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 367,181 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

M/S. Maa Sharda Garments Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 6128/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

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

…submitted that claiming of depreciation on the immovable property could not be treated as a bonafide mistake. The ld. DR placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India (UOI) vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors reported in 306 ITR 277. Ld. DR submitted that the explanation appended to section 271(1)(c) of the Act indicates a strict liability on the assessee for concealment or for giving inaccurate particulars while filing the return. He submitted that the assessee in the present case has furnished inaccurate particulars in respect of the depreciation being claimed when the inc…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Modern Stage Service, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 198/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2009-10 Acit, Vs Modern Stage Service, Ward-32(1), 35, Municipal Market, New Delhi. Lodhi Road, New Delhi. (Pan: Aaafm8966F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri P. Damkanunja, Sr. Dr Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Kumar Garg, Adv. Date Of Hearing: 05.01.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.03.2016 Order

For Appellant: Shri P. Damkanunja, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar Garg, Adv

Section 27Section 27(1)(c)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J.S. REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY: 2009-10 ACIT, vs Modern Stage Service, Ward-32(1), 35, Municipal Market, New Delhi. Lodhi Road, New Delhi. (PAN: AAAFM8966F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri P. Damkanunja, Sr. DR Respondent by : Shri Sanjay Kumar Garg, Adv. Date of hearing: 05.01.2016 Date of pronouncement: 30.03.2016 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER The present appeal, filed by the department, has been preferred against the order dated 24.10.2013 passed by…

DCIT, Coimbatore vs. Lakshmi Ceramics, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1033/CHNY/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1033/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Lakshmi Ceramics, Income Tax, V. No.63, Krishnasamy Mudaliar Road, Central Circle – Ii, (Brooke Bond Road), Coimbatore. Coimbatore – 641 007. Pan : Aacfl 0921 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sasikumar, JCITFor Respondent: Sh. T.N. Seetharaman, Advocate

Section 132ASection 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1033/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 The Deputy Commissioner of M/s Lakshmi Ceramics, Income Tax, v. No.63, Krishnasamy Mudaliar Road, Central Circle – II, (Brooke Bond Road), Coimbatore. Coimbatore – 641 007. PAN : AACFL 0921 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri Sasikumar,…

D.B. Properties P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 9(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA N0

ITA 6339/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6339/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) D B Properties Private The Addl. Commissioner बनाम/ Limited, Of Income Tax, V. Db House, Yashodham, Range -9(1), Gen. A.K. Vaidya Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, Goregaon (East), Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 063. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaccd5197L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Ajitkumar Srivastava

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…tum assessment order. The A.O. held that claiming wrong or excessive deductions also amounts to concealment of income as well as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The A.O. relied upon the decision of UOI v. Dharmendra Textiles Processors, [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC). The AO held that the initial burden of discharging the onus of rebuttal is on the assessee company and the assessee company has to substantiate to prove the same to be bonafide. In view of all these facts, the A.O. came to the conclusion that the assessee company’s case is a fit case to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and accordingl…

Ami Builders P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 5(1), Mumbai

ITA 803/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri R.S.SinghviFor Respondent: Dr. Pramod Nikalje (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 371(1)

…f and our alternate prayer in regard to the quantum of the penalty 11.2 Kindly refer to the observation of the Learned Assessing Officer as given in paragraph 9.1 supra reproducing the observation of the Apex court in the case of Dhannendra textile processors 306 ITR 277 11 ITA No.803/Mum/14 M/s Ami Builders Pvt. Ltd. 11.3 Considering the above conclusion of the Honorable Apex Court we respectfully request your honor to consider loss of revenue from the attempted concealment as equivalent to 100% of the tax that would have been payable by the appellant in the absence of the assessment order as the tax sought t…

M/S Hcl Perot Systems Ltd., Bengalore vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2201/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Feb 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sujit Kumar, Senior DR

Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘C’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI A.T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2200 & 2201/Del./2011 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2002-03 & 2003-04) M/s. Perot Systems TSI (India) Pvt.Ltd., vs. ACIT, Circle 14 (1), (formerly known as HCL Perot Systems Ltd.) New Delhi. Plot No.123, EPIP Phase II, Whitefield Industrial Area, Bengaluru – 560 066. (PAN : AAACH1925Q) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Sujit Kumar, Senior DR O R D E R PER A.T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER : These appeals, at the insta…

M/S Hcl Perot Systems Ltd., Bengalore vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2200/DEL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Feb 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sujit Kumar, Senior DR

Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Srf Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3848/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Ms. Anima Bernwal, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Satyen Sethi, Adv

Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 35(2)

…rd. We find that the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty and arrived at his conclusion by relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts [P] Ltd [supra], Dillip N. Shroff, UOI Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 306 ITR 277/174 Taxman 571 [SC] and CIT Vs. Bacardi Martini India Ltd [2007] 288 ITR 585/158 Taxman 348 [Delhi] held that mere erroneous claim in the absence of any concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars is no ground for levying penalty especially when there is nothing on record to show that the explanation offered by the assessee was not bona f…

M/S Roger Enterpriese P. Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi

ITA/439/2003HC Delhi04 Feb 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 143Section 148Section 260A

…e. Reliance was placed on the decisions in CIT v. Somnath Oil Mills (1995) 214 ITR 32 (Guj), MAK Data P. Ltd. v. CIT (2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC), Anantharam Veerasinghaiah v. CIT (1980) 123 ITR 457 (SC), Union of India v. Dharmender Textile Processors (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC). 40. In reply, it is submitted by Ms. Gurung, learned counsel for the Revenue, that after the insertion of Explanation 1 to Section 271 (1), wilful concealment was not an essential ingredient for attracting penalty. She referred to the decision in Chairman, SEBI v. Shriram Mutual Fund 2006 (5) SCC 361 where it is reiterated that the…

Jnc International, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 14(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1058/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S J.N.C. International, C/O Ito, Ward 14(3)(3), Earnest House, 6Th Floor, Ncpa Marg, G.P.Mehta & Co., Cas, 807, Tulsiani Chambers, 212, Nariman Nariman Point, Vs. Point, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400021 Pan:Aacfj5518Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.P.MehtaFor Respondent: Shri N.Padmanabhan

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 57

…highly debatable nature and on which assessee's appeal is pending before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. 04. The learned CIT (A) has grossly erred in placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharmendra Textile Processors 306 ITR 277, even though the said decision has been overruled in the subsequent decisions. 05. Having regard to the facts of the case, provisions of law and judicial prepositions, the penalty order in question is wholly untenable. 06 The appellant may please be permitted to raise any additional or alternative ground on or before the hearing of appeal. 2. Th…

Shri Kedar Nath Dhoot, Kolkata vs. DCIT, C.C.-Xxvii, Kolkata

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1125/KOL/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Das, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 132(1)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)

…u/s 153C of the Act, the income in question would not have been taxed by the assessee. He pointed out that the revenue had placed reliance particularly on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs Dharmendra Textile Processors 219 CTR 617 (SC) wherein it was laid down that imposition of penalty on fiscal loss is a severe liability and therefore was no necessity to prove that there was any intention to conceal particulars of income. He pointed out that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a later decision rendered in the case of Union of India vs Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills 224 CTR…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Hcl Infosystems Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the three Appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 6420/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. & Sh. RohitFor Respondent: Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…s. 2,55,99,862/-. Accordingly, the AO made an addition of Rs. 1,53,83,963/- (Rs. 2,55,99,862 minus Rs. 82,15,899) and later levied a penalty by relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of UOI vs. Dharmendra Textile Processor 306 ITR 277 (SC), holding that leviable u/s. 271(1(c) of the Act. 13. Aggrieved with the penalty order, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order dated 18.10.2012 deleted the penalty in dispute by allowing the appeal filed by the assessee. 14. Now aggrieved with the impugned order, Revenue filed the present Appeal before the Tribunal…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Hcl Corporation Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the three Appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 6419/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. & Sh. RohitFor Respondent: Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Hcl Corporation Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the three Appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 3924/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. & Sh. RohitFor Respondent: Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

M/S Star Gold Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT, Cir -5(3), Mumbai

ITA 2655/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Anil Sathe (AR)For Respondent: Shri M.M. Utture (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 24(1)Section 254(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 32

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ई’ खंडपीठ मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI “E” BENCH सव"ी राजे", लेखा सद" एवं संदीप गोसांई, "ाियक सद" Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Sandeep Gosain,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं/.ITA No.2655/M/2013,िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-2009-10 M/s. Star Gold Pvt. Ltd. ACIT- Ward-5(3) Mukund M. Chitale & Co. CA Mumbai. 205,Agarwal,Shyamkamal“A”Building, Vs. Vile-Parle (E),Mumbai-400 057. PAN:AAICS 3712 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Anil Sathe (AR) राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri M.M. Utture (DR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing…

Scinida Investments P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 7(2), Mumbai

ITA 6431/MUM/2011[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2016AY 1999-00

For Appellant: S/Shri J.D. Mistri,Niraj Sheth & K.K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Nikhalje (DR)

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 28

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ई’ खंडपीठ मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI “E” BENCH सव"ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य एवं संदीप गोसांई, "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Sandeep Gosain,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं/.ITA No.6431/M/2011,िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-1999-2000 Scindia Investments Pvt. Ltd. Asst. CIT-7(2) B-431, Phoenix House Aayakar Bhavan 462, Senapati Bapat Marg Vs Maharshi Karve Marg Lower Parel,Mumbai-400 013. Mumbai-400 020. PAN:AAACS 8590 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती ओर से/Assessee by : S/Shri J.D. Mistri,Niraj Sheth & K.K. Ved राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Sh…

Sanghavi Savla Commodity Brokers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T.Circle 46, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 1746/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C.N. Angolkar

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “एच” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी जॉसन पी बोज, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी अ"मत शु"ला, "याियक सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, AM AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1746/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08) Sanghavi Savla Commodity Brokers P. Ltd. 1st Floor, Vesta B-90 Feet Road Pantnagar, Ghatkopar (E) अपीलाथ"/Appellant Mumbai 400075 बनाम/ Vs. ACIT, Circle 46 ""यथ"/Respondent Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./PAN - AATCS9836P Shri Sunil M. Lala अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by: Shri C.N. Angolkar ""यथ" क" ओर से/ Respondent by: सुनवाई क"…

ITO 19(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Tejpal Singh Chadha, Mumbai

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

ITA 7403/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7403/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07)

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Bahedia

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

…aimed by the assessee. The facts in this case are different from the facts of Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd.(supra) as the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The ld. D.R. relied on the judgment of UOI v. Dharmendra Textile Processors, 306 ITR 277 (SC) and Zoom Communications Private Limited(2010) 191 Taxman 179 (Delhi) ITA 7403/M/10 5 7. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee along with family member owns an ancestral property known as ‘Chadha Niwas’ bearing plot No 660 in the town planning scheme no 111 Bandra admeasuring 800 square yards which was acquired in th…

Virtuous Capital Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 2(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5647/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Pawan Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5647/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बनाम/ Virtuous Capital Limited, Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 1101/1102, Tax 2(1), Aayakar Bhavan, M K Vs. Maithilli Signet Premises Chs, Road, Plot No.39/4, Sector 30/A, Mumbai-400020 Vashi Navi Mumbai--400705 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 111ASection 271(1)(c)

…onal High Court in Income Tax Appeal No.3899/M/2010 (CIT VS. Aditya Birla Nova Limited) vide order dated 14th August, 2012, after considering the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors & Ors, 306 ITR 277(SC) and the decision of CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (supra), has held that the levy of penalty even where a claim for deduction is not upheld, even though the assessee has disclosed all material facts and has not suppressed any material facts, the levy of penalty is not justified. In the said case, the assessee claimed deduction of R…

Equant India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 7976/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7976/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06)

For Appellant: Shri. Dhanesh Bafna &

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

…the present case was squarely covered by Explanation to section 271(1 )(c) of the Act. 4. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in holding that ratio of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in UOI v. Dharmendra Textiles (2008) 306 ITR 277. 5. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the CIT(A) is bad in law and deserves to be set aside.” 2. The facts of the case are that the assessee had filed its return of income on 31.10.2005 declaring loss to the tune of Rs.41,64,860/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and a notice u/s. 143(2)…