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.

Suvaprasanna Bhattacharya, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 55, Kolkata

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 1303/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07 Suvaprasanna Bhatacharya V/S. Acit, Circle-55, Bh-167, Salt Lake, Sector- 54/1, Rafi Ahmed Ii, Kolkata-700 016 Kidwai Road, [Pan No.Aedpb 2611 R] Kolkata – 700 016 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 131Section 131(1)Section 142(1)Section 271(1)Section 28

…option but to disclose it fully as the bank details were already with the department. The mistake was neither due to ignorance nor bona fide. The AO referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharmendra Textile Processors and others 306 ITR 277 (SC) and held that mens rea is not ITA No.1303/Kol/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 Suvaprasanna Bhattacharya v. ACIT, Cir-55, Kol. Page 7 essential for attracting civil liabilities. As such, there is no onus on the department to prove mens rea beyond doubt. The AO further observed that the assessee being a responsible professional was aware of volume of his re…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Mangu Ram Bansal, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4929/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. C.M.Garg, Jm & Sh. Prashant Maharishi, Am Ita No. 4929/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year: 2003-04

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Kr. Gupta, CA and Arun Kr. Jain , CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna , Sr. DR

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. C.M.GARG, JM AND SH. PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM ITA No. 4929/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year: 2003-04 ACIT Vs Mangu Ram Bansal Cent Circle-18. H. No. 844, Sec-14 New Delhi New Delhi Assessee by : Sh. Anil Kr. Gupta, CA and Arun Kr. Jain , CA Revenue by : Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna , Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 03.11.2015 Date of Pronouncement: 06.11.2015 ORDER Per Prashant Maharishi, AM: 01. This appeal is preferred by Revenue against the order of CIT (A) – III, New Delhi dated 26.06.2013 confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (…

ITO 8(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Rinita Implex P.Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 3028/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta Nos. 2960 & 3028/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years:2009-10 & 2010-11 The Dcit-8(3), M/S. Rinita Impex Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Bombay Mutual Bldg., Dr. D.N. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001

For Appellant: Shri A.K. SrivastavaFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Jain

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

…curate particulars of income, therefore penal proceedings should be dropped. 3.3. The submissions of the assessee did not find any favour with the AO. Drawing support from the decisions of the hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Dharmendra Processors 306 ITR 277 and Dilip Shroff 291 ITR 519, the AO concluded by levying minimum penalty of Rs. 6,30,28,304/-. 4. The assessee strongly agitated the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) and reiterated its contention. After considering the facts and the submissions, the First appellate authority posed a question to itself – Whether the assessee has concealed any partic…

DCIT 8(3), Mumbai vs. Rinita Impex P. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2960/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta Nos. 2960 & 3028/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years:2009-10 & 2010-11 The Dcit-8(3), M/S. Rinita Impex Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Bombay Mutual Bldg., Dr. D.N. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001

For Appellant: Shri A.K. SrivastavaFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Jain

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

…curate particulars of income, therefore penal proceedings should be dropped. 3.3. The submissions of the assessee did not find any favour with the AO. Drawing support from the decisions of the hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Dharmendra Processors 306 ITR 277 and Dilip Shroff 291 ITR 519, the AO concluded by levying minimum penalty of Rs. 6,30,28,304/-. 4. The assessee strongly agitated the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) and reiterated its contention. After considering the facts and the submissions, the First appellate authority posed a question to itself – Whether the assessee has concealed any partic…

Smt. Rita Chopra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6815/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri J. S. Reddy & Shri C. M. Garg

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…tax Act, 1961, to the effect that the amounts would be deemed to be dividend and would be includible in the income of the recipient, in view of the decision of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile processor 306 ITR 277 to the effect that the penalty is in the nature of a civil liability?" 5. Ld. counsel for the assessee stated that the jurisdictional High Court dismissed the appeal of revenue and confirmed the order of ITAT wherein it is held that in respect of addition on account of deemed dividend no penalty u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act for concealment or furni…

ITO 14(1)3, Mumbai vs. Ashokkumar M Parikh, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4986/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad (D.R)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 55(2)(a)

…y addition to be made in assessment. The assesee submitted that the ld. CIT(A) is absolutely right in observing thus. It was further contended by the ld. A.R. that the A.O. wrongly applied the decision of Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Dharmendra Textiles (306 ITR 277) in so far as the A.O. has relied on some sentences of the decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court without understanding the true import of the decision. Courts have time and again reiterated that reliance cannot be placed on some sentences of a decision and has to be read in the context. 20. As per the ld. A.R. the ld. CIT(A) takes a without prejudi…

ITO 14(1)3, Mumbai vs. Bharatkumar M Parikh, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4985/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad (D.R)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 55(2)(a)

…y addition to be made in assessment. The assesee submitted that the ld. CIT(A) is absolutely right in observing thus. It was further contended by the ld. A.R. that the A.O. wrongly applied the decision of Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Dharmendra Textiles (306 ITR 277) in so far as the A.O. has relied on some sentences of the decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court without understanding the true import of the decision. Courts have time and again reiterated that reliance cannot be placed on some sentences of a decision and has to be read in the context. 20. As per the ld. A.R. the ld. CIT(A) takes a without prejudi…

Ashokkumar Maneklal Parikh, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(1)(3)

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3709/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad (D.R)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 55(2)(a)

…y addition to be made in assessment. The assesee submitted that the ld. CIT(A) is absolutely right in observing thus. It was further contended by the ld. A.R. that the A.O. wrongly applied the decision of Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Dharmendra Textiles (306 ITR 277) in so far as the A.O. has relied on some sentences of the decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court without understanding the true import of the decision. Courts have time and again reiterated that reliance cannot be placed on some sentences of a decision and has to be read in the context. 20. As per the ld. A.R. the ld. CIT(A) takes a without prejudi…

Bhartkumar Maneklal Parikh, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(1)(3)

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3708/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad (D.R)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 55(2)(a)

…y addition to be made in assessment. The assesee submitted that the ld. CIT(A) is absolutely right in observing thus. It was further contended by the ld. A.R. that the A.O. wrongly applied the decision of Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Dharmendra Textiles (306 ITR 277) in so far as the A.O. has relied on some sentences of the decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court without understanding the true import of the decision. Courts have time and again reiterated that reliance cannot be placed on some sentences of a decision and has to be read in the context. 20. As per the ld. A.R. the ld. CIT(A) takes a without prejudi…

Ashokkumar Maneklal Parikh, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 179/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad (D.R)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 55(2)(a)

…y addition to be made in assessment. The assesee submitted that the ld. CIT(A) is absolutely right in observing thus. It was further contended by the ld. A.R. that the A.O. wrongly applied the decision of Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Dharmendra Textiles (306 ITR 277) in so far as the A.O. has relied on some sentences of the decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court without understanding the true import of the decision. Courts have time and again reiterated that reliance cannot be placed on some sentences of a decision and has to be read in the context. 20. As per the ld. A.R. the ld. CIT(A) takes a without prejudi…

Bharatkumar Maneklal Parikh, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1250/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad (D.R)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 55(2)(a)

…y addition to be made in assessment. The assesee submitted that the ld. CIT(A) is absolutely right in observing thus. It was further contended by the ld. A.R. that the A.O. wrongly applied the decision of Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Dharmendra Textiles (306 ITR 277) in so far as the A.O. has relied on some sentences of the decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court without understanding the true import of the decision. Courts have time and again reiterated that reliance cannot be placed on some sentences of a decision and has to be read in the context. 20. As per the ld. A.R. the ld. CIT(A) takes a without prejudi…

Dignity Trading Co.Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Circle 9(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 605/MUM/2011[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.605/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1997-98 बनाम/ M/S. Dignity Trading Co. The Ito, Ward 9(2)(3), Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Swati Bldg., Mumbai-400 020 North Avenue Road, Santacruz (W), Mumbai-400 054 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacd 2127J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri Y.P. Trivedi Ms. Vasanti Patel ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri A.K. Srivastava सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement :21 .10.2015

For Appellant: Shri Y.P. TrivediFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Srivastava

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…nishing inaccurate particulars. After considering the detailed submissions made by the assessee during the course of the penal proceedings, drawing support from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharmendra Textiles Processors and Others 306 ITR 277, the AO was convinced that penalty is leviable u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and accordingly levied penalty of Rs. 3.01 crores. 5. The assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) but without any success. 6. Aggrieved by which the assessee is before us. 3 ITA. No.605/M/2011 7. At the very outset, the Ld. Senior Counsel drew our attention to…

DCIT, Circle - 57, Kolkata vs. M/S. Height Insurance Services Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 1939/KOL/2010[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Dr. Adhir Kumar Bar, CIT, DRFor Respondent: Shri R. N. Bajoria, Sr. Advocate

Section 133ASection 194Section 194CSection 194DSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

…ovt. account. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(a) was not justified in deleting the penalty imposed u/s. 271C though the Apex Court has clear verdict in the judgment in the case of Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textiles Processors (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC) that willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability.” 3. Briefly stated and undisputed facts are that a survey u/s. 133A of the Act was conducted on the business premises of the assessee, which is corporate agent of Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (in short RLICL). The assessee is engaged in the business…

Smt. Wilima Wadhwa, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5901/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am Ita No. 5899/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. T. Vasantan, Sr. DR

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-II’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM ITA No. 5899/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 ITA No. 5900/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 ITA No. 5901/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Wilima Wadhwa, Vs ITO, Ward-23(1) D-48, Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi New Delhi-110017 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AERPV3311C Assessee by : Sh. Ved Jain, CA Revenue by : Sh. T. Vasantan, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 28.09.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 30.09.2015 ORDER These appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders each dated 17.09.2014 of ld. CIT(A)-XXIII…

Smt. Wilima Wadhwa, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5900/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am Ita No. 5899/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. T. Vasantan, Sr. DR

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-II’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM ITA No. 5899/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 ITA No. 5900/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 ITA No. 5901/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Wilima Wadhwa, Vs ITO, Ward-23(1) D-48, Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi New Delhi-110017 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AERPV3311C Assessee by : Sh. Ved Jain, CA Revenue by : Sh. T. Vasantan, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 28.09.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 30.09.2015 ORDER These appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders each dated 17.09.2014 of ld. CIT(A)-XXIII…

Smt. Wilima Wadhwa, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5899/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am Ita No. 5899/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. T. Vasantan, Sr. DR

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-II’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM ITA No. 5899/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 ITA No. 5900/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 ITA No. 5901/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Wilima Wadhwa, Vs ITO, Ward-23(1) D-48, Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi New Delhi-110017 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AERPV3311C Assessee by : Sh. Ved Jain, CA Revenue by : Sh. T. Vasantan, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 28.09.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 30.09.2015 ORDER These appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders each dated 17.09.2014 of ld. CIT(A)-XXIII…

Sh. Ashwani Jain, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2422/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08 Ashwani Jain, A-92, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Gujrawalan Town, Part-1, Income Tax, Circle-20(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Pan: Aahpj3505G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : S/Sh. Rakesh Gupta & Tarun Kumar, Advocates Respondent By : Sh. K.K. Jaiswal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.09.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2015 Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Xxii, New Delhi, Dated 31.12.2012 Passed For The Assessment Year 2007-08. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: I. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of Ld. Ao In Levying Penalty Of Rs.6,23,046/- & That Too Without Assuming Jurisdiction As Per Law & Without Considering The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & The Impugned Penalty Order Being Illegal & Void Ab-Initio. Ii. That In Any Case & In Any View Of The Matter, Action Of Ld. Cit(A) In Not Quashing The Penalty Order Framed By Ld. Ao Is Beyond Jurisdiction & Without Considering The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & The Impugned Penalty Order Being Illegal & Void Ab-Initio & The Impugned Penalty Order Has Been Framed Without Considering The Submissions/Evidences Of The Assessee & Without Providing Any Adverse

For Appellant: S/sh. Rakesh Gupta & Tarun Kumar, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Sh. K.K. Jaiswal, DR

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

…s the decision referred by the assessee are not applicable in this case. Moreover, the Apex Court's judgment in the case of Dilip N. Shroff vs. ClT (supra) has been reversed by the later judgment in the case of Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textiles Products (306 ITR 277) (SC)." 8.8 The Assessing Officer has also discussed several other judicial decisions and on the basis of these judicial decisions and the facts of the case, held as under in the last paragraph of page 5 and the first paragraph of page 6 of the penalty order :- "Thus it is clear from the above that the assessee had knowingly, intentionally and fr…

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Best & Crompton Engg. Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 600/CHNY/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Sept 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojariआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.600/Mds/2012 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Mrs. Jayanthi Krishnan, CITFor Respondent: Sh.S. Subramanian, CA

Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

…The Ld. D.R. further pointed out that the assessee has made incorrect claim of expenditure during the course of assessment proceedings. The Ld. D.R. placed her reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 306 ITR 277 and submitted that Section 271(1)(c) of the Act 7 I.T.A. No.600/Mds/12 indicates claim of strict liability on the assessee for concealment or for giving inaccurate particulars of income while filing the return. According to the Ld. D.R., penalty being a civil liability, willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting penalty…

DCIT, Udupi vs. M/S Manipal Hotel & Restaurant Management College Trust, Manipal

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 640/BANG/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Aug 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Abraham P George

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri L.V.Bhaskar Reddy, JCIT

Section 10(23)(C)

…aid decision was not pursued in further appeal in view of nil tax effect involved, and as per sec.268A the said decision is not binding in respect of this assessee. The ld.CIT9A) also erred in the case of Union of India Vs Dharendra Textiles Processors (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC) wherein the Apex Court held that the Hon’ble High Courts can only interpret the law and not legislate and legislative casus omissus cannot be supplied by judicial interpretative process. 4. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing the orders of CIT(A) may be set aside on these points and that of AO be restored.…

DCIT, Udupi vs. M/S Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 is dismissed

ITA 933/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Farhat Hussain Qureshi, CIT (D.R)For Respondent: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, C.A

Section 10Section 12ASection 143(3)

…as per section 268A the said decision is not binding in respect of this assessee. The learned CIT (Appeals) also erred in failing to take cognizance of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textiles Processors (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC) wherein the Apex Court held that the Hon'ble High Courts can only interpret the law and not legislate, and legislative casus omissus cannot be supplied by judicial interpretative process. 4. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing the Orders of CIT (Appeals) may be set aside on these points and that of Assessing…

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

Suvaprasanna Bhattacharya, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 55, Kolkata

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Mangu Ram Bansal, New Delhi

ITO 8(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Rinita Implex P.Ltd, Mumbai

DCIT 8(3), Mumbai vs. Rinita Impex P. Ltd, Mumbai

Smt. Rita Chopra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITO 14(1)3, Mumbai vs. Ashokkumar M Parikh, Mumbai

ITO 14(1)3, Mumbai vs. Bharatkumar M Parikh, Mumbai

Ashokkumar Maneklal Parikh, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(1)(3)

Bhartkumar Maneklal Parikh, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(1)(3)

Ashokkumar Maneklal Parikh, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(1)(3), Mumbai

Bharatkumar Maneklal Parikh, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(1)(3), Mumbai

Dignity Trading Co.Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Circle 9(1)(3), Mumbai

DCIT, Circle - 57, Kolkata vs. M/S. Height Insurance Services Ltd., Kolkata

Smt. Wilima Wadhwa, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

Smt. Wilima Wadhwa, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

Smt. Wilima Wadhwa, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

Sh. Ashwani Jain, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Best & Crompton Engg. Limited, Chennai

DCIT, Udupi vs. M/S Manipal Hotel & Restaurant Management College Trust, Manipal

DCIT, Udupi vs. M/S Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal