P Madhusudhanan v. CIT

306 ITR 227Supreme Court of India#12638 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

section 253(2)surrender of incomesection 131(1)revision u/s 263section 271aabsection 41(1)furnishing inaccurate particulars of incomepenalty u/s 271(1)(c)sundry creditorsfurnishing inaccurate particularssection 274section 36(1)(va)

Judgments citing P Madhusudhanan v. CIT

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANAGBAD., AURANGABAD. vs. SHREEHARI ASSOCIATES PVT LTD, AURANGABAD.

The appeals of the REVENUE are ALLOWED

ITA 410/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Mr CH Naniwadekar & Kiran Sanmane [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ajaykumar Kesari & Arvind Desai [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 253(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)

…tion to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, and to buttress the said argument reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘K P Madhusudhanan Vs CIT’ reported at 251 ITR 99 (SC) and ‘UOI Vs Dharmendra Textiles Processor’ reported in 306 ITR 227 (SC). The Ld. DR Mr Desai further pressing into service the decision in the case of ‘MAK Data Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT’ [reported in 358 ITR 598 (SC)] dislodged the entitlement of the respondent assessee for exemption from penalty owning to voluntary surrender of income in search action. 9. Per contra, the Ld. AR Mr Naniwadekar submitted that, the additi…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. SHREEHARI ASSOCIATES PVT LTD, AURANGABAD

The appeals of the REVENUE are ALLOWED

ITA 408/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Mr CH Naniwadekar & Kiran Sanmane [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ajaykumar Kesari & Arvind Desai [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 253(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)

…tion to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, and to buttress the said argument reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘K P Madhusudhanan Vs CIT’ reported at 251 ITR 99 (SC) and ‘UOI Vs Dharmendra Textiles Processor’ reported in 306 ITR 227 (SC). The Ld. DR Mr Desai further pressing into service the decision in the case of ‘MAK Data Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT’ [reported in 358 ITR 598 (SC)] dislodged the entitlement of the respondent assessee for exemption from penalty owning to voluntary surrender of income in search action. 9. Per contra, the Ld. AR Mr Naniwadekar submitted that, the additi…

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD. vs. SHREEHARI ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED, AURANGABAD

The appeals of the REVENUE are ALLOWED

ITA 407/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Mr CH Naniwadekar & Kiran Sanmane [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ajaykumar Kesari & Arvind Desai [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 253(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)

…tion to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, and to buttress the said argument reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘K P Madhusudhanan Vs CIT’ reported at 251 ITR 99 (SC) and ‘UOI Vs Dharmendra Textiles Processor’ reported in 306 ITR 227 (SC). The Ld. DR Mr Desai further pressing into service the decision in the case of ‘MAK Data Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT’ [reported in 358 ITR 598 (SC)] dislodged the entitlement of the respondent assessee for exemption from penalty owning to voluntary surrender of income in search action. 9. Per contra, the Ld. AR Mr Naniwadekar submitted that, the additi…

SHRI HARESHBHAI J. FALDU,JUNAGADH vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE JUNAGADH, JUNAGADH

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

ITA 219/RJT/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 219/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Asstt. Years: 2013-2014 वष"

For Appellant: Ms Devina Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, C.I.T DR
Section 254Section 271Section 271ASection 274

…see and held that the addition was made on the basis of material found during the search and not on the estimation basis. The penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) as held the Hon’ble supreme court in the case of Dharmendra Textile Processers reported in 306 ITR 227 are civil proceeding therefore establishment of willful attempt/mens-rea is not necessary to levy penalty. Further, the income was found during the search, had the search not been carried out, the income could have been concealed. Thus, the AO held that the assessee concealed the particulars of income and levied the penalty of Rs. 42,902/- only b…

PRAPHULL KALURAM SHIVALE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 12,, PUNE

ITA 490/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No. 490/Pun/2019 करिनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2015-16 Shri Praphull Kaluram Shivale, 234, Balu Shetpabal Road, Vadhu Budruk, Shirur,Pune – 412216 Pan :Bfqps4176B . . . . . . . अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 12, Pune . . . . . . . ""थ" / Respondent "ारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri B. C. Malakar Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing :16/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement :26/08/2022 आदेश / Order Per G.D. Padmahshali, Am; The Present Appeal Of The Appellant Assessee Is Challenged Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Pune [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 14/02/2019 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 [For Short “The Act”] Which In Turn Dove Out Of Order Of Penalty [For Short “Po”] Of Asstt. Commission Of Income Tax, Circle-12 Pune [For Short “Ao”] Dt.28/06/2018 U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2015-16. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 14

For Appellant: Shri B. C. MalakarFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 43C

…ess invocation of the explanation, and to buttress the said argument, reliance is also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “K. P. Madhusudhanan Vs. CIT” reported at 251 ITR 99 (SC) and “UOI Vs Dharmendra Textiles Processor” reported in 306 ITR 227 (SC). ITAT-Pune Page 7 of 14 Shri Praphull Kaluram Shivale PAN :BFQPS4176B Asstt Yr.: 2015-16 6. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties; and subject to the provisions of rule 18 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 [for short “ITAT, Rules”] perused the material placed on records and duly considered the facts of the case…

M/S PIONEER PESTICIDES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

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

ITA 1553/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S Pioneer Pesticides Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, Sco 82-83, Sector 8-C, Circle 1(1), Chandigarh Chandigarh

For Appellant: Sh. Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh, Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…re, relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of ‘CIT Vs. Zoom Communications P. Ltd’ [2010] 327 ITR 510 (Del) and also of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ‘Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors’ 306 ITR 227 and another decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ‘Gujrag Industries Ltd. Vs. CTO’ 293 ITR 584 concluded that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income and, therefore, was liable for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved by the above order of the Assessing officer, the assessee preferred appeal before…

ADIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ROLLS ROYCE SINGAPORE PTE LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 862/DEL/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2016AY 2001-02

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

For Appellant: Sh. V.R. Sonbhadra, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh Gaurav Gupta, Advocate &
Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…ing that there was no mens rea on the part of the assessee in not disclosing its income from FTS on the accrual basis without appreciating the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others V/s Dharmendra Textiles Processors and others(306 ITR 227) in which it was held that the element of mens rea is not required to be established in the case of penalty for civil liability.” 2. Since common issue is involved in all these appeals and the grounds and arguments advanced by both the parties are also common, hence, all these appeals are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake…

NIRAJ CEMENT STRUCTURALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN RG 36, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 3209/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Niraj Cement Structurals Ltd., Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Niraj House, Opp. Deonar Bus Income Tax, Central Circle, Depot, Deonar, Mumbai 400 088 Range -36, Room No.11, Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai 400 020 Pan: Aabcn 1596J .. Appellant Respondent Appellant By .. Shri Y. P. Trivedi Ms. Usha Dalal, Ars Respondent By .. Shri N. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing .. 01-06-16 Date Of Pronouncement 12-08-16

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 80

…ishing accurate particulars regarding the income of assessee. Such a claim in the return cannot amount to furnishing in accurate particulars. The above decision of the Apex Court has considered the decision of Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors (306 ITR 227). In the present case, on interpretation of section 80-IA, it is settled laws that if the appellant makes a claim under a bona-fide belief then it will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. It needs specific mention that the appellant has taken a legal view and no particulars have been concealed by the appellant. Further, the claim of…

P Madhusudhanan v. CIT (306 ITR 227) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax