SUDARSHAN SILKS & SAREES v. CIT

300 ITR 205Supreme Court of India2008#1175 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Sudarshan Silks & Sarees v. CIT · Sudarshan Silks SC · Section 153A · Section 132(1)(a) · Section 132(2) · search and seizure assessment · illegal payment · STPI unit · Section 10A · enduring benefit test · business transfer agreement

Also reported as

169 Taxmann 321

Sections most often in play

Section 250 Section 153A Section 143(3)Section 10A Section 147 Section 148 Section 139(1)Section 234A

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

stpi unit test of enduring benefit section 132(2)section 203 section 132(1)(a)convertible foreign exchange software technology park illegal payment section 153(a)section 10(2)section 39 business transfer agreement

Judgments citing SUDARSHAN SILKS & SAREES v. CIT

DCIT, Central Circle - 2(2), Kolkata vs. M/S/ Rashmi Metaliks Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1608/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

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

…t be visited with penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act. The Ld. AR argued that the Ld. CIT(A) correctly appreciated the true and correct purport of Section 271AAB and applying the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sudardhan Silk &SareesVs CIT (300 ITR 205), he rightly deleted the penalty levied u/s 271AAB of the Act. The Ld. AR therefore urged for upholding the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 8. We have heard the arguments on behalf of both the parties and perused the documents on record, examined applicable legal provisions and the judicial pronouncements on the subject. At the outset we note that it h…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (4) vs. M/S Chamundi Winery and Distillery

ITA/172/2017HC Karnataka25 Sept 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260

…ted below for ready reference:- 53. In Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Virtual Soft Systems Ltd. [2018] 404 ITR 409(SC), a Two Judges’ Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with Sl.No OTHER CASE LAWS Page No 11 Manglore Ganesh Beedi Works Vs. CIT 378 ITR 640 (SC) 64-70 12 D.S. Bist & Sons Vs. CIT 149 ITR 276 (Del) 71-74 37 PCIT Vs. IDMC Ltd. 393 ITR 441 (Guj) 227-233 47 UOI Vs.Azadi Bachao Andolan & Anr 263 ITR 706 (SC) 284-312 Date of Judgment 25-09-2018 I.T.A.No.155/2016 and connected matters The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Chamundi Winery and Distillery

ITA/467/2015HC Karnataka25 Sept 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260

Kaku Tulsidas Bhatia, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 16(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1783/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Accountant Mamber & Shri Pawan Singhsh. Kaku Tulsidass Bhatia, Assistant Commissioner Of Income 39/40, Purab Apartment, Tax, Central Circle-16(2), 42, Ridge Road, Malabar Hills, Vs. Mumbai Mumbai-400006 Pan: Aabpb0770H (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 105/M/2018 In Ita No. 3358/Mum/2014(Ay 2007-08) Assistant Commissioner Of Sh. Kaku Tulsidass Bhatia, Income Tax, Central Circle-16(2), 39/40, Purab Apartment, Mumbai Vs. 42, Ridge Road, Malabar Hills, Mumbai-400006 Pan: Aabpb0770H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. N.M. Porwal AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh.M.C. Omi Ningshen

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 69

…and. In support of his submissions the ld AR for the assessee relied on the decision of Tribunal in DCIT Vs Vijay Grihnirman Pvt Ltd (2016) 46 CCH 0549 (Mum Tri) and decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manglore Ganesh Beedi Works Vs CIT (2015)94 CCH 54 (SC)/ 378 ITR 640 (SC). 15. We have considered the rival submissions of the ld. AR/DR of the parties, deliberated on the various laws relied by the lower authorities and the decisions relied by the parties and the material placed before us. In the return of income the assessee claimed long term capital gain on sale of land at Indore. The assessee worked out t…

Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax (Central) - 2 vs. M/S Mahesh Wood Products Pvt. Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/787/2016HC Delhi05 May 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 153Section 153ASection 260ASection 275(1)(c)

