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 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 367,154 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 147 Section 1961 Section 132 Section 148 Section 153A

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 271aab section 271aa furnishing inaccurate particulars of income furnishing inaccurate particulars penalty u/s 271(1)(c)penalty under section 271(1)(c)section 271a section 274 concealment of income levy of penalty section 271(1)section 271(1)(c)

Judgments citing Mak Data Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

Harish Narinder Salve, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 100/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: SH. SACHIT JOLLY, ADVFor Respondent: SH. ARUN KUMAR YADAV, SR. DR

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

…owledge of the assessee and the claim of depreciation and loss on sale of assets is ex facie bogus which attracts penalty uls 271 (1) (c). In view of the above, he relied upon the following cases laws:- i) MAK Data P. Ltd. Vs. CIT (38 Taxmann.com 448) /(2013 358 ITR 593 ii) CIT vs. Escorts Finance Ltd. (183 Taxman 453). iii) CIT vs. Zoom Communication (P) Ltd. 191 Taxman 179 (Delhi). iv) BA Balasubramaniam and Bros. Co. Vs. CIT (1999) 236 ITR 977 (SC). v) CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (2010) 189 Taxman 322 (SC) vi) Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors (2007) 295 ITR 244. 7. We have heard both t…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Whirlpool of India Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6417/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(d)

…In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘B’, New Delhi Before : Shri I.C. Sudhir, Judicial Member And Shri L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member ITA No. 6417/Del./2015 Assessment Year: 2009-10 A.C.I.T., Circle – 2, vs. Whirlpool of India Ltd., Plot No.40, New Delhi. Whirlpool House, Sector-44, PAN- AAACC6423G Gurgaon. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Anshu Prakash, Sr. DR Respondent by Sh. Tapas Ram Misra, Advocate & Sh. Mohit Jhamb, Advocate Date of Hearing 30.08.2017 Date of Pronouncement 19.09.2017 ORDER Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order dated 17.09.20…

Pramukh Realtors, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 15(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3304/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Pramukh Relators Acit-15(2), 1301, G Wing Kamla Vihar, 1St Floor, R. No. 113, Vs. Borsa Pada, Mahavir Matru Mandir, Nagar, Kandivali (W), Tardeo Road, Grant Mumbai-400067. Road (W), Mumbai-400007 Pan No. Aagfp3465N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Sanjay R. Parikh, Ar Revenue By : Mr. M.C. Omi Ningshen, Dr Date Of Hearing : 21/06/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/09/2017

For Appellant: Mr. Sanjay R. Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Mr. M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69C

…)(c) read with the Explanations indicates that the section has been enacted to 5 provide for a remedy for loss of revenue. The penalty under that provision is a civil liability. The above principle of law has been reiterated in Mak Data P. Ltd. vs. CIT (2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC), affirming CIT vs. Mak Data Ltd. (2013) 352 ITR 1 (Del). Coming back to the facts of the case, we find that the assessee-firm has not filed any appeal before the appellate authority against the addition of Rs.10,95,106/- made by the AO on account of bogus purchase. The fact remains that the addition has been made by the AO on account of bogu…

Mr. M. Ganesan, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2605/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. B Sagadevan, IRS, JCIT

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ (SMC) BENCH : CHENNAI "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखा सद"य के सम" । [BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2605/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2012-2013. Shri.M. Ganesan, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of No. 3, 4th Cross Street, Income Tax, Maniammal Street, Corporate Circle 4(1) Kamarajapuram Madina Nagar, Chennai. Rajakilpakkam, Chennai 600 073. [PAN AANPM 6438K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by :…

Shri Kulwant Singh Bhatia, Indore vs. The Addl. CIT, Range-3, Indore

In the result, all the ix appeals as mentioned above are

ITA 414/IND/2012[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Aug 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ /. सं . अ .

Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…lower authorities. The Ld. DR referring para 59 of the order of CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra) submitted that in some cases case both offences in clause (c) are attracted. The Ld. DR referred decision of Mak Data P. Ltd. vs. CIT [2013] 358 ITR 593(SC) and contended that the AO has to satisfy whether penalty proceedings be initiated or not during the course of assessment proceedings and the AO is not required to record Shri Kulwant Singh Bhatia v. Addl. CIT-Range 3(1) Indore/I.T.A. No. 414 to 419/Ind/2012/A.Y.: 02-03 to 07-08 Page 14 of 23 his satisfaction in a particular manner or redu…

Ms. Shilpy Sharma, New Delhi vs. ITO, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3728/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…section 271(1)(c) , i.e., concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income before initiating the penalty proceedings. In this context, it has been settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data (P) Ltd. vs. CIT, 358 ITR 593 (SC) that the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer should be discernible from the assessment order for imposition of penalty, and he is not required to record his satisfaction in a particular manner or reduce it to writing. The relevant observations of Hon’ble Court read as under : "9. We are of the view that the surrender of income in this case…

ACIT, Erode vs. M/S. S. Selvaraj & Co., Erode

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

ITA 2777/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jul 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.2777/Mds/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Vs M/S. S. Selvaraj & Co., The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.63, Sakthi Mahal, Circle (1), Perundurai Road, Erode – 638 001. Erode – 638 011. Pan: Aahfs0382A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Philip George, Advocate

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

…/s 271 (1) (c) has been levied. The Assessing Officer is correct in holding that additional income offered after detection by the Department for avoiding litigation and to purchase peace squarely falls in the ratio in Apex Court judgement in Mak Data (P) Ltd. 358 ITR 593. But in that case income based on evidence from materials found with the sister concern was not offered for assessment even after 10 months of survey during which there was detection of concealment by the Department. The facts of the present case have to be looked at before applying the ratio of Mak Data (P) Ltd. In the instant case the appellant…

ACIT, Erode vs. M/S. R.R. Thulasi Builders India (P) Ltd., Erode

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 2776/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jul 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.2776/Mds/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Vs M/S. R R Thulasi Builders The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, India (P) Limited, Circle (1), Sakthi Mahal, 63, Perundurai Erode – 638 001. Road, Erode – 638 001. Pan: Aadcr2519R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Philip George, Advocate

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

…) (c) has been levied. The Assessing Officer is correct in holding that additional income offered after detection by the Department for avoiding litigation and to purchase peace squarely falls in the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in Mak Data (P) Ltd 358 ITR 593. But in that case income based on evidence from materials found with the sister concern was during which there was detection by the Department. The distinct facts of the present case have to be looked at before applying the ratio of Mak Data (P) Ltd. In the instant case, the appellant has 47 work sites and discrepancy in work site accounts have b…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jmsw Infracon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1079/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kant

…de order dated 09.10.2014 ) • The Apellant prayed for “telescoping” in its appeal before CIT(A) effectively the additions made. 11. The recent judicial thinking has also been ignored which is apparent from the Apex Court decision in the case of MAK Data P Ltd 358 ITR 593(SC) which has held in the context of 271 (1 )(c) at para 10 that “the AO has to satisfy whether penalty proceedings be initiated or not during the course of the assessment proceedings and the AO is not required to record his satisfaction in a particular manner or reduce it into writing”. The word of “satisfied” used in 271 (1 )(c) is similarly p…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jmsw Infracon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1074/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kant

Sh. Satish Kumar Gupta, Karnal vs. ACIT, Karnal

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3839/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishisatish Kumar Gupta, Acit, Vs. Liberty House, Railway Road, Circle, Karnal Karnal Pan:Acapg9886A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Narendra Chhillar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. NK Bansal, Sr. DR

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

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S.SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Satish Kumar Gupta, ACIT, Vs. Liberty House, Railway Road, Circle, Karnal Karnal PAN:ACAPG9886A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Narendra Chhillar, Adv Revenue by: Sh. NK Bansal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 04/05/2017 Date of pronouncement 29/05/2017 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), Karnal dated 18.11.2013 wherein, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs. 72627/- levied by the Asses…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Victory Accommodations Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed and that of the department are dismissed

ITA 6240/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu, Jm & Shri O.P. Kant, Am

For Appellant: Sh. Rano Jain, Adv., & Sh. Ashish Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Naveen Chandra, CIT (DR)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

…a(supra) has also not considered the case of Mukundray K Shah (supra) on the issue of 'incriminating' material while deciding. 9. The recent judicial thinking has also been ignored which is apparent from the Apex Court decision in the case of MAK Data P Ltd 358 ITR 593(SC) which has held in the context of 271(1)(c) at para 10 that" the AO has to satisfy whether penalty proceedings be initiated or not during the course of the assessment proceedings and the AO is not required to record his satisfaction in a particular manner or reduce it into writing". The word of "satisfied" used in 271(1)(c) is similarly plac…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Victory Accommodations Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed and that of the department are dismissed

ITA 6239/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu, Jm & Shri O.P. Kant, Am

For Appellant: Sh. Rano Jain, Adv., & Sh. Ashish Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Naveen Chandra, CIT (DR)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

Victory Accomodations Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed and that of the department are dismissed

ITA 6217/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu, Jm & Shri O.P. Kant, Am

For Appellant: Sh. Rano Jain, Adv., & Sh. Ashish Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Naveen Chandra, CIT (DR)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

Victory Accomodations Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed and that of the department are dismissed

ITA 6216/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu, Jm & Shri O.P. Kant, Am

For Appellant: Sh. Rano Jain, Adv., & Sh. Ashish Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Naveen Chandra, CIT (DR)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

M/S Platinum Horazine Pvt. Ltd., Indore vs. The ACIT Circle 3(1), Indore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands

ITA 713/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No.713/Ind/2016 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 249Section 253Section 271(1)Section 4Section 5

…income. Accordingly, the AO levied penalty of Rs. 6,49,630/- being 100% of tax sought to be evaded. 10. Being, aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A). The CIT (A) relying on the decision in the case of Mak Data P. Ltd. vs. CIT [2013] 358 ITR 593(SC) observed that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be avoided simply for the reason that the amount has been surrendered to buy M/s. Platinum Horazine Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT 3(1) Indore /I.T.A. No. 713/Ind/2016/AY09-10 Page 14 of 25 peace of mind. According to Ld. CIT (A), the facts of the case are similar to the case of Mak Data P. Ltd. vs…

Smt. Anuradha Chaudhary, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6382/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Sainiassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Manish Uppal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Bedobani, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(C)

…, assessee would not be absolve from explaining the addition even at the penalty stage. Had the scrutiny proceedings would not have been taken up, the assessee would not have agreed for these additions. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mak Data Pvt. Ltd. 358 ITR 593 held that there is no concept of voluntary surrender, the penalty shall have to be levied. Merely because assessee agreed for addition is no ground to cancel the penalty in the matter. The assessee has failed to explain both the above items of additions of Rs. 3,85,193/- on account of disallowance of interest and cash credit of Rs. 5 lacs. The a…

Mr. Ravindra Nath Chatterjee, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 2495/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Ms. Neha Mathur, CAFor Respondent: Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 274Section 41(1)(a)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 2495/Del/2014 A.Y. : 2009-10 Ravindra Nath Chatterjee, vs. ITO, Ward 22(1), E-176, 2nd floor, New Delhi Kalkaji, New Delhi – 110 019 (PAN: AACPC0305Q) (Appellant ) (Respondent ) Assessee by : Ms. Neha Mathur, CA Department by : Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr. DR ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXIII, New Delhi dated 24.2.2014 pertaining to assessment year 2009-1…

DCIT 19(3), Mumbai vs. Wadhwa Constructions, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4470/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Section 2Section 271(1)(c)

…pon the decision in Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd., 322 ITR 158 (SC). The learned counsel further relied upon the decision in Pr. CIT vs Control and Switchgear Contractors Ltd. (2015) 377 ITR 215 (Del) wherein the decision of MAK DATA P. Ltd. vs CIT (2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC) was also considered. 2.2 We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Facts in brief are that the assessee is engaged in the business of builders and developers of real estate. M/s. Housing Development and Improvement India Limited (hereinafter in short HDIL) acquired, lease hold right from MMRDA in…

A.Kishore Kumar, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 1764/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1764/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivas, JCIT

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…c) of Income tax act. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assesse went on appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the penalty placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Apex court in MAK Data Private Limited v. CIT reported on [2013] 358 ITR 593. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. :- 3 -: 4. Appearing for the assessee, the Ld.AR argued that the assessee has sold the property jointly along with others and was under the bona fide impression that the return has to be filed in the status of AOP jointly with other co-owners and there is no intentio…