Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors

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 367,277 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 115JBSection 37(1)Section 147Section 14ASection 1961Section 148

Issues it is cited on

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

Judgments citing Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors

Rochem Separation Systems (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 10, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 1660/MUM/2012[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 Rochem Separation Systems Acit Cen Cir 10 (I) P. Ltd., 8Th Floor, Cgo Bldg. बनाम/ 101 Hdil Tower, Anant Annex, M. K. Marg, Vs. Kanekar Marg, Bandra(E) Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400050 (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aabcr1955P Appellant By Shri S.C. Gupta (Ar) Shri B.S. Bist (Sr. Dr) Revenue By 04/10/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: 19/10/2016

Section 132Section 153ASection 2(24)(iv)Section 271(1)(c)

…n record. It is settled law that penalty under section 271(1)(c) is a civil liability and the revenue is not required to prove willful concealment as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case the of Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textiles and Processors (2008) 306 ITR 277(SC). However, each and every addition made in the assessment cannot automatically lead to levy of penalty for concealment of income. A case for imposition of penalty has to be examined in terms of the provisions of Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c). Secondly, it is also a settled legal 7 Rochem Separation Systems position that penalty proceedi…

Sainy Heavy Elect & Engg. Co. P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 10(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 8488/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri. Hari S. RahejaFor Respondent: Shri. Ravinder Sindhu
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…e income escaping the assessment to the tune of Rs. 44,74,702/-. The penalty order was further challenged before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) following the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Dharamendra Textile Processor (2008) 306 ITR 277 confirmed the penalty of Rs. 15,66,146/- imposed by the A.O. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the said impugned order on the following effective ground of appeal:- 1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(A) erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 15,66,146/- on the ground/s as contained in the Appellate order…

ITO 3(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Cyrus Engineers P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4552/MUM/2014[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2016AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 4552/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1997-98)

For Appellant: Shri Bihanlal
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…bility of a claim for deduction. Further, in the case of Dilip N. Shroff, 291 ITR 519 (SC) [this case has been, though approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in principle, it has been over- ruled only on the point of mens-rea in Dharamendra Textile Processors, 306 ITR 277 (SC)], Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: 7 ITO Vs. M/s. Cyrus Engineers Pvt. Ltd. "31. Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act is in two parts. Whereas the first part refers to concealment of income, the second part refers to furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof in the instant case, the penalty has been levied upon the appellant under the second pa…

ITO 18(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Ashok Bhimrao Mokashi, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0

ITA 7053/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.7053/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Income Tax Officer-18(3)(1), Shri Ashok Bhimrao बनाम/ 207, Piramal Chambers, Mokashi, V. Lalbaug, 12, Harguru Niwas, Mumbai – 400 012. 45, Taikalwadi, Manorama Nagarkar Road, Mahim, Mumbai –400 016. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Adhpm6235P .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Reepal TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri A. Ramachandran
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “A” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.7053/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Income Tax Officer-18(3)(1), Shri Ashok Bhimrao बनाम/ 207, Piramal Chambers, Mokashi, v. Lalbaug, 12, Harguru Niwas, Mumbai – 400 012. 45, Taikalwadi, Manorama Nagarkar Road, Mahim, Mumbai –400 016. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN : ADHPM6235P .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue by : Shri A. Ramachandran Assessee by : Shri Reepal Tralshawala सुनवाई क…

Sh. Lt. Col. Dr. Arvind Kumar Chaturvedi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6809/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri C.M. Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Anima Barnwal, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 194Section 194JSection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271CSection 40Section 40a

…50/-. The assessee challenged the penalty order in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. The ld. CIT(A) relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textiles Processors, 306 ITR 277 (SC) and considering the fact that the assessee did not challenge the impugned disallowances in appeal, confirmed the penalty imposed by the assessee and dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide impugned order. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4 ITA No.6809/Del./2013 3. During the course of hearing, the ld.…

Automobiles Products of India Ltd, Chennai vs. Asst CIT RG 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No 7584/Mum/2013 for the assessment year 2003-04 is allowed as indicated above

ITA 7584/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Respondent: Shri A. Ramachandran
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 43B

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “A” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.7584/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04) Automobile Products of India Assistant Commissioner of बनाम/ Limited, Income Tax- Range 10(3), v. 63-A, North Phase, Mumbai.. SIDCO Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai – 600 098. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN : AABCA0725C .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Vasanti B. Patel Revenue by : Shri A. Ramachandran सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date of Hearin…

Glassworks Trading P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 44, Mumbai

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

ITA 6502/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Ra0 & Shri C.N. Prasad, आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta Nos. 6502 & 6503/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/S. Glassworks Trading The Dcit, Central Circle-44, बनाम/ Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 16, Gundecha Chambers, Mumbai-400 020 N.M. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 023 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcg 6227H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Shri Rajiv Khandelwal ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Airiju Jaikaran

For Appellant: Shri NeelkanthFor Respondent: Shri Airiju Jaikaran
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

…ing the explanation of the assessee and by observing that the assessee miserably failed to comply with the notices issued from time to time and placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs M/s. Dharmendra Textile Processors (306 ITR 277) held that levy of penalty is a civil liability and willful concealment is not essential ingredient for attracting a civil liability, penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) was levied for the failure of the assessee in complying with notices issued on two occasions i.e. 143(2) dated 10.8.2012 and 142(1) dated 4.12.2012 at Rs. 10,000/- each. Similar penalty was l…

Urmila Bhabera, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 20(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5177/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Sri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Mrs. Urmila Bhabhera, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of 901/902, Shanghvi Villa, S. Income Tax -20(3), Mumbai, 5Th V. Road, Andheri (W), Room No.506, Floor, Mumbai 400 058 Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai – 400 012 Pan: Aajpb 6192K Appellant .. Respondent

Section 143Section 271

…m sight to prevent discovery of whole knowledge or concealment of those facts or portion thereof from the knowledge of the Income Tax Authorities. Therefore, as per the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Dharmendra Textiles reported in 306 ITR 277 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has not only clarified that mens rea was not required to be proved for levy of penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act but also held that levy of penalty is not automatic if the assessee can furnish a bona-fide explanation. This was further clarified by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision rendered in the case of 7…

A.N.Radhakrishnan, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 686/CHNY/2013[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2016AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sahadevan, JCIT
Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…686/Mds/13 I.T.A. Nos.650, 1076 & 1077/Mds/13 concealed the income of the assessee, accordingly, he levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act placing reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 306 ITR 277. According to the Ld. counsel, there was no concealment of income nor the assessee has furnished any inaccurate particulars. The assessee has furnished the income and offered for taxation which was accepted by the Assessing Officer without any further addition. When the income was accepted without any further addition, according to the Ld. co…

A.N.Radhakrishnan, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 685/CHNY/2013[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sahadevan, JCIT
Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…686/Mds/13 I.T.A. Nos.650, 1076 & 1077/Mds/13 concealed the income of the assessee, accordingly, he levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act placing reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 306 ITR 277. According to the Ld. counsel, there was no concealment of income nor the assessee has furnished any inaccurate particulars. The assessee has furnished the income and offered for taxation which was accepted by the Assessing Officer without any further addition. When the income was accepted without any further addition, according to the Ld. co…

A.N.Radhakrishnan, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 684/CHNY/2013[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2016AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sahadevan, JCIT
Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…686/Mds/13 I.T.A. Nos.650, 1076 & 1077/Mds/13 concealed the income of the assessee, accordingly, he levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act placing reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 306 ITR 277. According to the Ld. counsel, there was no concealment of income nor the assessee has furnished any inaccurate particulars. The assessee has furnished the income and offered for taxation which was accepted by the Assessing Officer without any further addition. When the income was accepted without any further addition, according to the Ld. co…

ACIT, Chennai vs. A.N.Radhakrishnan, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 650/CHNY/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sahadevan, JCIT
Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…686/Mds/13 I.T.A. Nos.650, 1076 & 1077/Mds/13 concealed the income of the assessee, accordingly, he levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act placing reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 306 ITR 277. According to the Ld. counsel, there was no concealment of income nor the assessee has furnished any inaccurate particulars. The assessee has furnished the income and offered for taxation which was accepted by the Assessing Officer without any further addition. When the income was accepted without any further addition, according to the Ld. co…

ACIT, Chennai vs. A.N.Radhakrishnan, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1077/CHNY/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sahadevan, JCIT
Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…686/Mds/13 I.T.A. Nos.650, 1076 & 1077/Mds/13 concealed the income of the assessee, accordingly, he levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act placing reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 306 ITR 277. According to the Ld. counsel, there was no concealment of income nor the assessee has furnished any inaccurate particulars. The assessee has furnished the income and offered for taxation which was accepted by the Assessing Officer without any further addition. When the income was accepted without any further addition, according to the Ld. co…

ACIT, Chennai vs. A.N.Radhakrishnan, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1076/CHNY/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sahadevan, JCIT
Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…686/Mds/13 I.T.A. Nos.650, 1076 & 1077/Mds/13 concealed the income of the assessee, accordingly, he levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act placing reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 306 ITR 277. According to the Ld. counsel, there was no concealment of income nor the assessee has furnished any inaccurate particulars. The assessee has furnished the income and offered for taxation which was accepted by the Assessing Officer without any further addition. When the income was accepted without any further addition, according to the Ld. co…

Shah Pratap Industries P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 44, Mumbai

In the result, all above seven appeals filed the Assessee are allowed

ITA 4643/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & C.N. Prasadआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.Ita.S./4643To4649/Mum/2014 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 To 2011-2012 वष" M/S. Shah Pratap Industries Pvt. Dcit, Cc-44 Room No.656, 6Th Floor, Ltd. 16, Gundecha Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road Vs. Nm Road, Fort Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400 023. Pan:Aaacs5494D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By:- Shri Sanjeev Kashyap-Dr Assessee By: Ms. Nidhi Patel सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26.07.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 03.08.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम, 1961 अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" क" धारा धारा धारा केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आदेश ( 1 ) 254 Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am - अनुसार Challenging The Order,Dtd.13.05.14,Of The Cit(A)-38,Mumbai, The Assessee Has Filed Appeals For The Above Mentioned Seven Ay.S.As The Issue Involved In All The Appeals Are Common,So We Are Disposing Them Off By A Consolidated Order. Effective Goa For All The Years Is Upholding The Levy Of Penalty,Imposed By The Ao,U/S.271(1)(B) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Ms. Nidhi PatelFor Respondent: - Shri Sanjeev Kashyap-DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(b)

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण ,मुंबई अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई ” ई “खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“E”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं सी .एन ."साद,"याियक सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and C.N. Prasad,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.ITA.s./4643to4649/Mum/2014 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 to 2011-2012 वष" M/s. Shah Pratap Industries Pvt. DCIT, CC-44 Room No.656, 6th Floor, Ltd. 16, Gundecha Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, MK Road Vs. NM Road, Fort Mumba…

ITO WD 1(3), Thane vs. Amar Diamond Tools, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed

ITA 7671/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7671/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Ito, Ward – 1(1), Amar Diamond Tools Room No. 23, B-Wing, 6Th Floor, Shivdarshan Building, Mumbai बनाम/ Ashar It Park, Road No. 16-Z, Pune Road, Mumbra, Vs. Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (W)-400 612 Thane (W)-400 604 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aahfa 7543 D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. R. Singh ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Jayant Bhatt

For Appellant: Shri S. R. SinghFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Bhatt
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “ए” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7671/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) ITO, Ward – 1(1), Amar Diamond Tools Room No. 23, B-Wing, 6th Floor, Shivdarshan Building, Mumbai बनाम/ Ashar IT Park, Road No. 16-Z, Pune Road, Mumbra, Vs. Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (W)-400 612 Thane (W)-400 604 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AAHFA 7543 D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri S. R. Singh ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent…

DCIT 8(2), Mumbai vs. Monsanto India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed as stated above

ITA 2427/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Neil Philip, ld. DRFor Respondent: S/Shri M.P Lohia
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 145ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 44A

…During the course of penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1) ( c) before the AO the assessee has relied on various case laws in support of its submissions. Finally, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble SC in the case of Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textiles & Ors (306 ITR 277), wherein it has been held that the assessee concealed its income and submitted inaccurate particulars of income, the AO levied a penalty u/s. 271(1)( c) of the Act of Rs.1,17,20,074/- for submission of concealment/inaccurate particulars of income. 4. Aggrieved by the penalty order the assessee filed appeal before learned CIT(A). Learned CIT(A)…

Portal Player (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. CIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9/BANG/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jul 2016AY 2003-04
For Appellant: Shri. Chavali S. Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Swapna Das, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)

…ITA.9/Bang/2016 Page - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH 'C', BANGALORE SHRI. ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A No.9/Bang/2016 (Assessment Year : 2003-04) M/s. Portal Player (India) P. Ltd, (Merged with NVIDIA Graphics P. Ltd,) Plot No.6A & B, IT Park Layout, Nanakram guda, Hyderabad .. Appellant PAN : AABCP7418F v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Appeals -5, Bengaluru .. Respondent Assessee by : Shri. Chavali S. Narayan, CA Revenue by : Smt. Swapna Das, JCIT Heard on : 23.06.2016 Pronounced on : 15.07.2016 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : In this appeal filed by a…

ITO 24(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Kapil Ashok Bajaj, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1843/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singhassessment Year: 2006-07 Income Tax Act Officer 14(2)(3) Shri Kapil Ashok Bajaj Room No. 609, 6Th Floor 9, Sea Glimpses बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Parel 7 Bunglow, J.P. Road Vs. Mumbai 400012 Andheri (W) Mumbai 400061 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Afbpb7764A

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 217Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…t the learned first Appellate Authority did not appreciate the fact that wrong claim of deduction was made by the assessee under section 80IB(10) of the Act and further without considering the decision from Hon’ble Apex Court in Dharmendra Textile Processors (306 ITR 277) (SC). 2. On the other hand, Shri Sandesh Rane, learned counsel for the Assessee, defended the conclusion arrived at in the impugned order by contending that neither there is concealment of income nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income. Therefore penalty is not leviable. 3. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the…

M/S. Sheetal Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 6099/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri V.D. Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anima Barnwal, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 6099/Del/2012 Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/s Sheetal Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT, B-159-161, 1st floor, CIRCLE 8(1), Katra Baryan, Fatehpuri, Room No. 163, Delhi – 6 CR Building, New Delhi (PAN: AAACS2346C) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by: Shri V.D. Aggarwal, CA Revenue by: Smt. Anima Barnwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 29/06/2016 Date of Order : 08/07/2016 ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the Order dated 05.…