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

Joel Jewellery Works, Thrissur vs. ITO WD-2(2), Thrissur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 555/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2016-17 Joel Jewellery Works .......... Appellant Chiyaram P.O., Thrissur 680006 [Pan: Aagfj1072R] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 2(2), Thrissur Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.01.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 29.12.2023 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Partnership Firm Engaged In The Business Of Jewellery. The Return Of Income For Ay 2016-17 Was Filed On 26.01.2017 Disclosing Total Income Of Rs. 5,00,140/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Thrissur (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 10.12.2018 Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) At A Total Income

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40

…accurate particulars of income relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Comm87unication Services India Pvt. Lt. v. CIT [2012] 18 Taxman 144 and also Hon'ble Supreme Court judgement in the case of Mak 3 Joel Jewellery Works Data 358 ITR 593. The CIT(A), after extracting the written submissions and statement of facts, confirmed the findings of the AO without giving any findings. 4. Being aggrieved, appellant is in appeal before me in the present appeal. 5. When the appeal was called nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, we pr…

Mr. Chittaranjan Trimbak Gaikwad, Pune vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 759/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri B.C. MalakarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…addition of concealed income after detection thereof and filed return in response to enquiry conducted by department, assessee cannot escape from penalty u/s 271(1)(c)' Moreover, The Supreme court in the case of MAK Data (P) Ltd. Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax 358 ITR 593 has clearly observed Voluntary disclosure does not release assessee from mischief of penal proceedings under section 271(1)(c). Same arguments and case laws are applicable for the additions made in the assessment order in which Assessing Officer found a difference of profit of Rs.8,29,550/- in original return Revised return of income and same was…

Man Equipment Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 37, Mumbai

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

ITA 5144/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhrim/S. Man Equipment Co. V/S. Dcit, Central Circle-37 Pvt. Ltd. बनाम Mumbai 69, Svp Road, Dongri, Mumbai-400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacm9716E Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. B. Laxmi Kanth
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 276C

…tary disclosure', 'buy peace’ avoid litigation’ icable settlement etc. to explain away his conduct. It has also been held that the statute does not recognize those types of defences under Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. (Mak Data P. Ltd. v. CIT 358 ITR 593 (SC)] 4.3.2 Fourthly, as heid in CIT v. Kristina & Co. 120 FIR 144 (Mad.), where the assessee himself has admitted that the amount represented his own income, no further evidence would be necessary to show that it was the amount which represented his income and that it had been concealed in the return. While delivering Its judgment in the said ca…

Chhaya Vikas Shah Legal Heir & Wife of Late Vikas Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, all three appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 584/AHD/2023[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2024AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarsl. आयकर अपील सं/ "नधा"रण वष"/ Appeal(S) By : No(S)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.DR
Section 132(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

…ch income would have remained out of tax net if a search action not conducted upon the assessee. 3.3. On the disclosure in the return of income, the Ld.CIT(A) placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Mak Data P. Ltd. v. CFT (2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC). ITA Nos.584, 585 and 586/Ahd/2023 Chhaya Vikas Shah Legal Heir & Wife of Late Vikas Shah vs. Dy.CIT Asst. Years : 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02 10 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is, therefore, in appeals before us with following common grounds of appeal(s) for respective assessment years: “The Ld. CIT(A) has erred…

M/S. Concorde Housing Corporation Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 531/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…te and consistent the judicial interpretations of similar cases. 4.8 With regard to legal Precedents and their Implications she submitted that in the landmark case of MAK Data (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax — Il, [2013] 38 taxmann.com 448 (SC)/[2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme court upheld the penalty imposed by the Income Tax Department. This crucial judgment established that an assessee's voluntary disclosure of income does not serve as a shield against penalties under section 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, particularly in instances of income concealment or the provision of inaccurate inco…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-9 vs. Amul Gabrani

The appeal is allowed and the questions raised are

ITA/1251/2018HC Delhi24 Jul 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 271Section 271A

…1/2018 Page 9 of 10 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 concealment of particulars of i…

Johnson Mattey India P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Range-5, New Delhi

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

ITA 1247/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2010-11 Johnson Mattey India P. Ltd., Vs Addl.Cit, C/O Luthra & Luthra, Range-5, Law Offices India, New Delhi. 103, Ashoka Estate, Barakhamba Road, Delhi – 110 001. Pan: Aaacj2919A Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit, Vs. Johnson Mattey India P. Ltd., Circle-13(1), C/O Luthra & Luthra, New Delhi. Law Offices India, 103, Ashoka Estate, Barakhamba Road, Delhi – 110 001. Pan: Aaacj2919A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Radhika Sharma, Advocate & Shri Sumit Mangal, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Parul Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: The Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Is Against The Order Dated 03.03.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi-44

