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.

Samita Suresh Kanwar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 20, Mumbai

ITA 69/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh & Sri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No. 69/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No. 68/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No. 67/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No. 66/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No. 65/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No. 64/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Milin Dattani &For Respondent: V. Justin, DR

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…shed inaccurate particulars of income whereby the assessee had made itself liable for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) , the AO relied on the several case laws including decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI v. Dharmendra Textiles Processors & Ors. (2008) 306 ITR 277(SC) and decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data P. Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 38 taxmann.com 448 (SC) and imposed penalty @200% of tax sought to be evaded u/s 271(1)(c) of the 1961 Act , vide penalty order dated 28.08.2014 passed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the 1961 Act.. 5.The assessee carried out the matter by filing first appeal befo…

Sachin Manohar Deshmukh, Mumbai vs. ACIT 10(2), Mumbai

ITA 3767/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Sachin Manohar Deshmukh Acit-10(2), बिधम/ Man Sneh Bungalow, P.K. Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Deshmukhwadi Complex New Marine Lines, Vs. Mulund, (W), Mumbai- 400020 Mumbai-400080 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aahpd1129L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Paresh Saparia, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 24Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 57

…a). Our coordinate Bench, after considering the judgment of the Honble 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 Dharnendra 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. 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 AG at the time of issuing no…

The ITO, Ward-2(3)(5), Surat vs. M/S. Global Syntax, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2936/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C .M. Garg & Shri O. P. Meena

Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

…ear 2008-09 and assessment year 2009-10 in this regard. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We find that in the assessment order, the AO has relied on the decision of Dharmendra Textile Processors & Ors. (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC). Addl. CIT vs. Jeevanlal Shah 205 ITR 244 (SC) and K P Madhusudan vs. CIT 251 ITR 99 (SC) and levied penalty of Rs.14,58,400/- which deleted by the CIT(A). The AO has estimated the income on pure guess work. The similar issue had come before the Hon’ble M.P.High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shivnarayan Jamnalal, (1998) 232 ITR M/s.Global Sy…

Sushil S. Jhunjhunwala (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1)(4), Mumbai

ITA 3001/MUM/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 3001 To 3007/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2002-03 To 2008-09) Shushil S. Jhujhunwala (Huf) Income Tax Officer-19(1)(4) बिधम/ Flat No. 41/42, 4Th Floor, Mumbai Meghna Apt, S.V. Road, Vs. Santacruz (W), Mumbai-400 054 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aajhs5267C (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R

Section 131Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…a). Our coordinate Bench, after considering the judgment of the Honble 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 Dharnendra 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. 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 AG at the time of issuing no…

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 7249/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru, D.R

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…a). Our coordinate Bench, after considering the judgment of the Honble 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 Dharnendra 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. 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 AG at the time of issuing not…

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 7248/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru, D.R

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…a). Our coordinate Bench, after considering the judgment of the Honble 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 Dharnendra 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. 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 AG at the time of issuing not…

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 7247/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru, D.R

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…a). Our coordinate Bench, after considering the judgment of the Honble 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 Dharnendra 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. 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 AG at the time of issuing not…

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 7246/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru, D.R

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…a). Our coordinate Bench, after considering the judgment of the Honble 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 Dharnendra 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. 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 AG at the time of issuing not…

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 7245/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru, D.R

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…a). Our coordinate Bench, after considering the judgment of the Honble 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 Dharnendra 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. 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 AG at the time of issuing not…

Arjunlal Khemraj Kothari, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6413/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Smt. Devendra H. Jain (AR)For Respondent: Shri M. C. Omi Ningshen (DR)

Section 143(3)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 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…

Eleganza Furnishing P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 2158/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri D.V. LakhaniFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin

Section 271(1)(c)Section 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 issuin…

Sumer Corporation, Mumbai vs. Asst Citcen Cir 36, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 494/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy

Section 271(1)(c)Section 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 issuin…

Makcon, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 2 Panvel, Thane

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1940/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Makcon The Income Tax Officer C/O Malleshi Arakeri Ward 2, Panvel (Partner), Vs. Flat No, 4038 Phalke Niketan, Tilak Nagar, Chembur, Mumbai-400 089 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaofm9275B

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR

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

…tiate the explanation is not enough to warrant penalty. Revenue has to establish that the explanation offered was not substantiated. 4 Reliance is placed on the Apex Court's, observation in the case of Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008 - 306 ITR 277) wherein the larger bench of the Apex Court (after the decision in the case of Dilip N. Shroft -291 ITR 519) had disapproved the statement that willful concealment is essential for attracting concealment penalty. It is held that Object behind enactment of Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) r/w Explanations indicate that the said section has been enacted to pr…

DCIT 2(1), Mumbai vs. Asia Investment P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 62/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri H.P. Mahajani, A.R. & Shri Prasad Bapat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271(1)(c)

….) Ltd.” [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC). 20. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the relevant submissions of the assessee and also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors reported in (2008) 306 ITR 277, observed that the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is justified in this case. However, this is a case covered by provisions of M/s. Asia Investments Private Limited sub section (1A) to section 275 of the Act. This is a case where the relevant assessment order was the subject matter of an appeal to the Ld. CIT(A) under section 24…

