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)

Joshi Wadewale Prabhat Cinema, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

ITA 102/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /For Respondent: Shri Hitendra Ninawe

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…ed. The CIT(A) held that the provisions of Explanation 5A were clearly applicable. Further, reliance was placed on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in MAK Data ITA Nos.95 & 96/PUN/2016 & Ors. 7 Vasundhara S Joshi & Ors P. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC). Another aspect which was covered by CIT(A) was that once the assessee admits that certain amount represents her income, no further evidence would be necessary to show that it was amount which represented her income or that it represented her concealed income. Reliance in this regard was placed on various decisions of different High Courts.…

Joshi Wadewale Shewalwadi, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

ITA 100/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /For Respondent: Shri Hitendra Ninawe

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…ed. The CIT(A) held that the provisions of Explanation 5A were clearly applicable. Further, reliance was placed on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in MAK Data ITA Nos.95 & 96/PUN/2016 & Ors. 7 Vasundhara S Joshi & Ors P. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC). Another aspect which was covered by CIT(A) was that once the assessee admits that certain amount represents her income, no further evidence would be necessary to show that it was amount which represented her income or that it represented her concealed income. Reliance in this regard was placed on various decisions of different High Courts.…

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 7249/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru, D.R

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…P a g e | 1 ITA Nos. 7245 to 7249/Mum/2016- A.Y. 2007-08 to 2011-12 DCIT Vs. M/s Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “L” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA, AM AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM ITA Nos. 7245 to 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 to 2011-12) DCIT-3(3)(1), M/s Reliance General Room No.609, 6th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next to Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN No. AABCR6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assesse…

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 7248/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru, D.R

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…P a g e | 1 ITA Nos. 7245 to 7249/Mum/2016- A.Y. 2007-08 to 2011-12 DCIT Vs. M/s Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “L” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA, AM AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM ITA Nos. 7245 to 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 to 2011-12) DCIT-3(3)(1), M/s Reliance General Room No.609, 6th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next to Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN No. AABCR6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assesse…

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 7247/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru, D.R

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…P a g e | 1 ITA Nos. 7245 to 7249/Mum/2016- A.Y. 2007-08 to 2011-12 DCIT Vs. M/s Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “L” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA, AM AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM ITA Nos. 7245 to 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 to 2011-12) DCIT-3(3)(1), M/s Reliance General Room No.609, 6th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next to Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN No. AABCR6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assesse…

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 7246/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru, D.R

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…P a g e | 1 ITA Nos. 7245 to 7249/Mum/2016- A.Y. 2007-08 to 2011-12 DCIT Vs. M/s Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “L” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA, AM AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM ITA Nos. 7245 to 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 to 2011-12) DCIT-3(3)(1), M/s Reliance General Room No.609, 6th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next to Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN No. AABCR6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assesse…

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 7245/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru, D.R

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…P a g e | 1 ITA Nos. 7245 to 7249/Mum/2016- A.Y. 2007-08 to 2011-12 DCIT Vs. M/s Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “L” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA, AM AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM ITA Nos. 7245 to 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 to 2011-12) DCIT-3(3)(1), M/s Reliance General Room No.609, 6th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next to Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN No. AABCR6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assesse…

ITO, Jaipur vs. Gajanan Towers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 751/JPR/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: The Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar &For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma (Addl. CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 24Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 69Section 69C

…only because of the material and documents found during the survey and statement was recorded. Therefore, the same cannot be held as voluntary. The ld. D/R has also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mak Data Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 358 ITR 593 (SC) and submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that surrender of income is not voluntary in the sense that the offer of surrender was made in view detection made by the AO in the search conducted in the sister concern of the assessee. Thus the ld. D/R has submitted that it is clearly a case of concealment of income and the assessee dis…

Sree Muthukumaran Silks, Elampillai vs. ACIT Circle II, Salem

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1558/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamonyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1558/Chny/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Vs The Acit, M/S. Sree Muthukumaran Silks, Circle – Ii, 3/148, Kakapalayam Main Road, Salem. Perumagoudampatty, Elampillai – 637 501. Pan: Abbfs5015R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Appellant By ""यथ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri B. Sagadevan, Jcit

For Respondent: Shri B. Sagadevan, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

…ded the penalty levied by the Ld.AO may be deleted. 5. The Ld.DR on the other hand argued vehemently in support of the orders of the Ld.Revenue Authorities and relied in the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case MAK Data (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 358 ITR 593. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials available on record. From the facts of the case it is apparent that there is a disparity between the accounts maintained by the assessee with that of the creditors. To a certain extent such disparities normally take place which are now and then reconciled. But in the cas…