For Appellant: Ms Radhika Sharma, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Parul Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…r cases are not picked up for scrutiny. This would take ITAs No.1247 & 1310/Del/2023 away the deterrent effect, which these penalty provisions in the Act have." 12.3 Further this case is directly covered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in MAK Data (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT 358 ITR 593 (SC)[2013] wherein the law has been laid that voluntary disclosure does not release assessee from mischief of penal proceedings under section 271(1)(c). In this case, the appellant never made the disallowance in the original return of income or revised return of income. It was the AO who discovered this issue during assessment and made addition i…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Visakhapatnam vs. Milk Producers Employees Educational Health Medical Welfare Trust, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 229/VIZ/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.229/Viz/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Milk Producers & Central Circle-2 Employees Educational Visakhapatnam Health & Medical Welfare Trust, D.No.32-11-1 Krishi Building Nathayyapalem Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaatm6689B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri G.V.N.Hari, AR
Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 2(15)Section 271(1)(c)

…y is justifiable. He, therefore, pleaded that the order of the AO be sustained. The Ld.DR relied on the following case laws : i. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of MAK Data (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Civil Appeal No.9772 of 2013, 358 ITR 593(SC) II. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Dr.Nitin Laxmikant Lad Vs. Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax 6 I.T.A. No.229/Viz/2020 A.Y 2015-16 M/s Milk Producers & Employees Educational Health and Medical Welfare Trust., Visakhapatnam 6. Per contra, the Ld.AR argued that prima facie, there is no concealment and referred to page No.24 of the p…

Amit Kapoor, Chennai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

ITA 1445/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1415/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Shri Samiappagounder Dharmaraj, The Addl.Cit, 56/88, Rayapuram Extension, Range-1, 1St Street, Tirupur. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Adypd 3863 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. SridharFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 270ASection 271D

…i) CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC) (paras 3, 36) xiv) CIT D. SSA Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 taxmann.com 241 (Karn) (para 14) xv) Madhusudhanan (K. P.) ข. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC) (para 29) xvi) Mak Data (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC) (paras 28, 29) xvii) National Textiles v. CIT [2001] 249 ITR 125 (Guj) (para 37) xviii) Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2018] 403 ITR 407 (Mad) (para 16) 11. Moreover, we note from the totality of the facts of this case, that it is not a fit case for levy of penalty, because, assessee’s assertion/explanation that in the year under cons…

Samiappagounder Dharmaraj, Tirupur vs. Addl. CIT, Range-1, Tirupur

ITA 1415/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1415/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Shri Samiappagounder Dharmaraj, The Addl.Cit, 56/88, Rayapuram Extension, Range-1, 1St Street, Tirupur. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Adypd 3863 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. SridharFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 270ASection 271D

…i) CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC) (paras 3, 36) xiv) CIT D. SSA Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 taxmann.com 241 (Karn) (para 14) xv) Madhusudhanan (K. P.) ข. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC) (para 29) xvi) Mak Data (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC) (paras 28, 29) xvii) National Textiles v. CIT [2001] 249 ITR 125 (Guj) (para 37) xviii) Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2018] 403 ITR 407 (Mad) (para 16) 11. Moreover, we note from the totality of the facts of this case, that it is not a fit case for levy of penalty, because, assessee’s assertion/explanation that in the year under cons…

Ashok Nathmal Garodia, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 13(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 553/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms Neha ParanjapeFor Respondent: Shri Mirza Azhar Beig
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…as exempt. It is the further plea of the assessee that since the returned income and assessed income are identical, therefore, no penalty can be levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. We find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in MAK Data (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT, [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC) held that voluntary disclosure does not release the assessee from the mischief of penal proceedings. Further, it is evident from the record that though the assessee claimed the transaction of shares of M/s. Action Financial Services (India) Ltd to be genuine, however, did not bring any material of record to support its contention and straigh…

General Electric International Inc., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, International Taxation Circle 2(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 3498/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Veerbhandra Mahajan
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "G" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER General Electric International Inc., Building No. 7A, 1st Floor, DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase III, Sector 25A, Gurgaon, DLF QE S.O, Gurgaon, Haryana - 122002 [PAN: AAACG1705D] …………… Appellant Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs International Tax Circle 2(3)(2), Mumbai, Room No. 1711, 17th Floor, ……………. Air India Building, Nariman Point, Respondent Mumbai, - 400021 Appearance For the Appellant/Appellant : Shri Dhanesh Bafna Ms. Riddhi Maru, Ms. Hinal Shah For the Respondent/Dep…

Suriender Jain, New Delhi vs. Prcit-13, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3038/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3036 To 3038/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12 बनाम Suriender Jain, Pr. Cit-13, 133-2-F, Pocket-12, Sector-24, Vs. Room No.901, 9Th Floor, E-2 Block, Rohini, New Delhi. Pan No.Acypj9387K Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Minto Road, New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 273Section 44A

…established under the law that no penalty can be imposed upon an assessee if the income is computed on estimation. 3. That in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. PCIT wrongly applied the judicial precedent in the case of MAK Data Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC) which is distinguishable to the facts and circumstances attracted to the instant case of the Appellant/Assessee. 4. That in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. PCIT completely ignored from its consideration the binding judicial precedents of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Sudershan Talkies (1993) 200 ITR…

