25(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4422/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Ravish Soodm/S S4 Interior, Assisstant Commissioner Of Income A-301E, Sumit Samarth Tax-25(3), Arcade, Tatya Tope Nagar, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Vs. Near Railway Station, Bandra Kurla Complex, Goregaon (West), Mumbai Mumbai- 400062 Pan – Abgfs7239E Assessee Revenue Assessee By: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, A.R Revenue By: Shri Nishant Samaiya, D.R Date Of Hearing: 24.09.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.09.2018 O R D E R Per Ravish Sood, Jm The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee For A.Y. 2009-10 Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-32, Mumbai, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O Under Sec. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘Act’), Dated 23.09.2015. The Assessee Assailing The Order Of The Cit(A) Has Raised Before Us The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Under The Facts & In Law, The Hon'Ble Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs. 430,707/- Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 1.1 The Hon’Ble Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Penalty Without Appreciating The Submission Made By The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nishant Samaiya, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…hus, the A.O had rightly imposed penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c), which thereafter was sustained by the CIT(A). In support of his aforesaid contention, the ld. D.R relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mak Data P. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC). It was further submitted by the ld. D.R that there was no estoppel in law, as regards levy of penalty, even in case where addition was made on an estimate basis. In support of his aforesaid contention reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: (i). CIT Vs. Kalindi Rail Nirman Engg. Ltd. (2014) 365 ITR 304 (Del) (ii). CI…

M/S Heritage Marketing, Chandigarh vs. ITO, W-3(2), Chandigarh

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 284/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Sept 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Heritage Marketing Vs. The Ito Sco-64, F.F., Sector-20-C Ward-3(2), Dakshin Marg, Chandigarh Chandigarh

For Appellant: Sh. Om Dutt SharmaFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh
Section 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…ion the assessee was precluded from giving any explanation in appellate proceedings and that the disclosure did not release the assessee from penal proceedings. Reliance was placed on the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of MAK DATA Pvt. Ltd.vs CIT 358 ITR 593 in this regard. The relevant findings of the CIT(A) at para 7.3 of his order is as under: “7.3 Thus, when the assessee has concealed particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars, conditions laid down in Explanation-1 (supra) have to be examined. In the instant case, the addition of Rs. 3,13,542/- was made by the Assessing Office…

Santosh Hastimal Gugale, Ahmednagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1336/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1336/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Santosh Hastimal Gugale At. 4253, Chitale Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Dist. Ahmednagar …. Pan: Aeapg2716G Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Verma
Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 9

…133A of the Act. Even the additional income was detected during the course of Survey and the same was admitted by the assessee. The CIT(A) vide para 4.3.4 placed reliance on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mak Data Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC) and observed that even in cases where voluntary disclosure was made to buy peace and to avoid litigation, etc. but the law does not provide that he has to be absolved from penalty. The CIT(A) upheld the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT(A). 7. The learned Authorized Re…

ACIT - 26(1), Mumbai vs. Grace Shelter, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2832/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhacit- 26(1) Grace Shelter 64, Dheeraj Heritage, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 701, C-11, 7Th Floor, Bkc, Bandra (E), Vs. S V Road, Opp. Milan Subway, Mumbai-400051. Santacruz (E), Mumbai. Pan: Aaefg4946M Appellant Respondent Appellant By : R. Kavitha (Dr) Respondent By : Shri Amrit Porwal (Ar)

For Appellant: R. Kavitha (DR)For Respondent: Shri Amrit Porwal (AR)
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…y the said judgment actually endorses the stand taken by the department" 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in ignoring the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mak Data (P) Ltd. Vs CIT (2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC) wherein it was categorically held that if assessee makes a claim which is not only incorrect in law, but is also wholly without any basis and explanation furnished by him for making such a claim is not found to be bonafide, Explanation 1 to section 271 (1 )(c) would come into play and assessee will be liable to penalty. 6. "The appellant pr…

M/S. Capital Power Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2257/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13 Capital Power Infrastructure Pvt. Acit, Circle- 5(2), Ltd., New Delhi. A- 156, Lower Ground Floor, Vs. New Friends Colony, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Ms. Himani Agrawal, CA
Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…5 ITR 244. (ii) R. L. Traders vs. ITO, 2017-TIOL-2583-HC-DEL-IT. (iii) CIT vs. Zoom Communication (P.) Ltd., 327 ITR 510. (iv) CIT vs. Moser Baer India Ltd., 315 ITR 460. (v) CIT vs. Gold Coin Health Food (P.) Ltd., 304 ITR 308. (vi) MAK Data P. Ltd. vs. CIT, 358 ITR 593. (vii) B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co. vs. CIT, 236 ITR 977. (viii) CIT vs. Gates Foam & Rubber Co., 91 ITR 467. (ix) Steel Ingots Ltd. vs. CIT, 296 ITR 228. (x) CIT vs. Escorts Finance Ltd., 328 ITR 44. (xi) CIT vs. R.M.P. Plasto (P.) Ltd., 313 ITR 397. (xii) K.P. Madhusudhanan vs. CIT, 251 ITR 99. (xiii) CIT vs. Splender Construction, 208 taxm…

ACIT 27(3), Navi Mumbai vs. Shriniwas Reddy Pichhi Mukku, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2527/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: A.Mohan, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…w is duly supported by the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in ITO Vs Ramsons Castings Pvt. Ltd. [85 Taxmann.com 90 20/07/2017] wherein the Hon’ble Court after considering the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in Mak Data Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT [358 ITR 593] has concluded the matter, under similar circumstances, as under:- 4 Shriniwas Reddy Pichhi Mukku Assessment Year-2009-10 12. We find that the decision of the Apex Court in Mak Data (P.) Ltd. (supra) was rendered on 30th October, 2013 i.e. after impugned order of the Tribunal dated 30th November, 2012. Thus, normal course would have been to rest…

Anisha Khanna, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward- 1(1), Meerut

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 514/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Aug 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Rajkumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay Kumar Jiwani, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…tile Processors [(2007) 295 ITR 244] 2. R L Traders vs. ITO (2017-TIOL-2583-HC-DEL-IT) 3. CIT vs. Zoom Communication (P.) Ltd. [191 Taxman 179 (Delhi)/[2010] 327 ITR 510 (Delhi)/[2010] 233 CTR 465] 4. MAK Data P. Ltd vs. CIT [38 taxmann.com 448(SC)/[2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC)/[2013] 263 CTR 1] 5 ITA No.- 513 & 514/Del/2018 Smt. Anuradha Khanna & Ms. Anisha Khanna. 5. K.P. Madhusudhanan vs CIT [[2001] 118 Taxman 324 (SC)/[2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC)/[2001] 169 CTR 489 (SC)] 6. Sundaram Finance Ltd v. CIT 403 ITR 407 (Mad), on the proposition that assessee had understood purport and Import of notice hence no prejudi…

Anuradha Khanna, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward- 1(1), Meerut

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 513/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Aug 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Rajkumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay Kumar Jiwani, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…tile Processors [(2007) 295 ITR 244] 2. R L Traders vs. ITO (2017-TIOL-2583-HC-DEL-IT) 3. CIT vs. Zoom Communication (P.) Ltd. [191 Taxman 179 (Delhi)/[2010] 327 ITR 510 (Delhi)/[2010] 233 CTR 465] 4. MAK Data P. Ltd vs. CIT [38 taxmann.com 448(SC)/[2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC)/[2013] 263 CTR 1] 5 ITA No.- 513 & 514/Del/2018 Smt. Anuradha Khanna & Ms. Anisha Khanna. 5. K.P. Madhusudhanan vs CIT [[2001] 118 Taxman 324 (SC)/[2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC)/[2001] 169 CTR 489 (SC)] 6. Sundaram Finance Ltd v. CIT 403 ITR 407 (Mad), on the proposition that assessee had understood purport and Import of notice hence no prejudi…

ACIT 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Pegasus Assets Reconsruction P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue as well as the appeals and cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 747/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year : 2010-11 Acit 3(2)(2) Pegasus Asset Reconstruction P Ltd. 54-55, 5Th Floor, Free Press House, Mumbai Vs. Free Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 023. Pan Aadcp3334Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Haresh G Buch & Ms.Moksha MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal
Section 115JSection 143(2)

…t any basis and the explanation furnished by assessee for making such a claim is not found to be bona fide; triggering Explanation 1 to section 271(1) ( c) of the I.T. Act 1961 as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAKData Pvt. Ltd. v/s. CIT (2013), 358 ITR 593 (SC) and Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd. 40 DTR 249 (2010). 3. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 10. The brief facts of the case are that, in this case the assessment was compled u/s. 143(3) on 24.12.2012 determ…

Pegasus Asset Reconstruction P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (OSD) Cir 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue as well as the appeals and cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1020/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year : 2010-11 Acit 3(2)(2) Pegasus Asset Reconstruction P Ltd. 54-55, 5Th Floor, Free Press House, Mumbai Vs. Free Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 023. Pan Aadcp3334Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Haresh G Buch & Ms.Moksha MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal
Section 115JSection 143(2)

…t any basis and the explanation furnished by assessee for making such a claim is not found to be bona fide; triggering Explanation 1 to section 271(1) ( c) of the I.T. Act 1961 as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAKData Pvt. Ltd. v/s. CIT (2013), 358 ITR 593 (SC) and Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd. 40 DTR 249 (2010). 3. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 10. The brief facts of the case are that, in this case the assessment was compled u/s. 143(3) on 24.12.2012 determ…

Sahiwal Investment & Trading Co., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 4913/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamblesahiwal Investment & Trading Vs Ito Co., Ward 22(2) 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, New Delhi. 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaacs0017J Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(a)Section 32Section 50

…95 ITR 244 (SC) ii. R L Traders vs. ITO 2017-TIOL-2583-HC-DEL-IT iii CIT vs. Zoom Communication P. Ltd. 327 ITR 510 (Del) iv. CIT vs. Moser Baer India Ltd. 315 ITR 460 (SC) v. CIT vs. Gold Coin Health Food P. Ltd. 304 ITR 308 (SC) vi. MAK Data P. Ltd. CIT 358 ITR 593 (SC) vii. B. A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co. vs. CIT 236 ITR 977 (SC) viii. CIT vs. Escorts Finance Ltd. 328 ITR 44 (Del) 9 11. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on the records. Since the Additional Grounds are legal in nature and can be taken at any stage, we are admitting the additional grounds fil…

ACIT, Circle, Panchkula vs. M/S Himalayan Expressway Ltd., Pinjore

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1614/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri. Ashwani Kumar GargFor Respondent: Dr. Gulshan Raj
Section 271(1)(c)Section 276C

…d of 16 years out of the total agreement period of 20 years for the same asset. 5. The Assessing Officer levied penalty on this disallowance of depreciation claimed by the assessee by invoking the judgments of various Courts namely MAK Data Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 358 ITR 593 (Del), CIT Vs. Shri Krishna Trading Co. 253 ITR 645, K.P. Madhusoodan Vs. CIT 251 ITR 1999. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition based on the judicial precedents for depreciation on BOT projects namely CIT v. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd. 213 taxman 333 (All) and DCIT v. Swama Tollway Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Hyd) etc. Ld. CIT(A) held that there were also…

Ashwani Jaipaty, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Circle- 1, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the Department is

ITA 276/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jul 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar &For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 56(2)(vii)

…lied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that since the assessee agreed for addition, therefore, penalty was rightly imposed by the authorities below. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the following decisions : (i) Mak Data P. Ltd. vs. CIT (2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC) (ii) Samson Maritime Ltd. vs. CIT 2017-TIOL-519-HC- MUM-IT-Bombay-HC (iii) Mohd. Raza vs. CIT 2016-TIOL-2026-HC-Del-IT 5. After considering the rival submissions, I do not find any justification to levy penalty against the assessee. The A.O. before levy of the penalty issued show cause notice to the assessee and has mentioned the follow…

M/S. Star Wire (India) Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4876/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 4875/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Ita No. 4876/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Star Wire (India) Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 35, Link Road, 2Nd Floor, Lajpat Tax, Circle-24(2), Nagar-Iii, New Delhi-110024 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecs1124Q Assessee By : Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: These Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Each Dated 24.06.2016 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Gurgaon For The Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2007-08. 2. Since, The Issues Involved Are Common In These Appeals Which Were Heard Together, So, These Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69C

…the undisclosed income. The plea of the appellant that the income was surrendered to buy peace of mind, penalty should not be levied is also untenable in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mac data Private Limited vs. CIT (2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC), whereby it has been held that the voluntary disclosure/surrender made in view of detection by the Assessing Officer in the search conducted does not relieve the assessee from the mischief of the penalty proceedings. In view of the discussion above, and the judicial pronouncements relied upon which is applicable to the case of the appellant,…

M/S. Star Wire (India) Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4875/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 4875/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Ita No. 4876/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Star Wire (India) Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 35, Link Road, 2Nd Floor, Lajpat Tax, Circle-24(2), Nagar-Iii, New Delhi-110024 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecs1124Q Assessee By : Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: These Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Each Dated 24.06.2016 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Gurgaon For The Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2007-08. 2. Since, The Issues Involved Are Common In These Appeals Which Were Heard Together, So, These Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69C

…the undisclosed income. The plea of the appellant that the income was surrendered to buy peace of mind, penalty should not be levied is also untenable in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mac data Private Limited vs. CIT (2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC), whereby it has been held that the voluntary disclosure/surrender made in view of detection by the Assessing Officer in the search conducted does not relieve the assessee from the mischief of the penalty proceedings. In view of the discussion above, and the judicial pronouncements relied upon which is applicable to the case of the appellant,…