Asia Investments P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. JCIT (OSD) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4779/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri H.P. Mahajani, A.R. & Shri Prasad Bapat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271(1)(c)

….) Ltd.” [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC). 20. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the relevant submissions of the assessee and also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors reported in (2008) 306 ITR 277, observed that the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is justified in this case. However, this is a case covered by provisions of M/s. Asia Investments Private Limited sub section (1A) to section 275 of the Act. This is a case where the relevant assessment order was the subject matter of an appeal to the Ld. CIT(A) under section 24…

Asia Investments P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. JCIT (OSD) RG 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 7539/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri H.P. Mahajani, A.R. & Shri Prasad Bapat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271(1)(c)

….) Ltd.” [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC). 20. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the relevant submissions of the assessee and also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors reported in (2008) 306 ITR 277, observed that the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is justified in this case. However, this is a case covered by provisions of M/s. Asia Investments Private Limited sub section (1A) to section 275 of the Act. This is a case where the relevant assessment order was the subject matter of an appeal to the Ld. CIT(A) under section 24…

Tata Communication Transformation Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissoner of Income Tax, Range 14(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3108/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, A.R. & Ms. Urvi Hemta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.C Omi Ningshen, D.R

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 271Section 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 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 was erred in levying penalty for disallowance of corporate reven…

ITO 13(2)(3), Mangalore vs. Shangrial Sales P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 7525/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ito-13(2)(3) M/S Shangrila Sales Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Room No. 1468, 50, Link Side Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Carter Road, Bandra (West), Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 050 Mumbai-20 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aafcs3227B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidyadhar, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…a). Our coordinate Bench, after considering the judgment of the Honble 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…

Sadhana Nitro Chem Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 6287/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhsadhana Nitro Chem Ltd. Dcit 7(2), Hira Baug, 1St Floor, Room No. 670, 6Th Floor, Kasturba Chowk (C.P. Tank), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai – 400 004. Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aabcs1231R

For Appellant: Shri V.Mohan (AR)For Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…yana High Court in case of CIT Vs M/s Sidhartha Enterprises in ITA No 908 of 2008 dated 14.07.2009 while 5 ITA No.6287/M/2014 – Sadhana Nitro Chem Ltd. considering the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs Dharamendra Textile Processors [2008] 306 ITR 277/ 174 Taxman 571 cannot be read as laying down that in every case where particulars of income are inaccurate, penalty must follow. What has been laid down is that qualitative difference between criminal liability under section 276C and penalty under section 271(1)(c) has to be kept in mind and approach adopted for the trial of a criminal case need…

DCIT, Cir-11(2), Kolkata vs. M/S P C Chandra (Jewellers) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1197/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Feb 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2011-12 Dct, Crcle-11(2), V/S. M/S P.C. Chandra P-7, Chowringhee (Jewellers), Pvt. Ltd., Square, Kolkta-69 49C, Gaiahat Road, Kolkata-19 [Pan No.Aabcp 8654 M] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 11-01-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 02-02-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata Dated 06.07.2015. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-11, Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 28.08.2013 For Assessment Year 2011-12. Revenue Has Raised Following Ground:- “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Assessee Ld. Cit Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs.23,68,786/- Imposed U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The It Act. 1961. 2. That The Appellant Craves For Leave To Add, Delete Or Modify Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal Before Or All The Time Of Hearing.”

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature. (iii) The law laid down in Dilip Shroff 291 1TR 519 (SC) as to the meanings of the words conceal" and "inaccurate" continues to be good law because what was overruled in Dharmendra Textile Processors 306 ITR 277 (SC) was only that part in Dilip Shroff where it was held that mens rea was an essential requirement for penalty u/s 271 (1 )(e). " 9.1.An analysis of the said decision clearly brings out that making an incorrect claim in law cannot tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 9.2.In light of the same, if the facts of the case of th…

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

Samita Suresh Kanwar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 20, Mumbai

Sachin Manohar Deshmukh, Mumbai vs. ACIT 10(2), Mumbai

The ITO, Ward-2(3)(5), Surat vs. M/S. Global Syntax, Surat

Sushil S. Jhunjhunwala (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1)(4), Mumbai

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai

Arjunlal Khemraj Kothari, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(2)(1), Mumbai

Eleganza Furnishing P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 4(1), Mumbai

Sumer Corporation, Mumbai vs. Asst Citcen Cir 36, Mumbai

Makcon, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 2 Panvel, Thane

DCIT 2(1), Mumbai vs. Asia Investment P.Ltd, Mumbai

Asia Investments P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. JCIT (OSD) 2(1), Mumbai

Asia Investments P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. JCIT (OSD) RG 2(1), Mumbai

Tata Communication Transformation Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissoner of Income Tax, Range 14(3)(1), Mumbai

ITO 13(2)(3), Mangalore vs. Shangrial Sales P.Ltd, Mumbai

Sadhana Nitro Chem Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(2), Mumbai

DCIT, Cir-11(2), Kolkata vs. M/S P C Chandra (Jewellers) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata