What is Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors authority for?

For the applicability of Section 271(1)(c) penalty, the Assessing Officer must be satisfied that the assessee concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars; however, this satisfaction is not required to be recorded in a particular manner or reduced to writing.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 271(1)(c), Section 274, Section 143(3), Section 276C, Section 14A, Section 115JB.

Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors (13 SCC 369)

Q: How many judgments cite Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors?

139 judgments on BharatTax cite Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors (13 SCC 369), spanning 2009 to 2025.

Cornerstone Ondemand Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation )-291)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3747/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Hiten Thakkar, AR

Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 3747/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) I.T.A. No. 3751/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) I.T.A. No. 3753/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) I.T.A. No. 3752/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) I.T.A. No. 5677/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) Cornerstone Ondemand Limited, ACIT (IT)-2(1)(1), 14th Floor, The Ruby, 17th Floor, Air India Building, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Vs. Nariman Point, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400028. Mumbai-400021. PAN: AAGCC3428B Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant /Assessee by…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 5 Kolkata vs. Ram Awatar Dhoot

The appeal is partly allowed and the substantial questions of

ITAT/21/2025HC Calcutta07 Mar 2025

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Dated : 7Th March, 2025. Appearance:

Section 10(38)Section 2Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…ty is required to be established. This finding, in our view, is not legally sustainable. We support our conclusion by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors & Others, (2008) 13 SCC 369. The question which falls for consideration before the larger Bench in a batch of appeals was, whether Section 11-AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 with the intention of imposing mandatory penalty on the persons who evaded payment of tax should 5 be read to condone mens rea as an essential ingredient and whether there is a scope for lev…

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)

…ndicate that the appellant has not offered any proper explanation, far less than a bonafide explanation, as required under Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5.10 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors (2008) 13 SCC 369 has held that the explanations appended to section 271(1)(c) of the Act indicate the element of strict liability on the assessee for concealment or for giving inaccurate particulars while filing the return. It was held that Section 271(1)(c) of the Act had been enacted to provide a remedy for loss of revenue and the penalty under the said provisio…

ACIT-2(1)(1), Kanpur vs. Up State Yarn Company Limited, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 469/LKW/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Nov 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraacit-2(1)(1) Up State Yarn Company V. 15/295-A, Civil Lines, Kanpur, Limited Uttar Pradesh-208001. 1 Smith Square, 14/72, Civil Lines, Uttar Pradesh- 208001. Pan:Aaacu1674K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 11 11 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 11 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl

Section 254Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

…sessing Officer has to be satisfied that a person has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. This court referred to another decision of this Court in Union of India Vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors (2008) 13 SCC 369, as also, the decision in Union of India v. Rajasthan Spg &Wvg. Mills [2009] 13 SCC 448 and reiterated in para 13 that :- 13: It goes without saying that for applicability of section 271(1)(c), conditions stated therein must exist.” Therefore, it is obvious that it must be shown that the conditions under section 271(1)(c) must exist before the pen…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Kolkata vs. Virendra Kumar Surana, HUF

ITAT/144/2024HC Calcutta06 Nov 2024

Bench: :

Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…posed by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT(A) without considering the judgment reported in the cases of Grass Field & Resorts P Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 388 ITR 395 (Raj), Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 13 SCC 369 and CIT vs. Atul Mohan Bindal (2009) 9 SCC 589? We have heard Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Rajarshi Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3 The short issue which falls for consideration in the instant case is that whether the learned Tribunal is right in allowin…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(1), Bengaluru vs. Smt. Vankadara Padmavathi, Hospet, Karnataka

In the result, the appeal by the revenue and the CO by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1374/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri T. Srinivasa Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar E., CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…r it is clearly mentioned that penalty was imposed for filing inaccurate particulars of income. In support of his argument, he relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of MAK Data P. Ltd. (2013) [para 4], UOI v. Dharmendra Textiles Ltd. (2008) 13 SCC 369 and CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal (2009) 9 SCC 589. The ld. DR further submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was unable to substantiate its case that with sufficient documents that it is allowable u/s. 36. 7. The ld. AR strongly relied on the order of the CIT(Appeals) and submitted that while issuing notice u/s. 271(1…

Parul University, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Exemption Circle-1, Ahmedabad

Appeals are allowed

ITA 993/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

For Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 12ASection 133ASection 80G(5)

…participation in some amnesty scheme like PMGKY does not absolve the assessee from the wrongdoing. Intent of any amnesty scheme is to comply and rectify previous non-compliance. 7.8. In the judgement of Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 13 SCC 369, the Supreme Court held that mens rea (intention) is an ITA No 991,992,993,1018 & 1019/Ahd/2023. Parul Arogya Seva Mandal Trust & Parul University (ITA 993/Ahd/2023) Asst. Years :2016-17 & 2017-18 25 essential ingredient of fraud and that heavy penalties can be imposed for fraudulent acts. In the present case, we have no hesitation to say that t…

Parul Arogya Seva Mandal Trust, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

Appeals are allowed

ITA 992/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

For Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 12ASection 133ASection 80G(5)

…participation in some amnesty scheme like PMGKY does not absolve the assessee from the wrongdoing. Intent of any amnesty scheme is to comply and rectify previous non-compliance. 7.8. In the judgement of Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 13 SCC 369, the Supreme Court held that mens rea (intention) is an ITA No 991,992,993,1018 & 1019/Ahd/2023. Parul Arogya Seva Mandal Trust & Parul University (ITA 993/Ahd/2023) Asst. Years :2016-17 & 2017-18 25 essential ingredient of fraud and that heavy penalties can be imposed for fraudulent acts. In the present case, we have no hesitation to say that t…

Parul Arogya Seva Mandal Trust, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

Appeals are allowed

ITA 991/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

For Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 12ASection 133ASection 80G(5)

…participation in some amnesty scheme like PMGKY does not absolve the assessee from the wrongdoing. Intent of any amnesty scheme is to comply and rectify previous non-compliance. 7.8. In the judgement of Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 13 SCC 369, the Supreme Court held that mens rea (intention) is an ITA No 991,992,993,1018 & 1019/Ahd/2023. Parul Arogya Seva Mandal Trust & Parul University (ITA 993/Ahd/2023) Asst. Years :2016-17 & 2017-18 25 essential ingredient of fraud and that heavy penalties can be imposed for fraudulent acts. In the present case, we have no hesitation to say that t…

DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad, Aayakar Bhawan, Ashram Road vs. Parul Arogya Seva Mandal Trust, Ahmedabad

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1019/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

For Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 12ASection 133ASection 80G(5)

…participation in some amnesty scheme like PMGKY does not absolve the assessee from the wrongdoing. Intent of any amnesty scheme is to comply and rectify previous non-compliance. 7.8. In the judgement of Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 13 SCC 369, the Supreme Court held that mens rea (intention) is an ITA No 991,992,993,1018 & 1019/Ahd/2023. Parul Arogya Seva Mandal Trust & Parul University (ITA 993/Ahd/2023) Asst. Years :2016-17 & 2017-18 25 essential ingredient of fraud and that heavy penalties can be imposed for fraudulent acts. In the present case, we have no hesitation to say that t…

DCIT, Central Circle1(2), Ahmedabad vs. Parul Arogya Seva Mandal Trust, Ahmedabad

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1018/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

For Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 12ASection 133ASection 80G(5)

…participation in some amnesty scheme like PMGKY does not absolve the assessee from the wrongdoing. Intent of any amnesty scheme is to comply and rectify previous non-compliance. 7.8. In the judgement of Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 13 SCC 369, the Supreme Court held that mens rea (intention) is an ITA No 991,992,993,1018 & 1019/Ahd/2023. Parul Arogya Seva Mandal Trust & Parul University (ITA 993/Ahd/2023) Asst. Years :2016-17 & 2017-18 25 essential ingredient of fraud and that heavy penalties can be imposed for fraudulent acts. In the present case, we have no hesitation to say that t…

Suresh Chand Bansal, Haryana vs. ACIT, Central Circle-16, Delhi

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

ITA 3666/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

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

…n on the part of the assessee to hide his true income. This was also the conclusion of the Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT [2007] 291 ITR 519/161 Taxman 218. In a later decision in Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 13 SCC 369, the Supreme Court overruled its decision in Dilip N. Shroff (supra). Thereafter, in CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158/189 Taxman 322 (SC) the Court clarified that Dilip N. Shroff (supra) stood overruled only to the extent that it imposed the requirement of mens rea in Section 271(1)(c); however, no fault was found with th…