Ajay Kumar Baid, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5946/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2008 - 2009 Ajay Kumar Baid Income Tax Officer 14(3)(1) 1St Floor, Chandra Mahal, Mumbai बनाम/ 241, Princess Street, Vs. Mumbai 400 020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue P.A. No. Aaapb5350N

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69

…Officer, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as the Tribunal has not accepted the explanation of the assessee. 9. Now, we shall deal with the case, in the case of MAK DATA P. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (2013) 263 CTR (SC) 1: (2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC) : (2013) 94 DTR (SC) 379. The relevant observation/decision made by Hon'ble Apex Court is reproduced hereunder for ready reference and analysis:- “6. We have heard counsel on either side. We fully concur with the view of the High Court that the Tribunal has not properly understood or appreciated the scope of Explanation 1 to Section 271(1…

Ajanta Pharma Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 6882/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri &For Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena

Section 115JSection 132(4)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 292B

…e of Dr. Sarita Milind Davare (supra), we hereby reject the aforesaid argument of the ld. CIT-DR.” 11. On this aspect, a plea has been raised by the Revenue, which is based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data P. Ltd. vs. CIT, 358 ITR 593 (SC). Notably, the said decision has been considered by the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Smt. Baisetty 13 M/s. Ajanta Pharma Ltd. Revathi (supra) and it is observed that the controversy in hand was not before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the case of MAK Data P. Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the Asses…

Prateek Juyal, Dehradun vs. DCIT, Dehradun

In the result appeals filed by assessee stand dismissed for all the years under consideration

ITA 4767/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt. Beena A Pillaia.Y. 2006-07 A.Y. 2009-10 A.Y. 2010-11

Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 273B

…vs. CIT reported in 120 ITR 1. Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, law which prevails on date of filing such return would be applicable for levy of penalty. Further as considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mak Data (P) Ltd., Vs. CIT reported in 358 ITR 593, there cannot be any surrender of income, with a view to avoid litigation or to buy peace, channelize energy Page 5 of 8 ITA Nos. 4766-4767-4768/Del/15 Assessment Year : 2006-07, 2009-10 and 2010-11 Sh.Prateek Juyal, Dehradun and resources towards productive working and to make amicable settlement with the Income Tax Department. 7.1. It is a tr…

Prateek Juyal, Dehradun vs. DCIT, Dehradun

In the result appeals filed by assessee stand dismissed for all the years under consideration

ITA 4766/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt. Beena A Pillaia.Y. 2006-07 A.Y. 2009-10 A.Y. 2010-11

Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 273B

…vs. CIT reported in 120 ITR 1. Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, law which prevails on date of filing such return would be applicable for levy of penalty. Further as considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mak Data (P) Ltd., Vs. CIT reported in 358 ITR 593, there cannot be any surrender of income, with a view to avoid litigation or to buy peace, channelize energy Page 5 of 8 ITA Nos. 4766-4767-4768/Del/15 Assessment Year : 2006-07, 2009-10 and 2010-11 Sh.Prateek Juyal, Dehradun and resources towards productive working and to make amicable settlement with the Income Tax Department. 7.1. It is a tr…

DCIT, Cir-2, Siliguri vs. Shri Suresh Karmakar, Siliguri

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1399/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Nov 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1399/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-2, Siliguri -Vs- Shri Suresh Karmakar [Pan: Alipk 6761 D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Avinash Mishra, CITFor Respondent: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…ances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in fact facts in observing that the assessee has fulfilled the condition prescribed for non-levy of penalty u/s 271AAA of the Act. 3. Reliance is placed on the ratio of judgment in case of MAK Data Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 358 ITR 593 (SC). 4. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter the grounds of appeal, if any. 5. The Ld. DR vehemently relied on the order of the Ld. AO. In response to this, the Ld. AR stated that there is no requirement in law provided in Section 271AAA(2) of the Act that the assessee should offer the undisclosed income declared under 132(4)…

R.Vasuki, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 899/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Mrs. Veni Raj, Jt. CITFor Respondent: 03.08.2017

Section 131Section 133ASection 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…or omission has not been explained at any stage. Merely stating of it being an attempt to buy peace or to avoid litigation would be of no moment; the statute not recognizing such defences, as also clarified by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mak Data v. CIT [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC), from which we may extract a few lines, as under: 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 concealment of…

M/S Sanraj Engineering Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5988/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh.G.D.Agarwal, Hon’Ble & Sh.K.N.Charysanraj Engineering Pvt.Ltd., Vs Ito, A-4/B-1, Mohan Coop Indl. Estate, Ward-7(3), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan-Aaccs6897E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Adv. Respondent By Sh. S.S.Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 27.10.2017 Order Per K.N.Chary

Section 133(6)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 46ASection 68

…/ [2001] 169 CTR 489 (SC); Union of India vs Dharamendra Textile Processors [2007] 295 ITR 244; CIT vs Zoom Communication P.Ltd. (191 Taxman 179 [Delhi])/[2010] 327 ITR 510 (Delhi)/ [2010]233 CTR 465; MAK Data P.Ltd. vs CIT [38 taxmann.com 448 (SC)/ [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC)/(2013) 263 CTR 1]; B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co vs CIT [116 taxman 842, 236 ITR 977, 157 CTR 556]; and CIT vs Escorts Finance Ltd. [183 Taxman 453 (Del)/ 920100 328 ITR 44 (Delhi)/ (2009) 226 CTR 105], whenever the claim made in the return of income was found to be ex-facie bogus, such a case would be treated as concealment or furnishi…

P.Srinivasan, Salem vs. ITO, Salem

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is disposed of in the foregoing terms

ITA 1280/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Smt. Veni S.Raj, Jt. CITFor Respondent: 01.08.2017

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…e saved by either clause (A) or clause (B) of Explanation 1 to s. 271(1)(c), and toward which we may cite several decisions, settling the law, as follows: Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC): Mak Data P. Ltd. vs. CIT [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC); CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal [2009] 317 ITR 1 (SC); K.P. Madhusudhanan vs. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC); B.A. Balasubramaniam and Bros v. CIT (1999) 236 ITR 977 (SC); Addl. CIT vs. Jeevan Lal Shah [1994] 205 ITR 244 (SC); CIT vs. K. R. Sadayappan [1990] 185 ITR 49 (SC); CIT vs. Mussadilal Ram Bharose [1987] 165 ITR 14 (SC); and Sharma Alloys (Ind…

The ACIT, Circle-8, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Varia Engineering Works Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1379/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri GyanPipara, ARFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, Sr DR

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

…void costly long drawn litigation. 7. Learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand supported the order of the Assessing Officer and reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data P. Ltd. vs. CIT, reported (2013) 358 ITR 593, for the proposition that penalty is civil liability and assessee’s own admission constitutes admission of liability. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. The only ground of appeal raised by the Revenue is with regard to the deletion of penalty of Rs.56,08,350/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. American Express India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4422/DEL/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.C. Danday, Sr. DR

Section 10BSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 80H

…60 (SC)/(2009) 222 CTR 213) 2. CIT Vs Gold Coin Health Food (P.) Ltd (172 Taxman 386 (SC)/(2008) 304 ITR 308 (SC). 3. Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors (2007) 295 ITR 2441 Page 5 of 10 4. MAK Data P. Ltd vs. CIT T38 taxmann.com 448 (SC)/2013l 358 ITR 593 (SC)/2013 263 CTR 1. 5. B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co Vs CIT [116 Taxman 842, 236 ITR 977, 157 CTR 556]. 6. CIT vs Gates Foam & Rubber Co [91 ITR 467] CIT vs India Seafood [105 ITR 708] 7. Steel Ingots Ltd vs. CIT T296 ITR 228] 8. CIT Vs Escorts Finance Ltd [183 Taxman 453 (Delhi)/[2010] 328 ITR 44 (Delhi)/[2009] 226 CTR 105] 9. CIT Vs R.M.P. P…

Shri Swapnil Bharat Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 2669/AHD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri S. S. Godara. Shri Swapnil Bharat Shah 3-River Colony, Opp. St. Xaviers College, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad 380009 Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(4), Ahmedabad Respondent

For Appellant: Arti N. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Roopchand, Sr. D.R

Section 271(1)(c)

…envisaged in Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Factual position is very much the same in quantum proceedings as well wherein he did not file even a single letter explaining source of the total cash deposits. Hon’ble apex court’s decision MAK Data (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT 358 ITR 593 (SC) upholds hon’ble Delhi high court’s judgment restoring an identical penalty in absence of such a tenable explanation. The assessee’s further argument of having assessed nil income is also without any merit since the impugned deemed income; although in the nature of unexplained investment addition stood made in course of assessment, the final…

Mak Data Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

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

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Mak Data Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

Joshi Wadewale Prabhat Cinema, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

Joshi Wadewale Shewalwadi, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai

ITO, Jaipur vs. Gajanan Towers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

Sree Muthukumaran Silks, Elampillai vs. ACIT Circle II, Salem

Ajay Kumar Baid, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(3)(1), Mumbai

Ajanta Pharma Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 7(2), Mumbai

Prateek Juyal, Dehradun vs. DCIT, Dehradun

Prateek Juyal, Dehradun vs. DCIT, Dehradun

DCIT, Cir-2, Siliguri vs. Shri Suresh Karmakar, Siliguri

R.Vasuki, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

M/S Sanraj Engineering Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

P.Srinivasan, Salem vs. ITO, Salem

The ACIT, Circle-8, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Varia Engineering Works Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. American Express India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Shri Swapnil Bharat Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(4), Ahmedabad