Suriender Jain, New Delhi vs. Prcit-13, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3037/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3036 To 3038/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12 बनाम Suriender Jain, Pr. Cit-13, 133-2-F, Pocket-12, Sector-24, Vs. Room No.901, 9Th Floor, E-2 Block, Rohini, New Delhi. Pan No.Acypj9387K Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Minto Road, New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 273Section 44A

…established under the law that no penalty can be imposed upon an assessee if the income is computed on estimation. 3. That in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. PCIT wrongly applied the judicial precedent in the case of MAK Data Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC) which is distinguishable to the facts and circumstances attracted to the instant case of the Appellant/Assessee. 4. That in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. PCIT completely ignored from its consideration the binding judicial precedents of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Sudershan Talkies (1993) 200 ITR…

Suriender Jain, New Delhi vs. Prcit-13, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3036/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3036 To 3038/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12 बनाम Suriender Jain, Pr. Cit-13, 133-2-F, Pocket-12, Sector-24, Vs. Room No.901, 9Th Floor, E-2 Block, Rohini, New Delhi. Pan No.Acypj9387K Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Minto Road, New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 273Section 44A

…established under the law that no penalty can be imposed upon an assessee if the income is computed on estimation. 3. That in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. PCIT wrongly applied the judicial precedent in the case of MAK Data Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC) which is distinguishable to the facts and circumstances attracted to the instant case of the Appellant/Assessee. 4. That in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. PCIT completely ignored from its consideration the binding judicial precedents of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Sudershan Talkies (1993) 200 ITR…

M/S.Enrica Enterprises Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1165/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271ASection 274

…curate particulars of income’. 8. The Ld.CIT(A) after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also taken note of certain judicial precedents, including the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT-II [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC) held that going by the facts and circumstances of the present case, the assessee case gets covered by Explanation-5(A), where any income based on any entry in any books of accounts or other documents or transaction and assessee claims that such entry in the books of accounts or other documents or transactions represents his income for any p…

M/S Enrica Enterprises Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1164/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271ASection 274

…curate particulars of income’. 8. The Ld.CIT(A) after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also taken note of certain judicial precedents, including the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT-II [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC) held that going by the facts and circumstances of the present case, the assessee case gets covered by Explanation-5(A), where any income based on any entry in any books of accounts or other documents or transaction and assessee claims that such entry in the books of accounts or other documents or transactions represents his income for any p…

Shri.Prakash R. Nair, Kollam vs. DCIT, Kollam

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

ITA 141/COCH/2021[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2024AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasprakash R. Nair Dy.Cit, Central Circle Prop. Dhanya Foods Kollam Kochuppilammoodu Vs. Kollam 691001 [Pan:Abfpn4424P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 148(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80Section 801A(9)Section 80HSection 80I

…d the apparently contradictory claims reconciled with reference to the books of account, presenting a cogent picture, which appears incoherent. The burden for the same, besides w.r.t. Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) (refer Mak Data (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC); CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal [2009] 317 ITR 1 (SC); UoI v. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC); Guljag Industries v. CTO [2007] 293 ITR 584 (SC); K.P. Madhusudhanan vs. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC); B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros v. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 977 (SC), to cite some), is on the assessee who makes the claim. 6.6 Next, we co…

Hindupur Bio-Energy Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 644/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Hindupur Bio-Energy Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Hindupur Bio-Energy Of Income Tax, Private Limited, Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessee By: Shri M. Chandramouleswara Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Shri L.V. Bhaskara Reddy, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.12.2023

For Appellant: Shri M. ChandramouleswaraFor Respondent: Shri L.V. Bhaskara Reddy
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 253(5)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

…271(1)(c) was to be levied for filing inaccurate particulars of income. The fact that even voluntary disclosure does not release the assessee from mischief of penal proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) as held by the Hon'ble*Supreme Court in the case of Mak Data P. Ltd (358 ITR 593 (SC)). In light of the above, the order of CIT(A) may kindly be set aside and the appeal of the Department may be allowed.” 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. In the present case, the Assessing Officer had issued show cause notice reproduced hereinabove which clearly mentions for what purposes the penalty n…

DCIT, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Hindupur Bio-Energy Pvt. Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad

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

ITA 1243/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Hindupur Bio-Energy Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Hindupur Bio-Energy Of Income Tax, Private Limited, Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessee By: Shri M. Chandramouleswara Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Shri L.V. Bhaskara Reddy, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.12.2023

For Appellant: Shri M. ChandramouleswaraFor Respondent: Shri L.V. Bhaskara Reddy
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 253(5)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

…271(1)(c) was to be levied for filing inaccurate particulars of income. The fact that even voluntary disclosure does not release the assessee from mischief of penal proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) as held by the Hon'ble*Supreme Court in the case of Mak Data P. Ltd (358 ITR 593 (SC)). In light of the above, the order of CIT(A) may kindly be set aside and the appeal of the Department may be allowed.” 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. In the present case, the Assessing Officer had issued show cause notice reproduced hereinabove which clearly mentions for what purposes the penalty n…