Amit Bansal, Haryana vs. ACIT, Central Circle-16, Delhi

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

ITA 3665/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

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

…n on the part of the assessee to hide his true income. This was also the conclusion of the Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT [2007] 291 ITR 519/161 Taxman 218. In a later decision in Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 13 SCC 369, the Supreme Court overruled its decision in Dilip N. Shroff (supra). Thereafter, in CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158/189 Taxman 322 (SC) the Court clarified that Dilip N. Shroff (supra) stood overruled only to the extent that it imposed the requirement of mens rea in Section 271(1)(c); however, no fault was found with th…

Amit Bansal, Haryana vs. ACIT Central Circle-16, Delhi

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

ITA 3664/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

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

…n on the part of the assessee to hide his true income. This was also the conclusion of the Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT [2007] 291 ITR 519/161 Taxman 218. In a later decision in Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 13 SCC 369, the Supreme Court overruled its decision in Dilip N. Shroff (supra). Thereafter, in CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158/189 Taxman 322 (SC) the Court clarified that Dilip N. Shroff (supra) stood overruled only to the extent that it imposed the requirement of mens rea in Section 271(1)(c); however, no fault was found with th…

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)

…ssessing Officer has to be satisfied that a person has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. This Court referred to another decision of this Court in Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors [2008] 13 SCC 369 as also, the decision in Union of India v. Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills [2009] 13 SCC 448 and reiterated in para 13 that:- "13. It goes without saying that for applicability of Section 271(1)(c), conditions stated therein must exist." 9. Therefore, it is obvious that it must be shown that the conditions under section 271(1)(c) must exist before the…

Eureka Outsourcing Solutions Pvt Ltd, Thane vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle (1), Thane

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

ITA 2845/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Eureka Outsourcing Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Circle (1) 5Th Floor, High Street Cum Highland Thane Corporate Centre, Kapurbawadi, Vs. Thane-400 607

For Appellant: Shri Vijaykumar S. BiyaniFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Choughule

Section 143(3)Section 197Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(2)(b)

…Assessing Officer has to be satisfied that a person has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. This Court referred to another decision of this Court in Union of Indiav. Dharamendra Textile Processors [2008] 13 SCC 369, as also, the decision in Union of Indiav. Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills [2009] 13 SCC 448 and reiterated in para 13 that :— "13. It goes without saying that for applicability of section 271(1)( c), conditions stated therein must exist." 6 Eureka Outsourcing Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dy CIT 8. Therefore, it is obvious that it must be shown that the c…

Shashikant Sukdeo Ambekar, 10, Sadgurunagar, Nasik 422007, Maharashtra, India vs. Income Tax Officer ITO Ward 2(1), Nashik/, Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Gadkari Chowk, Agra Road

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 364/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.364/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 Shashikant Sukdeo Ambekar, The Income Tax Officer, 10, Sadgurunagar, Vs Ward-2(1), Nashik. Nashik – 422007. Pan: Aavpa 6177 F Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suresh Gawali – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 03/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21/07/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Dated 31.01.2023 Emanating From The Penalty Order Dated 17.01.2022 Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Cit Is Not Justified In Raising Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of Rs.1,33,020/- On The Ground That The Assesses Has Furnish Inaccurate Particulars Of Income Without Appreciating That The Said Levy Of Penalty Was Riot Justified In Law. Shashikant Sukdeo Ambekar [A]

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 80CSection 80DSection 80T

…ent proceedings and the AO is not required to record his satisfaction in a particular manner or reduce it into writing. The scope of Section 271(1)(c) has also been elaborately discussed by this Court in Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 13 SCC 369 and CIT vs. Atul Mohan Bindal (2009) 9 SCC 589. 11. The principle laid down by this Court, in our view, has been correctly followed by the Revenue and we find no illegality in the department initiating penalty proceedings in the instant case. We, therefore, fully agree with the view of the High Court. Hence, the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed…

Satish Pandurang Pawar, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer ITO Ward 2(1), Nashik/

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 363/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.363/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Satish Pandurang Pawar, The Income Tax Officer, 602, Royal Orchid, Near Indian Vs Ward-2(1), Nashik. Oil Petrol Pump, Katraj Bypass, Ambegaon, Pune – 411046. Pan: Abfpp 1207 Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Yogesh Gawali – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani, Irs – Dr Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Date Of Hearing 03/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Dated 27.02.2023 Emanating From The Penalty Order Dated 24.01.2022 Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Cit Is Not Justified In Raising Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of Rs.2,36,100/- On The Ground That The Assesses Has Furnish Inaccurate Particulars Of Income Without Appreciating That Satish Pandurang Pawar [A]

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ent proceedings and the AO is not required to record his satisfaction in a particular manner or reduce it into writing. The scope of Section 271(1)(c) has also been elaborately discussed by this Court in Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 13 SCC 369 and CIT vs. Atul Mohan Bindal (2009) 9 SCC 589. 11. The principle laid down by this Court, in our view, has been correctly followed by the Revenue and we find no illegality in the department initiating penalty proceedings in the instant case. We, therefore, fully agree with the view of the High Court. Hence, the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed…

Gurpal Singh, Sunam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Sunam

In the result, the addition of Rs 4,40,000/- is hereby directed to be deleted and the matter is decided in favour of the assessee

ITA 224/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri. Kartik Goyal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 250(6)Section 69A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “ए” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH "ी संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी "व"म "संह यादव, लेखा सद"य BEFORE: SHRI. SANJAY GARG, JM & SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 223/Chd/ 2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Bahadur Singh बनाम The ITO, Gagandeep Singh C/o Sh. Bahadur Ward, Sunam Singh, Flat No. 403, Block E13, GH- 79(Army Society), Sector-20, Panchkula-134117 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ECBPS5126N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 224/Chd/ 2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Gurpal…

Bahadur Singh, Sunam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Sunam

In the result, the addition of Rs 4,40,000/- is hereby directed to be deleted and the matter is decided in favour of the assessee

ITA 223/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri. Kartik Goyal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 250(6)Section 69A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “ए” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH "ी संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी "व"म "संह यादव, लेखा सद"य BEFORE: SHRI. SANJAY GARG, JM & SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 223/Chd/ 2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Bahadur Singh बनाम The ITO, Gagandeep Singh C/o Sh. Bahadur Ward, Sunam Singh, Flat No. 403, Block E13, GH- 79(Army Society), Sector-20, Panchkula-134117 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ECBPS5126N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 224/Chd/ 2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Gurpal…

Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors

What is Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors

Cornerstone Ondemand Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation )-291)(1), Mumbai

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 5 Kolkata vs. Ram Awatar Dhoot

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

ACIT-2(1)(1), Kanpur vs. Up State Yarn Company Limited, Kanpur

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Kolkata vs. Virendra Kumar Surana, HUF

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(1), Bengaluru vs. Smt. Vankadara Padmavathi, Hospet, Karnataka

Parul University, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Exemption Circle-1, Ahmedabad

Parul Arogya Seva Mandal Trust, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

Parul Arogya Seva Mandal Trust, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad, Aayakar Bhawan, Ashram Road vs. Parul Arogya Seva Mandal Trust, Ahmedabad

DCIT, Central Circle1(2), Ahmedabad vs. Parul Arogya Seva Mandal Trust, Ahmedabad

Suresh Chand Bansal, Haryana vs. ACIT, Central Circle-16, Delhi

Amit Bansal, Haryana vs. ACIT, Central Circle-16, Delhi

Amit Bansal, Haryana vs. ACIT Central Circle-16, Delhi

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

Eureka Outsourcing Solutions Pvt Ltd, Thane vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle (1), Thane

Shashikant Sukdeo Ambekar, 10, Sadgurunagar, Nasik 422007, Maharashtra, India vs. Income Tax Officer ITO Ward 2(1), Nashik/, Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Gadkari Chowk, Agra Road

Satish Pandurang Pawar, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer ITO Ward 2(1), Nashik/

Gurpal Singh, Sunam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Sunam

Bahadur Singh, Sunam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Sunam