Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors

13 SCC 369Supreme Court of India2008#729 most cited

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.

139

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors · Dharamendra Textile Processors · Section 271(1)(c) penalty · concealment of income · furnishing inaccurate particulars · AO satisfaction for penalty · recording satisfaction · conditions for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) · scope of Section 271(1)(c) · Section 274.

Also reported as

174 Taxmann 57295 ITR 2441

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 143(3)Section 276CSection 14ASection 115JBSection 115JCSection 143

Issues it is cited on

section 276csection 276section 40a(2)(a)penalty under section 271(1)(c)furnishing inaccurate particularssection 271aabconcealment of incomesection 274penalty u/s 271(1)(c)furnishing inaccurate particulars of incomesection 271(1)commissioner (appeals)

Judgments citing Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors

Artdeco Collection Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-9(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 174/KOL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarmaआयकर अपील सं"या: 174 / कोल / 2022 िनधा"रण वष"ः 2015-16

Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 276C

…lant fails to disclose truly and correctly all the particular of its income in its valid filed return. 4.4.1 In this regard, reliance can be placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 13 SCC 369, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "The objective behind the enactment of section 271(1)(c) read with the Explanations indicates that the said section has been enacted to providing for a remedy for loss of revenue and such penalty was a civil liability and, therefore, wilful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civ…

Bharuch District Co Op Milk Producers Union Limited, Bharuch vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the grounds of appeals raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 209/SRT/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) The Bharuch District Co Op Milk A.C.I.T. Producers Union Limited, Circle-1, Vs. Old N.H. 8, Bholav, Bharuch. Bharuch-392001. Pan No. Aaaat 1470 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)

…assessment was dismissed by the ld. CIT(A). The penalty is leviable if the assessee failed to disclose fully and correctly all particulars of its income. The NFAC/ld.CIT(A) after referring the decision in Union of India Vs Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 13 SCC 369 and CIT, Ahmedabad Vs Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. (2010) 189 Taxman 4 The Bharuch District Co.Op Milk Producers Union Ltd Vs ACIT 322/ (2010) 322 ITR 158-SC has held that the case of assessee is clearly falls within the ambit of Explanation-1 of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act which raises rebuttable presumption and shifts the onus on the assesse…

De Dietrich Process Systems India P. Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. Dy CIT - 19(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2021/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2021 & 2022/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Dcit-19(3)(1), Mumbai De Dietrich Process Systems Aayakar Bhavan, India Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Mumbai-400 020 R. No. 548/549, Road No. 16, Vs. Ttc Indl. Area, Midc Rabale, Navi Mumbai-400 701 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccd8576D (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sanjay R. Parikh, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Mahita Nair, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 13.07.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 10.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 24.12.2019, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-16, Mumbai In Relation To The Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) For Ay 2014-15 & 2015-16. 2

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Parikh, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Mahita Nair, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40Section 40aSection 43B

…ied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 8. Ld. CIT(A) too has confirmed the penalties after following the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textile processors (2008) 13 SCC 369 (SC). 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant findings given in the impugned order as well as material placed on record. In so far as disallowance /addition on account of provision for doubtful debts, it was submitted that the said provision has been made in respect of M/s Glenmark Pharma Ltd. However, the same was not dis…

Gujarat Power Corporation Limited-Gpcl, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 1863/AHD/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Sept 2022AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Vidhyut Trivedi, Sr.D.R
Section 10Section 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 35ESection 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH Before: Ms. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member ITA Nos: 1860 to 1863/Ahd/2019 Assessment Years: 2003-04 to 2006-07 Gujarat Power The ACIT, Corporation Ltd. Gandhinagar Circle, 7th Floor, Regency Vs Gandhinagar Plaza, Opp. Rahul (Respondent) Tower, Nr. Madhur Hall, Anandnagar Cross Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015 PAN: AAACG5596J (Appellant) Appellant by : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. & Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Vidhyut Trivedi, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing : 01-09-2022 Date of pronounc…

Gujarat Power Corporation Limited-Gpcl, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 1862/AHD/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Sept 2022AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Vidhyut Trivedi, Sr.D.R
Section 10Section 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 35ESection 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH Before: Ms. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member ITA Nos: 1860 to 1863/Ahd/2019 Assessment Years: 2003-04 to 2006-07 Gujarat Power The ACIT, Corporation Ltd. Gandhinagar Circle, 7th Floor, Regency Vs Gandhinagar Plaza, Opp. Rahul (Respondent) Tower, Nr. Madhur Hall, Anandnagar Cross Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015 PAN: AAACG5596J (Appellant) Appellant by : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. & Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Vidhyut Trivedi, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing : 01-09-2022 Date of pronounc…

