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.

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 (306 ITR 277)

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.

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 4148/DEL/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Dec 2018AY 2004-05

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…

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 4147/DEL/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Dec 2018AY 2003-04

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…

Giriraj Speciality Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO - 9 (3) (4), Mumbai

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

ITA 6127/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 6127/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ M/S. Giriraj Speciality P Ltd Ito-9(3)(4) 4, Rambha, Dadabhai Road Mumbai Vs. Vile Parle (W) Mumbai- 400056. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecg0215G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30.10.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 18.07.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13 Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed.

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal (AR)For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 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…

Mipco Seamless Rings (Guj) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5012/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5012/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) बिधम/ M/S. Mipco Seamless Rings Acit Circle 6(3) (Guj) Ltd. Mumbai Vs. 402-B, Poonam Chambers, Dr. A.B. Road, Worli Mumbai-400018. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm8331M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S.C. Tiwari & Ms. Rutuja N. Pawar Revenue By: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 29.07.2015 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2006-07 Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirm.

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Tiwari & Ms. Rutuja NFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (DR)

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 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…

Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, Ludhiana vs. ITO, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 372/CHANDI/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Us Challenging The Levy Of Penalty Both On Legal Ground As Well As On Merits Of The Case :

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Garg, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40

…the explanation furnished by him for making such a claim is not found to be bonafide, penalty u/s 271(l)(c) is attracted. Further, it has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of 11 A.Y.2010-11 Union of India & Others vs. Dharminder Textiles Processors 306 ITR 277 that the explanations appended to sec 271(l)(c) indicate the element of strict liability of the assessee and the penalty is a civil liability and willful concealment is not an essential ingredient. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of K.P.Madhusudanan vs. CIT 251 ITR 99 that by virtue of the notice u/s 271, the assessee is p…

Manju P. Porwal, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed as indicated above

ITA 5749/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Ojha

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

…). 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…

Manju P. Porwal, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed as indicated above

ITA 5748/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Ojha

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

…). 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…

Manju P. Porwal, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed as indicated above

ITA 5747/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Ojha

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

…). 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…

Manju P. Porwal, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed as indicated above

ITA 5746/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Ojha

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

…). 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…

Manju P. Porwal, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed as indicated above

ITA 5745/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Ojha

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

…). 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…

Dheerajkumar C. Jain, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed as indicated above

ITA 5744/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Ojha

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

…). 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…

Paras Porwal, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed as indicated above

ITA 5742/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Ojha

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

…). 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…

Paras Porwal, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed as indicated above

ITA 5741/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Ojha

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

…). 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…

Paras Porwal, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed as indicated above

ITA 5740/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Ojha

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

…). 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…

Paras Porwal, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed as indicated above

ITA 5739/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Ojha

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

…). 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…

ACIT, Akola Circle, Akola vs. The Nandura Urban Co Op. Bank Ltd., Buldhana

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 213/NAG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Dr. Jayant M. Ranade a/wFor Respondent: Shri U.U. Kasar

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.213/Nag./2015 (Assessment Year : 2010–11) Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax …………… Appellant Akola Circle, Akola v/s The Nandura Urban Co. Operative Bank Ltd. ..…….………. Respondent Main Road, Nandura, Dist. Buldhana PAN – AAAT4639O Assessee by : Dr. Jayant M. Ranade a/w Shri Vinayak Saoji Revenue by : Shri U.U. Kasar Date of Hearing – 25.10.2018 Date of Order – 26.10.2018 O R D E R PER G. MANJUNATHA, A.M. This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed again…

Ritesh P. Burad, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2, Thane

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3446/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Shri Ritesh P. Burad Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of 17B, Prena Building Income Tax, Circle-2 Swagatam Housing Complex Thane Jesal Park, Bhayander(E), Thane Pan/Gir No.Adgpb7399N (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 131Section 133ASection 271Section 271(1)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 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…

The DCIT, Circle-3(1), Baroda vs. M/S/ Amar Mining Company, Baroda

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1032/AHD/2016[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Oct 2018AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 1998-99

For Appellant: Apoorva Bharadwaj, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Soparkar &

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

…l Shah, 205 ITR 244 (SC), B.A. Balasurbramaniam and Brothers Co. vs. CIT 236 ITR 977, 978 (SC) and KP Madhusudhan vs. CIT, 251 ITR 99 (SC). Reliance is also placed on the recent decision of Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Dharmendra Textile Processors Ltd., 306 ITR 277 (SC), wherein it has been held that "the explanations appended to Section 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961 indicate the element of strict liability on the assessee for concealment or for giving inaccurate particulars while filing the return. The objections behind the enactment of section 271(1)(c) read with Explanations indicates that the se…

Asst CIT Cir 6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Booker India P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 535/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.535/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Acit (Cir)-6(1)(2) बिधम/ M/S. Booker India Pvt. Ltd. R.No. 563, 5Th Floor, No. 607, Trade Centre, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Bandra Kurla Complex, Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051. 400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcb3571B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Aliasger Rampurawla & Shri Ravi Sawana सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12.10.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 02.11.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, 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 Deleted. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - "1. "Whether On (He Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Taw, The Id Cit(A) Was Right In Deleting The Penalty Levied U/S 271(1)(C) Of Rs.98,05,079/- & Failed To Appreciate That Penalty Has Been Levied On Account Of The A.Y.2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Aliasger Rampurawla &For Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 27l(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 37A

…not amount furnishing of inaccurate particulars so as to at fact penalty u/s 271(l}(c) of the Act. Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering the proposition of law laid down in tilt case of Dilip N, Shroff - 29l ITR 519 (SC) and Dharmender Textile Processors -306 ITR 277 (SC), held as under:- "A mere making of the claim, which is at customable in law by itself, will not to famishing inaccurate particulars 4 A.Y.2009-10 regarding the income of assesses. Such claim made in the Return cannot amount; the inaccurate particulars. Merely because the assessee had claimed the expenditure t, which claim not accepted or i…

Amit Capital & Securities P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3443/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2006-07 Amit Capital & Securities Income Tax Officer Private Limited, Range-2(1)(1), बनाम/ 47A, 3Rd Floor, Plot No.308, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Hanuman Building, Perin M. K. Road, Nariman Street, Fort, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400001 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaaca4219Q "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Govind Jhaveri Shri Satishchandra Rajore-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 04/10/2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 09/10/2018

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…to offer and also has no objection for the proposed levy of penalty. Accordingly, considering the facts of the case and also by relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors & others (2008) 306 ITR 277 11 ITA. No.3443/Mum/2017 Amit Capital & Securities Pvt. Ltd. levied penalty of Rs.22,62,959/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed an elaborate written submissions. The assessee further contended that the AO w…

Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors

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

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors

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

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

Giriraj Speciality Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO - 9 (3) (4), Mumbai

Mipco Seamless Rings (Guj) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, Ludhiana vs. ITO, Ludhiana

Manju P. Porwal, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

Manju P. Porwal, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

Manju P. Porwal, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

Manju P. Porwal, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

Manju P. Porwal, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

Dheerajkumar C. Jain, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

Paras Porwal, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

Paras Porwal, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

Paras Porwal, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

Paras Porwal, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

ACIT, Akola Circle, Akola vs. The Nandura Urban Co Op. Bank Ltd., Buldhana

Ritesh P. Burad, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2, Thane

The DCIT, Circle-3(1), Baroda vs. M/S/ Amar Mining Company, Baroda

Asst CIT Cir 6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Booker India P.Ltd, Mumbai

Amit Capital & Securities P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(1)(1), Mumbai