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 367,331 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

Archana D.Talati, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2696/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jun 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Mrs. Archana D. Talati Vs. Ito – 25 (3)(3), Mumbai B/1101, Naman Tower Chs Ltd., Nr. Kandivali Flyover, Off. S.V.Road, Kandivali (West) Mumbai – 400 067 Pan/Gir No. Aacpb5257C Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…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…

Panther Fincap & Management Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 40, Mumbai

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

ITA 7570/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Sandeep Gosain (Jm)

Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…urt has clarified in the case of Reliance petro products (322 ITR 158) has clarified that the observations made by it in the case of Dilip N Shroff 6 M/s. Panther Fincap & with regard to “mens rea” alone have been overruled in Dharmendra Textile processors (306 ITR 277), meaning thereby that the above said observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N Shroff shall continue to prevail. 11. Hence, we are of the view that the application of mind on the part of the assessing officer at the time of issuing notice for initiation of penalty is a mandatory requirement and the nonapplication of…

Aruna Satish Kabra, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as pronounced in the open court in the presence of both the parties at the conclusion of hearing on 31st May, 2017

ITA 3525/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood: (A.Y : 2008-09) Smt. Aruna Satish Kabra Vs. Ito-12(3)(4), C/O. Kabra Agencies Mumbai (Respondent) 2Nd Floor, Mustfa Building, Sir P.M. Road, Fort, Mumbai 400 023 (Appellant) Pan : Aahpk4542N

For Appellant: Shri Shekhar GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Ajai Pratap Singh

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

…). 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…

Banggreen Holdings P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2005-06 is allowed

ITA 1999/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singh

For Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)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…

M/S. Joseph George & Co., Pathanapuram vs. The ITO, Kollam

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

ITA 323/COCH/2016[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2017AY 1996-97

Bench: S/Shri Abraham P. George, Am & George George K., Jm

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

…ts and circumstance of the case, we are of the view that the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is justified. In taking the above view, we rely on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textiles Processors (306 ITR 277) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Sova Bajoria (232 ITR 202). 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on 19th- 05-2017. sd/- sd/- (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) ( GEORGE GEORGE K.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Place: Kochi Dated: 19th May, 2017 GJ…

Gupta Gemhouse P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 7371/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.7370/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.7371/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04) Gupta Gemhouse Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer (1)(4) 2Nd Floor, Metro House Room No. 579 बनाम/ M.G.Road Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Mumbai – 400 020 M.K.Marg Mumbai – 400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacg-1992-L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Farrokh Irani. Ld. ARFor Respondent: Vidisha Kalra, Ld. CIT DR

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

…ects non- application of mind by AO and hence vitiates the penalty. Our attention is further drawn to the fact that the ratio of this case was very much relevant and valid despite the judgment of Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processor (306 ITR 277) in view of another judgment of Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Reliance Petro products Pvt. Ltd. [322 ITR 158] wherein it was observed that reasoning given in the case of Dilip N.Shroff could not be faulted except to the extent of observations regarding necessity of mens-rea for the purpose of Section 271(1)(C). Reliance is also placed on the judgment…

Gupta Gemhouse P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 1(1)(4), Mumbai

ITA 7370/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2017AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Farrokh Irani. Ld. ARFor Respondent: Vidisha Kalra, Ld. CIT DR

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

Jahangir HC Jahangir, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 12(3), Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1261/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1261/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07)

For Appellant: Farrokh Irani. Ld. ARFor Respondent: BCS Naik, Ld. CIT DR

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

…ued notice u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) dated 30/12/2008. Finally, the assessee was saddled with impugned penalty on both accounts by AO vide its order dated 30/06/2009 by placing reliance on Apex court judgment in CIT Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processor (306 ITR 277) wherein it was held that levy of penalty is a civil liability and willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability. Reliance was also placed on Apex court decision in the case of Dilip N.Shroff Vs. JCIT (291 ITR 519). 4. Aggrieved, the assessee contested the penalty without any success before Ld. CIT(A) vide impu…

Sharsh Finance & Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 878/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishia.Y. : 2005-06 M/S Sharsh Finance & Acit, Circle 18(1), Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vs. New Delhi 16L, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001 (Pan: Aahcs1410L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. V.K. Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Sh. N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…g the penalty imposed on the respondent assessee under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, was not sustainable in law because of the clear judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors & Ors, (2008) 219 CTR (SC) 617 : (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC). According to the learned counsel for the appellant- Revenue the entire income which remained undisclosed, "with or without" any conscious act of the assessee, was liable to penal action. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant Revenue, that the concept of law, with regard to levy of penalty has drastically changed in view…

M/S Platinum Horazine Pvt. Ltd., Indore vs. The ACIT Circle 3(1), Indore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands

ITA 713/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No.713/Ind/2016 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 249Section 253Section 271(1)Section 4Section 5

…M/s. Platinum Horazine Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT 3(1) Indore /I.T.A. No. 713/Ind/2016/AY09-10 Page 1 of 25 आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE च""मोहन गग", "या"यक सद"य तथा "ी ओ.पी.मीना, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No.713/Ind/2016 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Platinum Horazine ACIT 3(1) Indore Pvt. Ltd. v. E-50, MIG Colony Indore अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""थ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./PAN: AAECP 4915 A अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant by Shri Subhash Chand Jain C.A. ""…

Meherjee Cassinath Holdings P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 4(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2555/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh: (A.Y : 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri Farrokh V. IraniFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh (CIT-DR)

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

…). 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 12 Meherjee Cassinath Holdings Pvt. Ltd. application of mind o…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Compucom Software Limited, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 852/JPR/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri R.S. Verma ( Addl.CIT)

Section 194CSection 271(1)(c)Section 40

…of the assessee company that 2 DCIT , Circle-6 vs. M/s Compucom Software Ltd., Jaipur. there is no mens rea in the case is also not tenable because mensrea is not essential for civil liability of penalty (Union of India V/s Dharmendra Textile Processors (SC) 306 ITR 277).” 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied by the Assessing Officer in respect of disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. In this case, the assessee company has not deducted TDS at a time of credit to the Associate Business Associates (ABA) Pool account but has deducted TDS at a time of credi…

Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5865/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. K.V.S.R. Krishna, CAFor Respondent: None(application rejected)

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 43(1)Section 43(6)Section 45(7)

…liable to be imposed in a case where the assessee could offer no acceptable explanation for the income not disclosed or the inaccurate particulars he had furnished in his return. 4.13 Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile processors (SC) 306 ITR 277, Guljag Industries Ltd. vs. CTO (SC) 293 ITC 584 and CIT vs. Atul Mohan Bindai (SC) 317 ITR 1 have held that 'mens rea' not essential lor 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…

Megayields, Mumbai vs. DCIT 17(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 2581/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S. Meghayields D C I T – 17(2) C/O. Prafullkumar Kenia 217, Piramal Chambers 698/1, Kanti Villa Vs. 2Nd Floor, Lalbaug Dr. Dinshaw Master Road Mumbai 400013 Dadar, Mumbai 400014 Pan – Aahfm8449G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Dhirandra M. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 43(5)Section 73

…reme Court has clarified in the case of Reliance petro products (322 ITR 158) has clarified that the observations made by it in the 7 M/s. Meghayields case of Dilip N Shroff with regard to “mens rea” alone have been overruled in Dharmendra Textile processors (306 ITR 277), meaning thereby that the above said observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N Shroff shall continue to prevail. 11. Hence, we are of the view that the application of mind on the part of the assessing officer at the time of issuing notice for initiation of penalty is a mandatory requirement and the nonapplication of m…

Chandru K Mirchandani, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 5368/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainshri Chandru K. Mirchandani Income Tax Officer-14(3)(3) C/O. Sorabi Hormusji & Co. 6Th Floor, Earnest House Vs. 22, Mangaldas Road Nariman Point Mumbai 400002 Mumbai 400021 Pan – Aftpm3209F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal

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

…come or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, considered the issue and after taking into consideration the ratio of the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dilip N. Shroff (2007) 291 ITR 519 (SC), Dharmendra Textile Processers & Others (2008) 306 ITR 277 and DCIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) and of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Kar), held the notice issued under section 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act to be invalid since it was defective and issued without application of mind by the AO. Consequently, the order…

ACIT, Cir-27, Kolkata vs. Shri Bijay Kumar Agarwal, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 438/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2017AY 2008-2009

Section 143(2)Section 271(1)Section 54Section 54F

…set. The Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT v. Reliance Petro products (P.) Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158, after considering various decisions including Dilip N. Shroff v Jt.CIT [2007] 291 ITR 519/161 Taxman 218 (SC) and Union of India v.Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 306 ITR 277 / 174 Taxman 571 (SC) concluded that a mere making of a claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the Income of the assessee. The mere disallowance of claim will not amount to filing of "inaccurate particulars of income". It can at best be a "wrong claim" not "a false claim".…

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

In the result the appeal of the appellant is allowed

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

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

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Sambit Mishra

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

…i nacc urate partic ul ars." 12. Further, in the case of Dilip N. Shroff (cited supra) [this case has been, though approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in principle, it has been over-ruled on the point of mens-rea, later, in Dharamendra Textile Processors, 212 CTR 432 (SC)j, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: "2. The appellant herein is an assessee tinder the IT Act. it is an HUE. For the assessment year 1998-99, an income of Rs. .30,80,030 was declared by it, interalia, showing a long-term capital loss of Rs. 34,12,000. The said capital loss was said to have arisen on account of sale of property being land…

Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Ltd ( Formerly Known As Transworks Information Services Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 8(3), Mumbai

ITA 7979/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2017AY 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri J.D. MistriFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav

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

…r of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the FAA.Before him it made elaborate submissions. After considering the assessment order, penalty order and the submissions of the assessee, the FAA referred to the cases of Zoom Communication Private Ltd.(40 DTR 249) NathuLal 7979/M/11(04-05)- Aditya Birla Minacs Agarwal and Sons (150 ITR 292)and Durga Prasad More (82 ITR 540) and confirmed the levy of penalty. 3.During the course of hearing before us,the Authorised Representative (AR) stated that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court had admitted a substantial question of law with regard to the quantum appeal,tha…

Asst CIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai vs. Bharat Ruia HUF, Mumbai

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 950/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja () I.T.A. No. 949 To 952 /Mum/2014 (Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09) Acit, Cent.Cir.47, Mumbai Bharat Ruia, Huf Prop P.R. International, Ruia House, 19, Bhausaheb Hire Marg, Malbar Hill, Mumbai-6 Pan : Aachb3596E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No. 949 to 952 /Mum/2014 (Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09) ACIT, Cent.Cir.47, Mumbai Bharat Ruia, HUF Prop P.R. International, Ruia House, 19, Bhausaheb Hire Marg, Malbar Hill, Mumbai-6 PAN : AACHB3596E (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 750 to 753/Mum/2014 (Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09) Bharat Ruia, HUF ACIT, Cent.Cir.47, Mumbai Prop P.R. International, Ruia House, 19, Bhausaheb Hire Marg, Malbar Hill, Mu…

Bharat R. Ruia(HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 752/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271