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 366,470 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

St. Josephs Institute of Science and Technology Trust, Chennai vs. Dcot. Central Circle-1(3), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3295/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. V. Balaji, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 270ASection 271A

…he 50% penalty is justified, and the challenge to the notice is a technical ploy to avoid liability. • Invalidating the notice would undermine the deterrent purpose of Section 270A. h. Judicial Precedents Supporting Revenue • In Mak Data P. Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC), the Supreme Court upheld penalties despite procedural lapses, as the assessee was aware of the allegations and participated in proceedings. Burden on Assessee to Prove Misreporting The assessee must show that the AO intended to penalize for misreporting (200%) but failed to establish it. Absent evidence of falsification or misrepresentation…

St. Josephs Educational Trust, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-193), Chennai

ITA 3294/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3293 & 3294/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2020-21 St. Joseph'S Educational Trust, 56-C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. [Pan: Aamts 3888 G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3295 To 3297/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 To 2020-21 St. Joseph'S Institute Of Science & Technology Trust, 56-C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. [Pan: Aahts 9943 B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. V. Balaji, Ca & Mr. K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate By Virtual प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.04.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2025 :: 2 ::

For Appellant: Mr. V. Balaji, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 270ASection 271A

…he 50% penalty is justified, and the challenge to the notice is a technical ploy to avoid liability. • Invalidating the notice would undermine the deterrent purpose of Section 270A. h. Judicial Precedents Supporting Revenue • In Mak Data P. Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC), the Supreme Court upheld penalties despite procedural lapses, as the assessee was aware of the allegations and participated in proceedings. Burden on Assessee to Prove Misreporting The assessee must show that the AO intended to penalize for misreporting (200%) but failed to establish it. Absent evidence of falsification or misrepresentation…

St.Josephs Educational Trust, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-193), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3293/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. V. Balaji, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 270ASection 271A

…he 50% penalty is justified, and the challenge to the notice is a technical ploy to avoid liability. • Invalidating the notice would undermine the deterrent purpose of Section 270A. h. Judicial Precedents Supporting Revenue • In Mak Data P. Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC), the Supreme Court upheld penalties despite procedural lapses, as the assessee was aware of the allegations and participated in proceedings. Burden on Assessee to Prove Misreporting The assessee must show that the AO intended to penalize for misreporting (200%) but failed to establish it. Absent evidence of falsification or misrepresentation…

Subhas Hansaraj Nandu, Bhachau, Kutch vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 9/RJT/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hybrid Hearing) Assessment Year: (2010-11) Subhas Hansaraj Nandu Vs. National Faceless Assessment Opp:Shambhu Maharaj Bungalow Centre, Delhi. Bhachau, Gujarat. Pan : Afrpn 0720 J (Assessee) (Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

…assessee has failed to prove the sufficient cause, therefore, the penalty imposed by the assessing officer should be sustained. For that, the Ld. DR for the Revenue relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mak Data Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 358 ITR 593 (SC) and also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Zoom Communication P. Ltd., 327 ITR 510 (Del) Subhas Hansaraj Nandu and stated that since the assessee has accepted the quantum addition made by the assessing officer, therefore, the penalty imposed by the assessing officer, u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-Ta…

Ila Jitendra Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5219/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Ganatra, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133Section 139(1)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

…d by the appellant is not acceptable as the same is not bona fide. The appellant case is thus clearly covered by the Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c). The reliance is also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of MAC Data Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (358 ITR 593) wherein the Hon'ble S.C has held as under- "The question is whether the Assessee has offered any explanation for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Explanation to Section 271(1) raises a presumption of concealment, when a 10 Ms. Ila Jitendra Mehta difference is noticed by the AO. between report…

Bitthal Das Parwal, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

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

ITA 1348/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Him. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT
Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…5A to section 271(1)(c) submitted that the impugned penalty is required to be deleted. 7. Per contra, ld. DR relied upon the findings recording in the order of ld. CIT(A). He also relied upon the decision of apex court in the case of Mak Data Private Limited 358 ITR 593. He vehemently submitted that the return of income was filed u/s. 153A was after original return and that income would not have been taxed if the assessment was not taken up and therefore, he supported the levy of penalty. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused material available on record. The solitary issue raised by the assessee i…

Dr Rajender Prasad Memorial Educational Society, Saharanpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Meerut

ITA 518/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwals No. Appeal No. Appellant Respondent / Cross Order Appealed Against Objectors 1-4 1481-1483/Del/2023 Acit, Central Circle, Dr Rajender Prasad Cit(A)-4, Kanpur Order Ays: 2014-15 To Meerut Memorial Educational Dated 20.02.2023 2016-17 Society Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) 4-6 Co 49 -51/Del/2024 Dr Rajender Prasad Dcit, Cc, Meerut Cit(A)-4, Kanpur Order Ays: 2014-15 To Memorial Dated 20.02.2023 2016-17 Educational Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) 7 -11 Co 112-116/Del/2024 Dr Rajender Prasad Dcit, Cc, Meerut Ays: 2012-13 To Memorial 2016-17 Educational Dr Rajender Prasad 12- 514 - 518/Del/2024 Dr Rajender Prasad Dcit, Cc, Meerut Cit(A)-3, Noida Order 16 Ays : 2012-13 To Memorial Dated 19.12.2023 2016-17 Educational Society Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Assessee By : Shri Ankit Gupta, Adv Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/04/2025

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

…1 (Del) PCIT Vs. Neeraj Jindal. Faced with this situation, the Revenue vehemently argues that given 5. the fact that the assessee could not explain its failure in filing of the return u/s 139(1) of the Act, its case is covered by Mak Data Ltd Vs. CIT (2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC). We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant argument as that not an instances of getting accepted. And the said assessee had not filed any reasonable explanation u/s 271(1)(c) explanation (1) of the Act as well. Be that as it may, we are of the considered view in this factual backdrop that since the assessee’s returned income stood duly accep…

Dr Rajender Prasad Memorial Educational Society, Saharanpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Meerut

ITA 517/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwals No. Appeal No. Appellant Respondent / Cross Order Appealed Against Objectors 1-4 1481-1483/Del/2023 Acit, Central Circle, Dr Rajender Prasad Cit(A)-4, Kanpur Order Ays: 2014-15 To Meerut Memorial Educational Dated 20.02.2023 2016-17 Society Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) 4-6 Co 49 -51/Del/2024 Dr Rajender Prasad Dcit, Cc, Meerut Cit(A)-4, Kanpur Order Ays: 2014-15 To Memorial Dated 20.02.2023 2016-17 Educational Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) 7 -11 Co 112-116/Del/2024 Dr Rajender Prasad Dcit, Cc, Meerut Ays: 2012-13 To Memorial 2016-17 Educational Dr Rajender Prasad 12- 514 - 518/Del/2024 Dr Rajender Prasad Dcit, Cc, Meerut Cit(A)-3, Noida Order 16 Ays : 2012-13 To Memorial Dated 19.12.2023 2016-17 Educational Society Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Assessee By : Shri Ankit Gupta, Adv Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/04/2025

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

…1 (Del) PCIT Vs. Neeraj Jindal. Faced with this situation, the Revenue vehemently argues that given 5. the fact that the assessee could not explain its failure in filing of the return u/s 139(1) of the Act, its case is covered by Mak Data Ltd Vs. CIT (2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC). We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant argument as that not an instances of getting accepted. And the said assessee had not filed any reasonable explanation u/s 271(1)(c) explanation (1) of the Act as well. Be that as it may, we are of the considered view in this factual backdrop that since the assessee’s returned income stood duly accep…

Dr Rajender Prasad Memorial Educational Society, Saharanpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Meerut

ITA 516/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwals No. Appeal No. Appellant Respondent / Cross Order Appealed Against Objectors 1-4 1481-1483/Del/2023 Acit, Central Circle, Dr Rajender Prasad Cit(A)-4, Kanpur Order Ays: 2014-15 To Meerut Memorial Educational Dated 20.02.2023 2016-17 Society Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) 4-6 Co 49 -51/Del/2024 Dr Rajender Prasad Dcit, Cc, Meerut Cit(A)-4, Kanpur Order Ays: 2014-15 To Memorial Dated 20.02.2023 2016-17 Educational Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) 7 -11 Co 112-116/Del/2024 Dr Rajender Prasad Dcit, Cc, Meerut Ays: 2012-13 To Memorial 2016-17 Educational Dr Rajender Prasad 12- 514 - 518/Del/2024 Dr Rajender Prasad Dcit, Cc, Meerut Cit(A)-3, Noida Order 16 Ays : 2012-13 To Memorial Dated 19.12.2023 2016-17 Educational Society Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Assessee By : Shri Ankit Gupta, Adv Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/04/2025