…mon order the ITAT referred to its earlier decision in DCIT, Central Circle-03, New Delhi v. Raj Katha Products P. Ltd. (order dated 8th March, 2016) which, in turn, relied upon on the decision of this Court in PCIT-5 v. JKD Capital & Finlease Ltd. (2015) 378 ITR 640 (Del). The ITAT, accordingly, ITA Nos.786 of 2017 & 787 of 2017 Page 4 of 5 held that the penalty orders were barred by limitation under Section 275(1)(c) of the Act. 7. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the Revenue has sought to place reliance on the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) v. IKE…

Vatsala Shenoy vs. Jt.Commissioner of Income Tax

C.A. No.-001234-001234 - 2012Supreme Court18 Oct 2016

Section 260Section 583(4)(a)

…ale of an ongoing concern, it had to be treated as a slump sale within the meaning of Section 2(42C) of the Act and, therefore, it was not permissible for the Assessing Officer to assign the amount of 92 crores into different ₹ 3 (2016) 2 SCC 556 : (2015) 378 ITR 640 Page 16 JUDGMENT 16 heads of land, building and machinery and treating balance amount as goodwill. It was a capital asset as an ongoing concern which was sold at 92 crores and in the absence of provisions relating to mode of ₹ computation and deductions at the relevant time, which were inserted subsequently only with effect from Apr…

Vatsala Shenoy vs. Jt.Commissioner of Income Tax

C.A. No.-001234-001234 - 2012Supreme Court18 Oct 2016

Section 260Section 583(4)(a)

ITO 14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Diwa Exports, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6141/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey() & Shri N.K. Pradhan ()

For Appellant: Ms. Amrita SinghFor Respondent: Shri. Ketan L. Vajani

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

…elied on the assessment order passed by the AO. She also relied on the decision in the case of Prem Pal Gandhi vs. CIT (2011) 335 ITR 23 (P&H). 4. The ld. Counsel of the assessee referred to the decision in the case of Sudharshan Silk & Sarees vs. CIT (2008) 300 ITR 205 (SC); Careers Education and Infotech (P) Ltd. ( supra) and Suresh Chandra Mittal (supra). He further stated that the assessee with a desire to avoid litigation and to buy peace voluntarily filed a revised return offering additional income of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- for the AY 2010-11 and Rs. 1,40,00,000/- for the AY 2011-12 on ad hoc basis to be taxe…

ITO 14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Diwa Exports, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6140/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey() & Shri N.K. Pradhan ()

For Appellant: Ms. Amrita SinghFor Respondent: Shri. Ketan L. Vajani

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Bahubali Neminath Muttin

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/5029/2011HC Karnataka13 Jul 2016

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY,RAGHVENDRA S.CHAUHAN

Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 260ASection 40ASection 41Section 68Section 69B

…1. 330 ITR 1 (SC) @ 7-9 (Vijay Kumar Talwar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax) 2. 378 ITR 640 (SC) @ 648 (Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Another) 3. 273 ITR 50 (SC) @ 55 (M. Janardhan Rao vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax) 4. 300 ITR 205 (SC) @ 211,212 (Sudarshan Silks and Sarees vs. Commissioner of Income Tax) 5. 247 ITR 178 @ 180, 181, 182 (K. Ravindranathan Nair vs. Commissioner of Income Tax) 11. Alternatively, and without prejudice to the preliminary objections raised above, he would submit that, on merits it should 12 be noted that admittedly the books of accounts of the…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Bahubali Neminath Muttin

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/5028/2011HC Karnataka13 Jul 2016

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY,RAGHVENDRA S.CHAUHAN

Section 132Section 260ASection 69B

…30 ITR 1 (SC) @ 7-9 (Vijay Kumar Talwar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax) 2. 378 ITR 640 (SC) @ 648 (Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Another) 12 3. 273 ITR 50 (SC) @ 55 (M. Janardhan Rao vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax) 4. 300 ITR 205 (SC) @ 211,212 (Sudarshan Silks and Sarees vs. Commissioner of Income Tax) 5. 247 ITR 178 @ 180, 181, 182 (K. Ravindranathan Nair vs. Commissioner of Income Tax) 14. Alternatively, and without prejudice to the preliminary objections raised above, he would submit that, on merits it should be noted that admittedly the books of accounts of the respo…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Bahubali Neminath Muttin

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/5025/2011HC Karnataka13 Jul 2016

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY,RAGHVENDRA S.CHAUHAN

Section 132Section 260ASection 69B

…30 ITR 1 (SC) @ 7-9 (Vijay Kumar Talwar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax) 2. 378 ITR 640 (SC) @ 648 (Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Another) 13 3. 273 ITR 50 (SC) @ 55 (M. Janardhan Rao vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax) 4. 300 ITR 205 (SC) @ 211,212 (Sudarshan Silks and Sarees vs. Commissioner of Income Tax) 5. 247 ITR 178 @ 180, 181, 182 (K. Ravindranathan Nair vs. Commissioner of Income Tax) 15. Alternatively, and without prejudice to the preliminary objections raised above, he would submit that, on merits it should be noted that admittedly the books of accounts of the respo…

The Comissioner of Income Tax III vs. Smt. Shanti Singh

ITTA/51/2007HC Telangana15 Jun 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 132(1)Section 143Section 144Section 147Section 158

…2008 has been Hisar, against the order of the IT We find that the appeal filed b ave already noticed that specia amined the case on facts and th manates from the order passed b mune from challenge in appea Act as has been held by H Ganesh Beedi Works vs C 15) 378 ITR 640. Therefore, the ed. Accordingly, both appeals are di No costs. (SANJ aking/reasoned Yes/N ortable Yes/N -8- the properties taken on rent by ve been correctly re-assessed by ents, learned counsel for the the issue relating to constitution dent of ITAT. the appeal filed by the assesse…

D.C.I.T CC - V, Kolkata vs. Krishna Trade & Commerce Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1083/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271A

…y could be levied in the case of an assessee who has made a declaration u/s 132(4) regarding the undisclosed income and the manner in which it was earned; and, has also paid the tax in respect of such undisclosed income. In the case of Sudharsan Silk & Sarees 300 ITR 205, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where the assessee has made the disclosure for the purposes of buying peace and the assessment was based on such disclosure, then even if no assurance in writing was given by the searching party, it may be safely inferred that such an inducement must have been given by the searching party. For, when only p…

D.C.I.T CC - V, Kolkata vs. Salsar Stock Broking Ltd, Kolkata

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

ITA 1082/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Chhaparia, FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin Ansari, JCIT, ld. Sr.DR

Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271ASection 73

…and assessee is clearly entitled for immunity from levy of penalty. 8 ITA No.1082/Kol/2013-B-AM M/s. Salasar Stock Broking Ltd 8.2. We also find that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sudarshan Silks & Sarees vs CIT reported in (2008) 300 ITR 205 (SC) supports the case of the assessee. The brief facts of this are as below:- “3. A search was conducted on the premises of the assessee on 14 and 15-10- 1987 and incriminating documents evidencing concealment of income by the assessee were unearthed apart from cash and jewellery found at the time of search. It was found that the appellant was m…

D.C.I.T CC - V, Kolkata vs. Shree Salsar Properties & Finance (P) Ltd, Kolkata

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

ITA 1081/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Chhaparia, FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin Ansari, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271A

…e above, we hold that the levy of penalty is not automatic and assessee is clearly entitled for immunity from levy of penalty. 8.5. We also find that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sudarshan Silks & Sarees vs CIT reported in (2008) 300 ITR 205 (SC) supports the case of the assessee. The brief facts of this are as below:- 3. A search was conducted on the premises of the assessee on 14 and 15-10- 1987 and incriminating documents evidencing concealment of income by the assessee were unearthed apart from cash and jewellery found at the time of search. It was found that the appellant was m…

Commissioner of Income Tax-V vs. Sri S.Venkat Reddy, (PAN ALAPS4009A)

ITTA/501/2013HC Telangana24 Oct 2013