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

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.

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 274 Section 143(3)Section 276C Section 14A Section 115JB Section 115JC Section 143

Issues it is cited on

section 276c section 276 section 40a(2)(a)penalty under section 271(1)(c)furnishing inaccurate particulars section 271aab concealment of income section 274 penalty u/s 271(1)(c)furnishing inaccurate particulars of income section 271(1)commissioner (appeals)

Judgments citing Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Acee Enterprises, New Delhi

ITA 6517/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.P.Jain & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Satendra Pal, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri M.P. Rastogi, Adv

Section 143Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…sing 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 versus Dharamendra Textile Processors (2008) 13 SCC 369 as also, the decision in Union of India versus Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills (2009) 13 SCC 448 and reiterated in paragraph 13 that (page 13 of 317 ITR): “13. It goes without saying that for applicability of section 271 (1) (c), conditions stated therein must exist.” Ays 2005-06 to 2008-09 5.1 The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT versus Am…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Acee Enterprises, New Delhi

ITA 6516/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri B.P.Jain & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Satendra Pal, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri M.P. Rastogi, Adv

Section 143Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/s Hyderabad Security and Off Set Printers Ltd

ITTA/500/2017HC Telangana07 Nov 2017

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Pvr Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the department is

ITA 1577/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2006-07 Dcit, Vs Ms/ Pvr Ltd., Circle 14(1), 61, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. New Delhi-110057 (Pan No. Aaacp4526D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr. Dr Respondent By : Shri V.K. Garg, Advocate

For Appellant: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Garg, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…sing 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 versus Dharamendra Textile Processors (2008) 13 SCC 369 as also, 7 Assessment year 2006-07 the decision in Union of India versus Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills (2009) 13 SCC 448 and reiterated in paragraph 13 that (page 13 of 317 ITR): “13. It goes without saying that for applicability of section 271 (1) (c), conditions stated therein must exist.” 5.3 Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the…

Sh. Girraj Kishore Agarwal, HUF, Agra vs. Dy.C.I.T., Circle-1, Agra

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2/AGR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr. D.R

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

…e explanation offered is not bonafide, an order imposing penalty could be passed. Assessment Year: 2010-11 Scope of section 271(1)(c) has also been elaborately discussed by the Hon'ble SC in the case of Union of India Vs Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 13 SCC 369, 295 ITR 244, and CIT Vs Atul Mohan Bindai (2009) 9 SCC 589. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Mak Data Ltd (2013-ITRV-SC-140) has held that under explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c), voluntary disclosure of concealed income does not absolve assessee of 271(1)(c) penalty, if the assessee fails to offer an explanation which is bonafide and…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Rama Vision Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the Department stands dismissed

ITA 2898/DEL/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiay: 2002-03 Dcit, Vs Rama Vision Ltd., Circle-15(1), Rama House 23, C.R. Building, Najafgarh Road Indl. Area, New Delhi. Shivaji Marg, New Delhi-110015 (Pan: Aaaca0221R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Department By: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…sing 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 versus Dharamendra Textile Processors (2008) 13 SCC 369 as also, the decision in Union of India versus Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills (2009) 13 SCC 448 and reiterated in paragraph 13 that (page 13 of 317 ITR): “13. It goes without saying that for applicability of section 271 (1) (c), conditions stated therein must exist.” 5.4 Thus, in view of the facts of the case and the settled legal position, we find…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. American Express India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4422/DEL/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.C. Danday, Sr. DR

Section 10BSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 80H

…ITA No. 4422/Del./2014 Assessment Year: 2002-03 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH “A” BENCH NEW DELHI) BEFORE AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 4422/Del./2014 Assessment Year: 2002-03 DCIT Vs. American Express India Pvt. Circle-1 (1), Ltd. Metropolitan Saket, 7th New Delhi Floor, Office Block, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi (Applicant) (Respondent) (PAN: AAACA6163F) Revenue by: Shri R.C. Danday, Sr. DR Assessee by: Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Date of hearing 13/09/2017 Date of pronouncement 06/10/2017 ORDER PER AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The afore…

DCIT 19(3), Mumbai vs. Wadhwa Constructions, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4470/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Section 2Section 271(1)(c)

…ars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. While coming to this conclusion, the Hon'ble Apex Court also referred to another decision of this Court in Union of India vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors (2007) 212 CTR (SC) 432 : (2008) 13 SCC 369, as also, the decision in Union of India vs. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills (2009) 224 CTR (SC) 1 : (2009) 23 DTR (SC) 158 : (2009) 13 SCC 448 and reiterated in para 13 that: "13. It goes without saying that for applicability of s. 271 (l)(c), conditions stated therein must exist. " Therefore, it is obvious that it must be shown that the condi…

Asst CIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Trends Holding & Consultancy P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the appellant is allowed

ITA 7379/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.7379/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बनाम/ Acit 2(3) M/S. Trends Holdings & R. No.552, 5Th Floor, Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, 11, Horizone View, 381, Mumbai – 400020 J. General Bhonsale Marg, Opp. Sachivalaya Gymkhana Mumbai - 400021 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaact3203D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Sambit Mishra

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…be satisfied that a person has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income . This court referred to another decision of this Court in Union of India Vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors (2007) 212 CTR (SC) 432 : (2008) 13 SCC 369, as also, the decision in Union of India vs. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills (2009) 224 CTR (SC) 1: (2009) 23 DTR (SC) 158 (2009) 13 SCC 448 and reiterated in para 13 that: 13. It goes without saying that for applicability of s. 271(1)(c), conditions stated therein must exist. 8. Therefore, it is obvious that it must be shown that the conditi…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-19 vs. Shri Neeraj Jindal

ITA/464/2016HC Delhi09 Feb 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 260Section 263Section 264Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…conclusion of the Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff Karta of N.D. Shroff v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range Mumbai and Anr., (2007) 291 ITR 519 (SC). 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 Commissioner of Income Tax v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., (2010) 11 SCC 762 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…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-19 vs. Shri Ankur Aggarwal

ITA/465/2016HC Delhi09 Feb 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 260Section 263Section 264Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-19 vs. Shri Ankur Aggarwal

ITA/466/2016HC Delhi09 Feb 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 260Section 263Section 264Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

DCIT 8(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Vinamra Universal Traders P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 2019/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain Dy. C.I.T. – 8(3)(2) M/S. Vinamra Universal Room No. 615, 6Th Floor Traders Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Jai Centre, 1St Floor Mumbai 400020 34, P. D’Mello Rd., Opp. Red Gate Mumbai 400009 Pan – Aaccv5090J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. S. Padmaja & Shri S.K. PodarFor Respondent: Shri Vijaya Mehta & Shri Govind Javeri

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "F" Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Jason P. Boaz, Accountant Member and Shri Sandeep Gosain , Judicial Member Dy. C.I.T. – 8(3)(2) M/s. Vinamra Universal Room No. 615, 6th Floor Traders Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Jai Centre, 1st Floor Mumbai 400020 34, P. D’Mello Rd., Opp. Red Gate Mumbai 400009 PAN – AACCV5090J Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Ms. S. Padmaja & Shri S.K. Podar Respondent by: Shri Vijaya Mehta & Shri Govind Javeri Date of Hearing: 21.12.2016 Date of Pronouncement: 31.01.2017 O R D E R Per Jason P. Boaz, A.M. This appeal by Revenue is directed ag…

Elias A Khatri, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 9, Mumbai

ITA 6936/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri R.C. JainFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas Mundhe-DR