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

…1 (Del) PCIT Vs. Neeraj Jindal. Faced with this situation, the Revenue vehemently argues that given 5. the fact that the assessee could not explain its failure in filing of the return u/s 139(1) of the Act, its case is covered by Mak Data Ltd Vs. CIT (2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC). We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant argument as that not an instances of getting accepted. And the said assessee had not filed any reasonable explanation u/s 271(1)(c) explanation (1) of the Act as well. Be that as it may, we are of the considered view in this factual backdrop that since the assessee’s returned income stood duly accep…

Dr Rajender Prasad Memorial Educational Society, Saharanpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Meerut

ITA 515/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwals No. Appeal No. Appellant Respondent / Cross Order Appealed Against Objectors 1-4 1481-1483/Del/2023 Acit, Central Circle, Dr Rajender Prasad Cit(A)-4, Kanpur Order Ays: 2014-15 To Meerut Memorial Educational Dated 20.02.2023 2016-17 Society Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) 4-6 Co 49 -51/Del/2024 Dr Rajender Prasad Dcit, Cc, Meerut Cit(A)-4, Kanpur Order Ays: 2014-15 To Memorial Dated 20.02.2023 2016-17 Educational Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) 7 -11 Co 112-116/Del/2024 Dr Rajender Prasad Dcit, Cc, Meerut Ays: 2012-13 To Memorial 2016-17 Educational Dr Rajender Prasad 12- 514 - 518/Del/2024 Dr Rajender Prasad Dcit, Cc, Meerut Cit(A)-3, Noida Order 16 Ays : 2012-13 To Memorial Dated 19.12.2023 2016-17 Educational Society Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Assessee By : Shri Ankit Gupta, Adv Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/04/2025

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

…1 (Del) PCIT Vs. Neeraj Jindal. Faced with this situation, the Revenue vehemently argues that given 5. the fact that the assessee could not explain its failure in filing of the return u/s 139(1) of the Act, its case is covered by Mak Data Ltd Vs. CIT (2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC). We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant argument as that not an instances of getting accepted. And the said assessee had not filed any reasonable explanation u/s 271(1)(c) explanation (1) of the Act as well. Be that as it may, we are of the considered view in this factual backdrop that since the assessee’s returned income stood duly accep…

Dr Rajender Prasad Memorial Educational Society, Saharanpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut

ITA 514/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwals No. Appeal No. Appellant Respondent / Cross Order Appealed Against Objectors 1-4 1481-1483/Del/2023 Acit, Central Circle, Dr Rajender Prasad Cit(A)-4, Kanpur Order Ays: 2014-15 To Meerut Memorial Educational Dated 20.02.2023 2016-17 Society Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) 4-6 Co 49 -51/Del/2024 Dr Rajender Prasad Dcit, Cc, Meerut Cit(A)-4, Kanpur Order Ays: 2014-15 To Memorial Dated 20.02.2023 2016-17 Educational Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) 7 -11 Co 112-116/Del/2024 Dr Rajender Prasad Dcit, Cc, Meerut Ays: 2012-13 To Memorial 2016-17 Educational Dr Rajender Prasad 12- 514 - 518/Del/2024 Dr Rajender Prasad Dcit, Cc, Meerut Cit(A)-3, Noida Order 16 Ays : 2012-13 To Memorial Dated 19.12.2023 2016-17 Educational Society Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Assessee By : Shri Ankit Gupta, Adv Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/04/2025

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

…1 (Del) PCIT Vs. Neeraj Jindal. Faced with this situation, the Revenue vehemently argues that given 5. the fact that the assessee could not explain its failure in filing of the return u/s 139(1) of the Act, its case is covered by Mak Data Ltd Vs. CIT (2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC). We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant argument as that not an instances of getting accepted. And the said assessee had not filed any reasonable explanation u/s 271(1)(c) explanation (1) of the Act as well. Be that as it may, we are of the considered view in this factual backdrop that since the assessee’s returned income stood duly accep…

ACIT, Central Circle, Meerut vs. Dr. Rajendra Prasad Memorial Educational Society, Saharanpur

ITA 1483/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwals No. Appeal No. Appellant Respondent / Cross Order Appealed Against Objectors 1-4 1481-1483/Del/2023 Acit, Central Circle, Dr Rajender Prasad Cit(A)-4, Kanpur Order Ays: 2014-15 To Meerut Memorial Educational Dated 20.02.2023 2016-17 Society Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) 4-6 Co 49 -51/Del/2024 Dr Rajender Prasad Dcit, Cc, Meerut Cit(A)-4, Kanpur Order Ays: 2014-15 To Memorial Dated 20.02.2023 2016-17 Educational Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) 7 -11 Co 112-116/Del/2024 Dr Rajender Prasad Dcit, Cc, Meerut Ays: 2012-13 To Memorial 2016-17 Educational Dr Rajender Prasad 12- 514 - 518/Del/2024 Dr Rajender Prasad Dcit, Cc, Meerut Cit(A)-3, Noida Order 16 Ays : 2012-13 To Memorial Dated 19.12.2023 2016-17 Educational Society Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Assessee By : Shri Ankit Gupta, Adv Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/04/2025

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

…1 (Del) PCIT Vs. Neeraj Jindal. Faced with this situation, the Revenue vehemently argues that given 5. the fact that the assessee could not explain its failure in filing of the return u/s 139(1) of the Act, its case is covered by Mak Data Ltd Vs. CIT (2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC). We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant argument as that not an instances of getting accepted. And the said assessee had not filed any reasonable explanation u/s 271(1)(c) explanation (1) of the Act as well. Be that as it may, we are of the considered view in this factual backdrop that since the assessee’s returned income stood duly accep…

ACIT, Central Circle, Meerut vs. Dr.Rajendra Prasad Memorial Educational Society, Saharanpur

ITA 1482/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwals No. Appeal No. Appellant Respondent / Cross Order Appealed Against Objectors 1-4 1481-1483/Del/2023 Acit, Central Circle, Dr Rajender Prasad Cit(A)-4, Kanpur Order Ays: 2014-15 To Meerut Memorial Educational Dated 20.02.2023 2016-17 Society Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) 4-6 Co 49 -51/Del/2024 Dr Rajender Prasad Dcit, Cc, Meerut Cit(A)-4, Kanpur Order Ays: 2014-15 To Memorial Dated 20.02.2023 2016-17 Educational Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) 7 -11 Co 112-116/Del/2024 Dr Rajender Prasad Dcit, Cc, Meerut Ays: 2012-13 To Memorial 2016-17 Educational Dr Rajender Prasad 12- 514 - 518/Del/2024 Dr Rajender Prasad Dcit, Cc, Meerut Cit(A)-3, Noida Order 16 Ays : 2012-13 To Memorial Dated 19.12.2023 2016-17 Educational Society Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Assessee By : Shri Ankit Gupta, Adv Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/04/2025

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

…1 (Del) PCIT Vs. Neeraj Jindal. Faced with this situation, the Revenue vehemently argues that given 5. the fact that the assessee could not explain its failure in filing of the return u/s 139(1) of the Act, its case is covered by Mak Data Ltd Vs. CIT (2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC). We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant argument as that not an instances of getting accepted. And the said assessee had not filed any reasonable explanation u/s 271(1)(c) explanation (1) of the Act as well. Be that as it may, we are of the considered view in this factual backdrop that since the assessee’s returned income stood duly accep…

ACIT, Central Circle, Meerut vs. Dr. Rajendra Prasad Memorial Educational Society, Saharanpur

ITA 1481/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwals No. Appeal No. Appellant Respondent / Cross Order Appealed Against Objectors 1-4 1481-1483/Del/2023 Acit, Central Circle, Dr Rajender Prasad Cit(A)-4, Kanpur Order Ays: 2014-15 To Meerut Memorial Educational Dated 20.02.2023 2016-17 Society Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) 4-6 Co 49 -51/Del/2024 Dr Rajender Prasad Dcit, Cc, Meerut Cit(A)-4, Kanpur Order Ays: 2014-15 To Memorial Dated 20.02.2023 2016-17 Educational Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) 7 -11 Co 112-116/Del/2024 Dr Rajender Prasad Dcit, Cc, Meerut Ays: 2012-13 To Memorial 2016-17 Educational Dr Rajender Prasad 12- 514 - 518/Del/2024 Dr Rajender Prasad Dcit, Cc, Meerut Cit(A)-3, Noida Order 16 Ays : 2012-13 To Memorial Dated 19.12.2023 2016-17 Educational Society Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Assessee By : Shri Ankit Gupta, Adv Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/04/2025

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

…1 (Del) PCIT Vs. Neeraj Jindal. Faced with this situation, the Revenue vehemently argues that given 5. the fact that the assessee could not explain its failure in filing of the return u/s 139(1) of the Act, its case is covered by Mak Data Ltd Vs. CIT (2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC). We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant argument as that not an instances of getting accepted. And the said assessee had not filed any reasonable explanation u/s 271(1)(c) explanation (1) of the Act as well. Be that as it may, we are of the considered view in this factual backdrop that since the assessee’s returned income stood duly accep…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Siel Ltd. (Now Known As Mawana Sugar Ltd), New Delhi

ITA 516/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

…1 (Del) PCIT Vs. Neeraj Jindal. 5. Faced with this situation, the Revenue vehemently argues that given the fact that the assessee could not explain its failure in filing of the return u/s 139(1) of the Act, its case is covered by Mak Data Ltd Vs. CIT (2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC). We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant argument as that not an instances of getting accepted. And the said assessee had not filed any reasonable explanation u/s 271(1)(c) explanation (1) of the Act as well. Be that as it may, we are of the considered view in this factual backdrop that since the assessee’s returned income stood duly accep…

Abirakham Rajasekar, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 1410/CHNY/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1408, 1409 & 1410/Chny/2023 िनधा(रण वष( /Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri K. Rohan Raj, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 270ASection 271A

…any receipt in books of account having bearing on total income is a case of misreporting of income . In view of above, the arguments of assessee and case laws relied are not relevant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mak Data P. Ltd. Vs. CIT [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC) has observed that it is trite law that the voluntary disclosure does not release the Appellant-assessee from the mischief of penal proceedings and the law does not provide that when an assessee makes a voluntary disclosure of his concealed ITA Nos.1408, 1409 & 1410/Chny/2023 :- 7 -: income, he had to be absolved from penalty. We do not…

Abirakham Rajasekar, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 1409/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1408, 1409 & 1410/Chny/2023 िनधा(रण वष( /Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri K. Rohan Raj, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 270ASection 271A

…any receipt in books of account having bearing on total income is a case of misreporting of income . In view of above, the arguments of assessee and case laws relied are not relevant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mak Data P. Ltd. Vs. CIT [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC) has observed that it is trite law that the voluntary disclosure does not release the Appellant-assessee from the mischief of penal proceedings and the law does not provide that when an assessee makes a voluntary disclosure of his concealed ITA Nos.1408, 1409 & 1410/Chny/2023 :- 7 -: income, he had to be absolved from penalty. We do not…

Abirakham Rajasekar, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 1408/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1408, 1409 & 1410/Chny/2023 िनधा(रण वष( /Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri K. Rohan Raj, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 270ASection 271A

…any receipt in books of account having bearing on total income is a case of misreporting of income . In view of above, the arguments of assessee and case laws relied are not relevant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mak Data P. Ltd. Vs. CIT [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC) has observed that it is trite law that the voluntary disclosure does not release the Appellant-assessee from the mischief of penal proceedings and the law does not provide that when an assessee makes a voluntary disclosure of his concealed ITA Nos.1408, 1409 & 1410/Chny/2023 :- 7 -: income, he had to be absolved from penalty. We do not…

Ramchandraudaysinghjadhavrao, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Pune

ITA 1399/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 45(2)

…tax return with respect to conversion of the land into stock-in-trade. 6. However, the Ld. CIT(A) was not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee. Relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data Pvt. Ltd., vs. CIT [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC), decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Dr. Vandana Gupta [2018] 92 taxmann.com 229 (Del.) and the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Grassfield Farms & Resorts Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT [2016] 388 ITR 395 (Raj.) he held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is leviable on the income disclosed…

Pjl Clothing India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8 2 1, Mumbai

In the result,the appeal of the In the result,the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5916/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarpjl Clothing India Pvt. V/S. Nfac/Dcit 8 2 1 Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. बनाम 505, 506 Dalamal Road, Churchgate, Chambers, New Marine Mumbai-400020 Lines, Vitthaldasthackersey Marg, Churchgate, Maharashtra-400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacp2782R .. Appellant/अपीलाथ" Respondent/""तवाद"

For Appellant: Mr. Satish ModiFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani,Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PJL Clothing India Pvt. v/s. NFAC/DCIT 8 2 1 Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. बनाम 505, 506 Dalamal Road, Churchgate, Chambers, New Marine Mumbai-400020 Lines, VitthaldasThackersey Marg, Churchgate, Maharashtra-400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAACP2782R .. Appellant/अपीलाथ" Respondent/""तवाद" Assessee by : Mr. Satish Modi Revenue by : Shri Mahesh Pamnani,Sr.DR Date of Hearing 05.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement 10.02.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PERPRABHASH SHANKAR…