Gujarat Power Corporation Limited-Gpcl, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 1861/AHD/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Sept 2022AY 2004-05
For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Vidhyut Trivedi, Sr.D.R
Section 10Section 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 35ESection 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH Before: Ms. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member ITA Nos: 1860 to 1863/Ahd/2019 Assessment Years: 2003-04 to 2006-07 Gujarat Power The ACIT, Corporation Ltd. Gandhinagar Circle, 7th Floor, Regency Vs Gandhinagar Plaza, Opp. Rahul (Respondent) Tower, Nr. Madhur Hall, Anandnagar Cross Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015 PAN: AAACG5596J (Appellant) Appellant by : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. & Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Vidhyut Trivedi, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing : 01-09-2022 Date of pronounc…

Gujarat Power Corporation Limited-Gpcl, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 1860/AHD/2019[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Sept 2022AY 2003-04
For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Vidhyut Trivedi, Sr.D.R
Section 10Section 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 35ESection 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH Before: Ms. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member ITA Nos: 1860 to 1863/Ahd/2019 Assessment Years: 2003-04 to 2006-07 Gujarat Power The ACIT, Corporation Ltd. Gandhinagar Circle, 7th Floor, Regency Vs Gandhinagar Plaza, Opp. Rahul (Respondent) Tower, Nr. Madhur Hall, Anandnagar Cross Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015 PAN: AAACG5596J (Appellant) Appellant by : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. & Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Vidhyut Trivedi, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing : 01-09-2022 Date of pronounc…

Sheikh Kutbuddin Habib, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

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

ITA 264/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 263 & 264/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri K. Raghu, CAFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh Periasamy, JCIT
Section 131Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ment 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 a/so been elaborately discussed by this Court in Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 13 SCC 369 and CIT v.Atul Mohan Bindal [2009] 9 SCC 589.” In the instant case, AO's satisfaction may not have been explicitly recorded in the assessment order but the fact that penalty proceedings have been initiated during assessment proceedings, that too after discussion of facts and circumstances, would amount to AO's satisfaction. In view of the above o…

Sheikh Kutbuddin Habib, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

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

ITA 263/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 263 & 264/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri K. Raghu, CAFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh Periasamy, JCIT
Section 131Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ment 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 a/so been elaborately discussed by this Court in Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 13 SCC 369 and CIT v.Atul Mohan Bindal [2009] 9 SCC 589.” In the instant case, AO's satisfaction may not have been explicitly recorded in the assessment order but the fact that penalty proceedings have been initiated during assessment proceedings, that too after discussion of facts and circumstances, would amount to AO's satisfaction. In view of the above o…

Sai Samarth Enterprises, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 1, Thane

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 3718/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3718/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3720/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3721/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ M/S. Sai Samarth Enterprises Dcit-Central Circle-1, 107, Patel Building, Parel, Thane. Vs. Mumbai. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abufs9008B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Suchek Anchaliya Revenue By: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/03/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/05/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, (Jm): The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 29.03.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 11, Pune [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed.

For Appellant: Shri Suchek AnchaliyaFor Respondent: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Sr. AR)
Section 132Section 132oSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 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…

Sequel Alloys & Wires Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 23(2), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2362/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Though Video Conferencing) Sequel Alloys & Wires Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Plot No. 72, Sreshta Vihar, Gf, Circle-23(2), Vikas Marg Exten, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaics5081J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Kaushik, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…der was challenged before the ld CIT(A). He also confirmed the penalty as per para No. 5 of the order. The ld CIT(A) heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India Page 2 of 5 Vs. Dharmendra Textiles Processor (2008) 13 SCC 369 and Dilip Shroff VS. JCIT 291 ITR 519. Therefore, the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. The ld AR challenged the penalty on the merit as well as on a technical ground that the penalty proceedings initiated by the ld AO are vague. He referred to penalty notice issued u/s 274 of the Act dated 31.03.2014 where none of the twin charges were stuck of…

Ge Capital Services India, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2412/DEL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Sunit Singh, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37Section 38

…ach of the taxman must be fair and objective. This subject has been a matter of great controversy. Finally, after referring to the decisions in the case of Dilip N. Shroff vs JCIT & Another, 291 ITR 519, Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 13 SCC 369, as well as Union of India vs Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills [2009] 13 SCC 448, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd, 322 ITR 158, has recently held as under: “A glance at the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, suggests that in order to be covered by it, there has to be concealment…

Munir M. Khan, Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC -7(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assesee is allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7138/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunathamunir Khan Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-7(1) 654, 6Th Floor 1404, ‘A’ Wing Raj Classic Bldg Aaykar Bhawan Off. Yari Road, Versova M.K.Road Andheri(W) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 061 Pan/Gir No.Asgpk3313A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Dcit, Central Circle-7(1) Vs. Munir Khan 654, 6Th Floor 1404, ‘A’ Wing Aaykar Bhawan Raj Classic Bldg M.K.Road Off. Yari Road, Versova Mumbai-400 020 Andheri(W) Mumbai-400 061 Pan/Gir No.Asgpk3313A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 260Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

…ars of income. The Ld. AO, after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also, taken support from certain judicial precedents, including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Union of India vs Dharmendra Textile Processors ( 2008) 13 SCC 369, opined that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act, 1961and accordingly, levied penalty of Rs. 4,43,49,149/-, which is equivalent to 100% of tax sought to be evaded. 6. Aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Before the Ld.C…

Sandeep Bhimrao Lad, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle-3, Thane

ITA 1620/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1620/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar, DR
Section 133(6)Section 148Section 271Section 274

…essing officer and the findings thereon. However, in this case, it is humbly submitted that the following decisions may kindly be considered with regard to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act. 1. Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors [(2007) 295 ITR 2441 where Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is a civil liability for which willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting the civil liability as is the case in the matter of proceedings under section 276C 2. R L Traders Vs ITO (2017-T1OL-2583-HC-DEL- IT) where Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that cit…

M/S. Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd.(Hudco), New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1162/DEL/2011[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2019AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 1160, 1161, 1162, 5234/Del/2011 Asstt. Years: 1998-99, 1999-00, 2000-01, 2001-02 Housing and Urban Vs. DCIT Development Corporation Circle-12(1), Ltd. (HUDCO) C.R. Building, Hudco Bhavan, Lodhi New Delhi. Road, New Delhi – 110 003. PAN AAACH0632A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Gagan Kumar, Advocate Shri Amit Kaushik Advocate, Shri Rakesh Chhabra, CA Department by Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT(DR) : Ms. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 23/07/20…

M/S. Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd.(Hudco), New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1161/DEL/2011[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2019AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 1160, 1161, 1162, 5234/Del/2011 Asstt. Years: 1998-99, 1999-00, 2000-01, 2001-02 Housing and Urban Vs. DCIT Development Corporation Circle-12(1), Ltd. (HUDCO) C.R. Building, Hudco Bhavan, Lodhi New Delhi. Road, New Delhi – 110 003. PAN AAACH0632A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Gagan Kumar, Advocate Shri Amit Kaushik Advocate, Shri Rakesh Chhabra, CA Department by Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT(DR) : Ms. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 23/07/20…

M/S. Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd.(Hudco), New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1160/DEL/2011[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2019AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 1160, 1161, 1162, 5234/Del/2011 Asstt. Years: 1998-99, 1999-00, 2000-01, 2001-02 Housing and Urban Vs. DCIT Development Corporation Circle-12(1), Ltd. (HUDCO) C.R. Building, Hudco Bhavan, Lodhi New Delhi. Road, New Delhi – 110 003. PAN AAACH0632A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Gagan Kumar, Advocate Shri Amit Kaushik Advocate, Shri Rakesh Chhabra, CA Department by Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT(DR) : Ms. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 23/07/20…

Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5234/DEL/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 1160, 1161, 1162, 5234/Del/2011 Asstt. Years: 1998-99, 1999-00, 2000-01, 2001-02 Housing and Urban Vs. DCIT Development Corporation Circle-12(1), Ltd. (HUDCO) C.R. Building, Hudco Bhavan, Lodhi New Delhi. Road, New Delhi – 110 003. PAN AAACH0632A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Gagan Kumar, Advocate Shri Amit Kaushik Advocate, Shri Rakesh Chhabra, CA Department by Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT(DR) : Ms. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 23/07/20…

M/S Verma Service Station, Firozabad vs. D.C.I.T., Range-5, Firozabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 349/AGR/2018[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Agra12 Sept 2019AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…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 v. Dharamendra Textile Processors [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC) ; [2008] 13 SCC 369 and CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal [2009] 317 ITR 1 (SC) ; [2009] 9 SCC 589." (Emphasis supplied). The Assessing Officer, in our view, has recorded a categorical finding that he was satisfied that the assessee I.T.A No. 349/Agra/2018 13 & S.A. No.06/Agra/2018 (in I.T.A No. 349/Agra/2018) had concealed true particulars of income and is liable for penal…

The Pr Commissioner of vs. M/S Mphasis Limited

ITA/909/2017HC Karnataka16 Aug 2018

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

Section 482

…also to the same effect. The Apex Court, later, in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDABAD v. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED 4 has held as follows: “…. …. …. …. 3 (2008) 13 SCC 369 4 (2010) 11 SCC 762 33 15. It was only on the point of mens rea that the judgment in Dilip N. Shroff v. CIT [(2007) 6 SCC 329] was upset. In Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors [(2008) 13 SCC 369] after quoting from Section 271 extensively and also considering Section 271(1)(c), the Court came to the conclusion that s…