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

The ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Nascent Info Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2828/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & M/S. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2828/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बनाम/ Ito M/S. Nascent Info Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Ward-3(1)(1), Vs. A-805, Sapath-Iv, Opp. Ahmedabad Karnavati Club, Ahmedabad- 380054 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aac Cn3 670 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Santosh Karnani, Sr. Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By: Mehul K. Patel, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 13/02/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 27/03/2019 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed - Am:

For Appellant: Santosh Karnani, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mehul K. Patel, AR

Section 143(3)Section 194Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 44A

…submission of the assessee and held the assessee guilty for furnishing inaccurate particular of income. The AO in confirming the penalty placed his reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the Dharmendra textiles processor reported in 306 ITR 277 wherein it was held that the penalty is a civil levy and accordingly it is attracted when the default is committed by the assessee. 9. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee before the Ld. CIT (A) submitted that the depreciation on lease datacentre was claimed as per the accounting standard 19 and 6 issued by…

M/S N N Jewellers, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2-1, Jaipur

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in

ITA 66/JPR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA)For Respondent: Ms. Anuradha (JCIT)

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR Jh jes'k lh 'kekZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 63 to 68/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2005-06 to 2010-11 cuke M/s N N Jewellers, I.T.O., Vs. 3261-3262, Majid Mansion, Ward 2(1), Nawab Ka Chouraha, Ghat Gate, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABFN 3331 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Ms. Anuradha (JCIT) lquo…

M/S N N Jewellers, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2-1, Jaipur

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in

ITA 64/JPR/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA)For Respondent: Ms. Anuradha (JCIT)

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

Shivganga Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Gandhinagar

ITA 1498/AHD/2016[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1498/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shivganga Cold Storage Ito बनाम/ Pvt. Ltd. Ward-4 Vs. Block No. 530, Vill: Sampa Gandhinagar Dehgam – Modasa Highway, Dehgam, Dist: Gandhinagar "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aan Cs2 086 A .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Rupesh R. Shah, Ar Lalit P. Jain, Sr. Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 03/01/2019 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 22/03/2019 Pronouncement आदेश/O R D E R Per Mahavir Prasad - Jm: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Appeal No. Cit(A)-3/Gnr/171/2015-16 Dated 13.05.2016 Arising From Out Of Penalty Order Dated 28.08.2015 For Confirming The Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Rupesh R. Shah, AR

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ee and if no information given in the return was found to be incorrect or inaccurate, the assessee cannot be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars and Se. 217(1)(c) penalty cannot be imposed. The Apex court considered Dharmendra Textile Processors (306 ITR 277 SC) and Dilip Shroff and held that the words “conceal” and “inaccurate” continuous to be good law for the imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) and explained that what was overruled in Dharmendra Textile Processors was only that part in Dilip Shroff’s case where it was held that mens rea was an essential requirement for penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). 16…

The DCIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Vini Cosmetic Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 796/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri B. P. Srivastava, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashwin Shah and Bhadresh Gandhakwal, A.R

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 72A(2)

…furnished inaccurate particulars of income as per the provisions of Act and the A.O has correctly initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)( c) of the Act. 4. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v/s. Dharmendra Textile Processors [212 CTR 432 (SC)] has held that 'the penalty u/s.27T(1)(c) is a civil liability and element of willful concealment is not essential ingredient for attracting civil liability as the case in the matter of prosecution u/s.276C of the Act. 5. In view of the above, I am satisfied that the assessee has committed default of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of i…

Sh. Ruchi Sharma, Jammu vs. The Income Tax Officer, Jammu

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 135/ASR/2017[200910]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar08 Mar 2019

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 135/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Pankaj Gandotra (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

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

…is for its’ claim/s is on the assessee. The law in the matter well settled per a series of decisions by the Apex Court, for which one may refer to (viz. Mak Data (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC); Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC); K.P. Madhusudhanan vs. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC); B.A. Balasubramaniam and Bros v. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 977 (SC); Addl. CIT vs. Jeevan Lal Shah [1994] 205 3 Ruchi Sharma v. ITO ITR 244 (SC); CIT vs. K. R. Sadayappan [1990] 185 ITR 49 (SC)), to cite some, followed by Hon’ble High Courts throughout the country, as by the jurisdictional High…

M/S. Madhav Construction, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(2)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3384/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divetia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 41Section 44A

…5 . A.Y. 2009-10 proceedings in some or1 the years may have been dropped, was not of material consideration. The plea that mens rea has to be established is not sustainable, following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharmendra Textile 219 CTR 617. The decision also upholds the applicability of section 271(l)(c) of the I. T. Act,! 1961. 10. The assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income by showing lesser GP as compared to the preceding year with, regard to reduce its tax liability for the year under consideration. 11. In view of the above it is established that the assesses h…

Valentine Maritime (Gulf) Llc, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1034/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S. Valentine Maritime Vs. Dcit(It) 4 (3) (1) 16Th Floor, (Gulf) Llc 2004-2005, Montreal, B-31 Air India Building Shastri Nagar, Andheri (W), Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai - 400053 Pan/Gir No.Aabcv1070B (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 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 Bombay 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 in the n…

DCIT 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Universal Chemicals & Industries P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 7160/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Universal Chemicals Tax-3(3)(2), Room No. 609, 6Th Vs. & Industries Pvt. Ltd., Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 507, Raheja Centre, Road, Mumbai-400020. 214, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaacu0974C Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. B. Satyanarayan Raju, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Manish R. Reshmwala, Ar Date Of Hearing : 15/01/2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/01/2019

For Appellant: Mr. Manish R. Reshmwala, ARFor Respondent: Mr. B. Satyanarayan Raju, DR

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

…ly without any basis and the explanation furnished by him for making such claim is not found to be bona fide; triggering Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd., 40 DTR 249 (2010). 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee-company filed its return of income for the assessment year (AY) 2010-11 on 14.10.2010 declaring current year loss at Rs.11,30,84,832/-. In the assessment made u/s 143(3) dated 28.03.2013, the Assessing Officer (AO) made the following additions/disallowances: S.N. Particulars Am…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Action Ispat and Power Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 3021/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Action Ispat & Power Pvt. Ltd., 5Th Floor, Itl Twin Tower, Circle-1(2), . New Delhi. Block A, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi. Pan: Aaeca9671L

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. DR

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : A : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 DCIT, Vs Action Ispat and Power Pvt. Ltd., 5th Floor, ITL Twin Tower, Circle-1(2), . New Delhi. Block A, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi. PAN: AAECA9671L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 22.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 30.01.2019 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 27th February, 2015 of the CIT(A)-1, New Del…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. M/S. Imperial Developers, Surat

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1992/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meenas. आ.अ.सं./I.T.A अपीलाथ" Appellant Vs ""यथ"/Respondent No . No. & िनधा"रण . वष" /A Y: 1 1992/Ahd/2016 Deputy Commissioner Vs Imperial Developers, Of Income Tax, . ‘Blossom’ Near Vesu Canal A.Y. 2013-14 Central Opp.Dps School, Circle-3, Surat – 395 Vesu, Surat. 001. [Pan: Aadfi 5694 R] िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Mehul Shah - Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Srinivas T.Bidari – Sr.Dr

Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…DCIT, Central Circle-3, Surat Vs. Imperial Developers /ITA No.1992/Ahd/2016/AY: 2013-14 Page 1 of 11 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,सुरत "यायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT "ीमती िदवा िसंह, "ाियक सद" तथा "ी ओ.पी.मीना, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER S. आ.अ.सं./I.T.A अपीलाथ" Appellant Vs ""यथ"/Respondent No . No. & िनधा"रण . वष" /A Y: 1 1992/Ahd/2016 Deputy Commissioner Vs Imperial Developers, of Income Tax, . ‘Blossom’ Near Vesu Canal A.Y. 2013-14 Central Opp.DPS School, Circle-3, Surat – 395 Vesu, Surat. 001. [PAN: AADFI 5694 R…

Shri Baldevbhai Atmaram Patel, Gandhinagar vs. The Dy.CIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1911/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri D. K. Parikh, A. RFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Dev, Sr. D. R

Section 271(1)(c)Section 54BSection 54F

…e fact of penalty proceedings in some of the years may have been dropped, was not of material consideration. The plea that mens rea has to be established is not sustainable, following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharmender Textile 219 CTR 617., This decision also upholds the applicability of section 271(1)(c). 7. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the assessee had concealed his income, within the meaning of section 271(1)(c). I hereby levy the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the income Tax Act. The computation of penalty is as under: (a) Amoun…

Decision Craft Analytics Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1162/AHD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1161 & 1162/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09) Decision Craft Analytics Ltd. The Dcit बनाम/ 601, Shahpath-Ii Circle-1 Vs. Opp. Rajpath Club Ahmedabad Sg Highway, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 5157 E .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Krupesh Patel, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Krupesh Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr.DR

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE JUSTICE P.P. BHATT, PRESIDENT And SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1161 & 1162/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09) Decision Craft Analytics Ltd. The DCIT बनाम/ 601, Shahpath-II Circle-1 Vs. Opp. Rajpath Club Ahmedabad SG Highway, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AABCC 5157 E .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri Krupesh Patel, AR ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr.DR 03/01/2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date of Hearing घोषणा क"…

Decision Craft Analytics Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1161/AHD/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Krupesh Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr.DR

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

M/S. A.C. Goods Transport Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2428/DEL/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.D. Agarwal & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2004-05

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

…to the extent of Rs.4,07,534/-. 6. Aggrieved by this levy of penalty, assessee preferred an unsuccessful appeal before Ld. CIT(A), and the Ld. CIT(A) by following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of union of India vs. DharamendraTextiles 306 ITR 277, confirmed the penalty. Assessee is, therefore, in this appeal before us stating that the assessee company has neither furnished inaccurate particulars of its income nor had concealed any income so as to attract the penal provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and the penalty sustained is liable to be cancelled in toto inasmuch as no satisfac…

V.K.C.Jayamohan, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 1, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1876/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sendamarai KannanFor Respondent: Mr.V.Sreehdhar,JCIT,D.R

Section 271(1)(C)Section 274

…e particulars. It was further held that the Assessing Officer must be found to have failed to prove that his explanation is not only not bona fide but all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his * [2009] 317 ITR 1 (SC). ** [2008]306 ITR 277(SC). *** [2010] 1 GSTR 66 (SC). **** [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC). income were not disclosed by him. It was then held that the explanation must be preceded by a finding as to how and in what manner, the assessee had furnished the particulars of his income. The court ultimately went on to hold that the element of mens rea was essential. It was only on…

Sh. Maninder Singh Prop. M/S Dashmesh Bricks, Bathinda vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Bathinda

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 440/ASR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A No.440/Asr/2017 Assessment Year:2011-12

For Appellant: Written SubmissionsFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R)

Section 268ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (SMC) BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A No.440/Asr/2017 Assessment Year:2011-12 Maninder Singh, vs. Income Tax Officer, Prop. M/s. Dashmesh Bricks Ward-2(1), Bathinda Manufacturing, Bathinda [PAN:ABVPS 1859B] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Written Submissions Respondent by: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R) Date of hearing: 13.12.2018 Date of pronouncement: 31.12.2018 ORDER Per Sanjay Arora, A.M This is an Appeal by the Assessee agitating the order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda [‘(CITA)’ short for] dated 04.0…

Acti C-1(1), Chandigarh vs. M/S Quixotic Healthcare, Chandigarh

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 812/CHANDI/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. Parikshit AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri. Manjit Singh

Section 271Section 80Section 80I

…on account of restricting the benefit of deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80-IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to 25% as against 100% deduction without appreciating the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UOI vs Dharmendra Textile (306 ITR 277) & Hon'ble P&H High Court in the case of CIT vs Zoom Communication (P) Ltd (327 ITR 510). 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee claimed 100% deduction u/s 80IC of the Act from the A.Y. 2007-08 by making substantial expansion. After 5 years of claim the assessee once again made substantial expansion and started claiming deduction @100%…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Applitech Solutions Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2004/AHD/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Dec 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kshatriya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.R

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

…the only document where the assessee can furnish the particulars of his income. When such particulars are found to be inaccurate, the liability would arise." 3.4 It is further noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharamendra Textiles Processors 306 ITR 277 (2008) (SC) has noted that the explanations appended to sec. 271(1)(c) entirely indicate the element of strict liability on the assessee for concealment or for giving inaccurate particulars while filing return. It is also held that the section has been enacted to provide for a remedy for loss of revenue and that wiliful concealment is not an esse…

M/S Petroleum Sports Promotion Board, New Delhi vs. ITO (E), New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4149/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Dec 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Khanna, FCAFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Rajpurohit, Sr. DR

Section 10(23)Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)

…vy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) as no satisfactory explanation has been put forward by the assessee. The case of the assessee is fully covered 6 against the assessee in the case of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.O.I. Vs Dharmendra Textile Processors, 306 ITR 277 (SC) [2008] in which it has been held that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) read with its explanations is a civil liability and wilful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting the civil liability/penalty. 4.11 The case of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Dharmendra Textiles (supra) was again analysed and followed in the recent case by the…