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

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 271(1)(c), Section 143(3), Section 115JB, Section 37(1), Section 147, Section 14A.

Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors

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

501 judgments on BharatTax cite Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors (306 ITR 277), spanning 2009 to 2026.

306 ITR 277Supreme Court of India2008#136 most cited

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

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is a strict civil liability, and willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting it. The explanation appended to the section indicates this element of strict liability for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

501

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,368 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors · 306 ITR 277 · section 271(1)(c) · penalty for concealment · furnishing inaccurate particulars · strict liability · civil liability · willful concealment not required · penalty assessment

Also reported as

174 Taxmann 571212 CTR 432

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 115JB Section 37(1)Section 147 Section 14A Section 1961 Section 148

Issues it is cited on

furnishing inaccurate particulars of income furnishing inaccurate particulars penalty u/s 271(1)(c)penalty under section 271(1)(c)concealment of income section 274 levy of penalty section 271(1)section 271 section 271(1)(c)section 27 section 115jb

Judgments citing Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors

Orbit Corporation Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for all three assessment years i

ITA 7036/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 80I

…ssessed on a particular income. The decision of the Apex Court was based on the provisions as they were originally enacted. The view taken by the division bench in the case of Dilip N. Shroff was doubted and overruled in UOI-Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors, 306 ITR 277 (SC) by holding that penalty under the above provision is a civil liability and therefore willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting the civil liability. It was pointed out that the division bench in the case of Dilip N. Shroff failed to notice conceptual and contextual difference between Sec. 271(1)(c) and Section 271C. Fu…

Orbit Corporation Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for all three assessment years i

ITA 7035/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 80I

Orbit Corporation Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for all three assessment years i

ITA 7034/MUM/2017[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2020AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 80I

Anil Gyanchand Pahilani, Kalyan vs. ACIT Circle-3, Kalyan

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4569/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (A.M.) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) - Ay 2010-11 - Ay 2011-12 - Ay 2012-13

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

…e Supreme Court in CIT v/s Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC), the aforesaid principle laid in Dilip N. Shroff (supra) still holds good in spite of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UOI v/s Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC). The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Smt. Kaushalya & Ors., [1995] 216 ITR 660 (Bom), observed that notice issued under section 274 must reveal application of mind by the Assessing Officer and the assessee must be made aware of the exact charge on which he had to file his explanation. The Court observed, vagueness and ambiguity…

T.D.Naidu, Tiruvallur vs. ACIT Central Circle 2(3), Chennai

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

ITA 1274/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1274/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Philip George, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Ramakrishnan, CIT

Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…penalty of ₹.56,65,05,000/-. Against the levy of penalty, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), which was dismissed after considering the 3 submissions as well as by following the decision in the case of UOI v. Dharmendra Textiles Processors 306 ITR 277 (SC). 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the quantum addition made under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act has not attained its finality and hence, the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act will not survive and prayed for quashing the penalty…

Late Shashiraj Kapoor (Through Legal Representive Kunal Kapoor), Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle- 16 (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 5913/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 5913/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) बिधम/ Late Shashiraj Kapoor Acit Circle 16(1) (Through Legal 439, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Representative Kunal Mumbai-400020. Kapoor) 6, Prithvi Theatre, Janta Kutir Juhu Church Road, Juhu, Mumbai-400049. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpk0578J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Mr. Firoz Andhyarujina Revenue By: Shri V. Vinod Kumar (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 02.08.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2013-14 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - 2. Ita. No5913/M/2018 A.Y. 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Firoz AndhyarujinaFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar (Sr. AR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 54

…sidering ITA. No5913/M/2018 A.Y. 2013-14 the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Kaushalya & Ors., (supra) as also the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff (supra) and Dharmendra Textile Processors, 306 ITR 277 (SC) deduced as under :- “12. A combined reading of the decision rendered by Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. B Kaushalya and Others (supra) and the decision rendered by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N Shroff (supra) would make it clear that there should be application of mind on the part of the AO at the time of issuing…

Shri Jignesh Jayantilal Shah, Bhavnagar vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-1, Bhavnagar

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2538/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri B.R. Popat, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajdeep Singh, Sr.DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275Section 57

…ject to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In Jignesh Jayantilal Shah vs. DCIT Asst.Year - 2013-14 this regard the AO relied upon various case laws, the AO especially emphasize on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dharmendra Textiles Processors 306 ITR 277 where it was held that “ penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is ‘civil liability’ and ‘means era’ need not to be proved for the levy of penalty. Mere establishing of inaccuracy in particulars of income would be adequate for attracting ‘civil liability’ of penalty.” 3.2 The AO further observed that the books of accounts of the assessee were subject to regular…

Deepak Jatia, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 940/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri N. K. Pradhan, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 940 To 943/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2013-14) बिधम/ Deepak Jatia Dcit-Central Circle-1(1) Room No.903, 9Th Floor, Old Marathon Innova, „A‟ Wing, Vs. 7Th Floor, Off. G. K. Marg, Cgo Bldg, Annexure, M.K. Lower Parel, Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400020. 400013. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adxpj8701D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Narendra Singh Jang Pangi (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, (Jm): The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 47, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed.

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala (AR)For Respondent: Shri Narendra Singh Jang Pangi

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 27Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…nt of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Kaushalya & Ors., (supra) as also the judgments of the ITA. Nos/ 940 to 943/M/2018 A.Y. 2010-11 to 2013-14 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff (supra) and Dharmendra Textile Processors, 306 ITR 277 (SC) deduced as under :- “12. A combined reading of the decision rendered by Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. B Kaushalya and Others (supra) and the decision rendered by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N Shroff (supra) would make it clear that there should be application of mind on the part of the AO at the time of issuing…

DCIT 12(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Asp Investment Consultants P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3734/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri M Balaganesh, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3734/Mum/2017 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2012-13) The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Asp Investment Income Tax, Circle 12(1)(1) Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 223, 2Nd Floor, 603, Dheeraj Savera Tower, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Rd, Khatau Mills Compound, Vs. Mumbai-20 Borivali (E), Mumbai-400 066 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aagca6735K अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri S. Michael Jerald, Dr प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri K Shivaram & Sashank Dundu, Ar ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05.12.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2020 आदेश / O R D E R महावीर ससुंह, न्याययक सदस्य/ Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri S. Michael Jerald, DRFor Respondent: Shri

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 45(2)

…e or untrue by the Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) after considering various decisions including Dilip N. Shroff vs. JCIT(2007) 291 ITR 519(SC) and Union of India vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC) has observed and held (page 158 head notes 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 of the particulars of the 7 | P a g e ASP Investment Consultants P. Ltd. income of the assessee. Secondly, the assessee must have furnished…

Sapna N. Jhaveri, Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (3) (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 5017/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 5017/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिधम/ Sapna N. Jhaveri Ito-19(3)(2) 1202, 12Th Floor, Veena Matru Mandir, Mumbai- Vs. Apartment, 198, Walkeshwar 400007. Road, Near Teen Batti, Mumbai-400006. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aiipj4271G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue By: Shri V. Vinod Kumar (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 29.05.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2009-10 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar (Sr. AR)

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…). Our coordinate Bench, after considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Kaushalya & Ors., (supra) as also the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff (supra) and Dharmendra Textile Processors, 306 ITR 277 (SC) deduced as under :- “12. A combined reading of the decision rendered by Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. B Kaushalya and Others (supra) and the decision rendered by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N Shroff (supra) would make it clear that there should be application of mind on the part of the AO at the time of issuing…

Kasturlal Sheth, Mumbai vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax-17(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 4463/MUM/2018[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2019AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 4463 To 4466/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 1997-98 To 2001-02) बिधम/ Kasturlal Sheth Joint Commissioner Of 12, Shreyas, 2Nd Floor, Income Tax-17(2) Vs. Opposite, Air India Building, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai. Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagps7531Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rakesh Jotwani (Ar) Revenue By: Mrs. (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/11/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/11/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 1997-98 To 2001-02 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed.

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Jotwani (AR)For Respondent: Mrs. (DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Hiralal Kalpur Gupta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(5), Kalyan

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 7446/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 7446/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ Hiralal Kalpu Gupta Ito Ward 2(5) 2Nd Floor, Mohan Plaza, Near Ladi Naka Bus Stand, Vs. Kalyan Badlapur Road, Wayale Nagar, Kalyan (W), Ambarnath-421505, Dist: Dist: Thane. Thane. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ablpg6893P (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Mrs. Jothilakshmi Nayak (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/11/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/11/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 10.10.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Order To Be Confirmed.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Jothilakshmi Nayak (DR)

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…). Our coordinate Bench, after considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Kaushalya & Ors., (supra) as also the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff (supra) and Dharmendra Textile Processors, 306 ITR 277 (SC) deduced as under :- “12. A combined reading of the decision rendered by Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. B Kaushalya and Others (supra) and the decision rendered by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in ITA. No7446/M/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 the case of Dilip N Shroff (supra) would make it clear that there should be application of mind on the part…

Ravi Goenka, Mumbai vs. ACIT 13(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 4253/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 4253/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बिधम/ Ravi Goenka Acit-13(2) Room No.418, 4Th Floor, 15 Shirin Chambes, 348/50 Vs. Samuel Street Vadgadi, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Mumbai-400003. Road, Mumbai. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacpg9107E (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Renu Kapoor Revenue By: Ms. Jothi Lakshmi Nayak (Sr Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/11/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/11/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 05.04.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-28, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2008-09 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed.

For Appellant: Ms. Renu KapoorFor Respondent: Ms. Jothi Lakshmi Nayak (Sr

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 271

Shri Bhaveshbhai N. Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(2), Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2585/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Ld. Cit (A) & Agreed To The Addition Made By The Ao On Account Of Stcg For Rs. 41,39,180.00. Accordingly The Same Was Confirmed By The Learned Cit (A).

For Appellant: Shri Tej Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr.DR

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

…and concealed his income deliberately as per the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The AO in support of his decision also relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of union of India versus Dharmendra textiles processors reported in 306 ITR 277. 12.5 Similarly, the learned CIT (A) confirmed the order of the AO after placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT versus MAK DATA LTD. reported in 31 taxmann.com 35 and CIT versus Zoom communication private Ltd reported in 327 ITR 510. 12.6 From the preceding discussion, we note that the explanation furnishe…

Religare Capital Markets Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1763/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr AdvoateFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I-2”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1583/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) ITA No. 1763/Del/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Religare Capital Markets Limited, Vs. DCIT, D3, P3B, District Centre, Saket, Circle-15(1), New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AADCR5200R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr Advoate Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv Revenue by: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR Date of Hearing 16/07/2019 Date of pronouncement 10/10/2019 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This is an a…

M/S Religare Capital Markets Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 1881/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: PendingITAT Delhi10 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr AdvoateFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

Shri Puneet Jain, Meerut vs. ITO, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1569/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampat, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Suleka Verma, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 44A

…lication to the two Acts and so a decision rendered under the Customs & Excise Act will not apply to a case under the Income Tax Act. A shinning illustration of this principle is decision on concealment penalty in UOI vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 306 ITR 277(SC). On identical facts the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has deleted the additions for AY 2009-10 and AY 2010-11. Copies of the Tribunal orders have been placed on the records. As to the note dated 26.03.2019:- 11. Submissions made under Para (A) regarding Ground No.l are wrong and misconceived. The factum of the assessee agitating this ground…

Smt. Suman Lakhani, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result, the penalty amounting to Rs

ITA 857/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Madan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Janardan Das, Sr. DR

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

…to Sec.27l(l)(c) w.e.f 1.4.1964, mens rea need not be established. Hence on this ground assessee's contention fails. Support for this rational is taken from the following judgments . Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile processors (SC) 306 ITR 277, Gidjag Industries Ltd. vs. CTO (SC) 293 ITR 584 and CIT vs. Atul Mohan Bindal (SC) 317 ITR 1 have held that 'mens rea' not essential for civil liability’ of penalty - Penalties under fiscal statutes are for breach of civil liabilities - Willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability as is the case in the matter…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH: AGRA BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER,AND DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A No.349/Agra/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) Verma Service Station Bye Pass Vs. DCIT, Circle 2(2)(1), Road, Firozabad. Firozabad. PAN: AAAFV0442K (Appellant) (Respondent) S.A. No.06/Agra/2018 (in I.T.A No. 349/Agra/2018) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) Verma Service Station Bye Pass Vs. DCIT, Circle 2(2)(1), Road, Firozabad. Firozabad. PAN: AAAFV0442K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri R. K. Agarwal & Rahul Agarwal, Advs. Respondent by Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr. DR.…

Bcd Travels India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 9(2)(1) Earlier Addl CIT 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4161/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S. Bcd Travels India Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Range 9(2)(1), Level 2, Office No.3-B, B-Wing, (Earlier Addl. Cit-8(1)), Times Square, Andheri Kurla Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 012 Marol, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 059 Pan/Gir No. Aaacf 1613 R (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Miss Nipur Agarwal Respondent By : Shri Ashish Kumar Date Of Hearing : 22.07.2019 : 05.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Miss Nipur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar

Section 10ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…Travels India Pvt. Ltd. expenses to the Bangalore unit. On this disallowance, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) was levied. In doing so, the A.O. relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors, [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC). He rejected the assessee’s reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., (2010) 11 SCC 762 (SC). 4. Upon the assessee’s appeal in this regard, he confirmed the penalty. 5. Against this order, the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. 6. We have heard both the counsel and perus…