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36Section 37(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ ई” ” ” ” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI सव"ी राजे", लेखा सद" एवं पवनिसंह "ाियक सद" Before Shri Rajendra, A.M. and Shri Pawan Singh,J.M. आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.6936/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Elias A. Khatri ACIT-CC-9 6th Floor, CGO annexe 638, Gori HouseTPS, III, Vs. 8th Road,Khar (West),Mumbai-400 052. M.K. Road PAN: AAIPK 4049 D Mumbai-400 020. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)…

Winsmile Infrastructure P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 2935/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Winsmile Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Acit-8(3), 255, Sharma Estate, S. V. Road, Mumbai. Vs. Jogeshwari (West), Mumbai. Pan: Aaacw3470D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dr. K.Shivaram & Rahul Hakani (Ar’S) Revenue By : Ms. Mahua Sarkar (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 29.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2016 O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Jm: 1. This Appeal U/S. 253 Of Income Tax Act (,Act’) Is Directed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-38, Mumbai Dated 21.02.2013 For Assessment Years (Ay) 2006-07. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee-Company Filed Its Return Of Income For Relevant Ay On 21.11.2009, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.95,530/-. Subsequently, The Action U/S 133A Of The Act Was Carried Out On 08.03.2010. & The Case Of Assessee Was Reopened. Notice U/S 148 Was Issued On 20.10.2010. In Response To The Notice, The Assessee-Company Filed Revised Return Of Income On 12.08.2011 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 62,38,023/-. In The Revised Return Of Income, The Assessee Included Rs. 45 Lakhs Which The Assessee Has Write Off In Its Books Of Account In Ay 2006-07, Thus The Penalty Proceeding Was Initiated Against The Assessee & The Assessing Officer (Ao) Levied The Penalty Of Rs. 20,67,563/- Being Minimum Penalty On M/S Winsmile Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Dr. K.Shivaram & RahulFor Respondent: Ms. Mahua Sarkar (DR)

Section 133ASection 148Section 253Section 274

…ome. The Court ultimately went on to hold that the element of mens rea was essential 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 since Section 271 (1)(c) indicated the element of strict liability on the assessee for the concealment or for giving inaccurate particulars while filing return, there was no necessity of mens rea. The Court went on to hold that…

Kumar V. Vasani, Mumbai vs. ITO 32(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3119/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year:2009-10

Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…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. 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 meri and is dismissed. The…

ITO 3(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Cyrus Engineers P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4552/MUM/2014[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2016AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 4552/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1997-98)

For Appellant: Shri Bihanlal

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…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 (2007) 212 CTR (SC) 432: (2008) 13 SCC 369, as also, the decision in Union of India us. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills (2009) 224 CTR (SC) 1 : (2009) 23 DTR (SC) 158 : (2009) 13 SCC 448 and reiterated in para 13 that: 13. It goes without saying that for applicability of s. 271 (1)(c), conditions stated therein must exist. " 8. Therefore, it is obvious that it must be shown that the c…

Chandra Narayan Mohta, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 34(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2519/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…06-11-2015. On the contrary, the Ld. DR has relied on the orders of the lower authorities. He also relied on the order in the case of Mak Data P.Ltd reported in (2013) 38 Taxmann.com 448(SC) and in the case of Dharmendra Textile Processors reported in (2008) 13 SCC 369(SC). 4. Heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The question before us is as to whether the penalty order passed by the AO and confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) falls for our consideration in pursuance of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court supra. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT & A…

ACIT, Sonepat vs. M/S. Atlas Cycles (Haryana) Ltd., Sonepat

In the result ITA Nos. 2484/Del/2011 and 4049/Del/2013 preferred by the department are dismissed

ITA 4049/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

…son 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. Page 64 of 70 Atlas Cycles (Haryana) Sonepat 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." 8. Therefore, it is obvious that it must be shown that the conditions under section 271(l)(c) must exist before…

ACIT, Sonepat vs. M/S Atlas Cycles (Haryana) Ltd., Sonepat

In the result ITA Nos. 2484/Del/2011 and 4049/Del/2013 preferred by the department are dismissed

ITA 4000/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava