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.

J C Antiques and Crafts, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle-7, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 416/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

…Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Sidhartha Enterprises [2010] 322 ITR 80 (P&H), vide order dated July 14, 2009, held after considering the decision of the hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC) that the judgment of the hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharamendra Textile Processors [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC) cannot be read as laying down that in every case where particulars of income are inaccurate, penalty must follow. What has been laid down is that qualitative difference between criminal liability under section 276C and penalty…

R.R. Fleet Management Pvt. Ltd, Haryana vs. ITO Ward-3(3), Gurgoan

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 6359/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 271(1)(c)

…istory and made addition on this count. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was also levied. 4. Upon assessee’s appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) referring to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs Dharmendra Textiles and Processors (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC) confirmed the levy of penalty. 5. Against this order the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the records. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite several notices. We note that one of the ground raised before the Ld. CIT(A) was the non-specification of charge in the notice of penalty,…

DCIT Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai vs. Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2704/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT

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

…g inaccurate particulars of Income. Also it is pertinent to note that penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is a civil liability and it is a remedy for loss of Revenue, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textiles Processors (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC). The addition made in the assessment order is Rs.21,79,69,805/- and the tax effect on the same works out to Rs.7,24,04,1 19/- including Surcharge and Education Cess which was sought to be evaded by the assessee by furnishing inaccurate particulars about the taxable income. As per the provisions of Sec.271(1)(c), the penalty leviable shall…

DCIT Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai vs. Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2703/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT

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

…g inaccurate particulars of Income. Also it is pertinent to note that penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is a civil liability and it is a remedy for loss of Revenue, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textiles Processors (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC). The addition made in the assessment order is Rs.21,79,69,805/- and the tax effect on the same works out to Rs.7,24,04,1 19/- including Surcharge and Education Cess which was sought to be evaded by the assessee by furnishing inaccurate particulars about the taxable income. As per the provisions of Sec.271(1)(c), the penalty leviable shall…

Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2605/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT

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

…g inaccurate particulars of Income. Also it is pertinent to note that penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is a civil liability and it is a remedy for loss of Revenue, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textiles Processors (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC). The addition made in the assessment order is Rs.21,79,69,805/- and the tax effect on the same works out to Rs.7,24,04,1 19/- including Surcharge and Education Cess which was sought to be evaded by the assessee by furnishing inaccurate particulars about the taxable income. As per the provisions of Sec.271(1)(c), the penalty leviable shall…

Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2604/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT

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

…g inaccurate particulars of Income. Also it is pertinent to note that penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is a civil liability and it is a remedy for loss of Revenue, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textiles Processors (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC). The addition made in the assessment order is Rs.21,79,69,805/- and the tax effect on the same works out to Rs.7,24,04,1 19/- including Surcharge and Education Cess which was sought to be evaded by the assessee by furnishing inaccurate particulars about the taxable income. As per the provisions of Sec.271(1)(c), the penalty leviable shall…

S.M.Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 234/CTK/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 271(1)(c)

…22 ITR 158 (SC). It was the submission that the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff (supra) holds good in spite of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharmendra Textiles Processors, reported in 306 ITR 277 (SC). 6 ITA Nos.199-202, 233&234/CTK/2020 3. It was further submitted that for the assessment years 2008-2009 & 2009-2010, being in respect of ITA Nos.233 & 234/CTK/2020, the penalties have been levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, whereas the penalty in both the appeals were to be leviable u/s.271AAA of the Act. He drew our attention to the decisio…

S.M.Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 233/CTK/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 271(1)(c)

…22 ITR 158 (SC). It was the submission that the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff (supra) holds good in spite of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharmendra Textiles Processors, reported in 306 ITR 277 (SC). 6 ITA Nos.199-202, 233&234/CTK/2020 3. It was further submitted that for the assessment years 2008-2009 & 2009-2010, being in respect of ITA Nos.233 & 234/CTK/2020, the penalties have been levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, whereas the penalty in both the appeals were to be leviable u/s.271AAA of the Act. He drew our attention to the decisio…

S.M.Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 202/CTK/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 271(1)(c)

…22 ITR 158 (SC). It was the submission that the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff (supra) holds good in spite of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharmendra Textiles Processors, reported in 306 ITR 277 (SC). 6 ITA Nos.199-202, 233&234/CTK/2020 3. It was further submitted that for the assessment years 2008-2009 & 2009-2010, being in respect of ITA Nos.233 & 234/CTK/2020, the penalties have been levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, whereas the penalty in both the appeals were to be leviable u/s.271AAA of the Act. He drew our attention to the decisio…

S.M.Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 201/CTK/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 271(1)(c)

…22 ITR 158 (SC). It was the submission that the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff (supra) holds good in spite of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharmendra Textiles Processors, reported in 306 ITR 277 (SC). 6 ITA Nos.199-202, 233&234/CTK/2020 3. It was further submitted that for the assessment years 2008-2009 & 2009-2010, being in respect of ITA Nos.233 & 234/CTK/2020, the penalties have been levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, whereas the penalty in both the appeals were to be leviable u/s.271AAA of the Act. He drew our attention to the decisio…

S.M.Enterprisera, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 200/CTK/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 271(1)(c)

…22 ITR 158 (SC). It was the submission that the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff (supra) holds good in spite of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharmendra Textiles Processors, reported in 306 ITR 277 (SC). 6 ITA Nos.199-202, 233&234/CTK/2020 3. It was further submitted that for the assessment years 2008-2009 & 2009-2010, being in respect of ITA Nos.233 & 234/CTK/2020, the penalties have been levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, whereas the penalty in both the appeals were to be leviable u/s.271AAA of the Act. He drew our attention to the decisio…

S M Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 199/CTK/2020[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 271(1)(c)

…22 ITR 158 (SC). It was the submission that the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff (supra) holds good in spite of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharmendra Textiles Processors, reported in 306 ITR 277 (SC). 6 ITA Nos.199-202, 233&234/CTK/2020 3. It was further submitted that for the assessment years 2008-2009 & 2009-2010, being in respect of ITA Nos.233 & 234/CTK/2020, the penalties have been levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, whereas the penalty in both the appeals were to be leviable u/s.271AAA of the Act. He drew our attention to the decisio…

The DCIT, Central Circle-2, Baroda vs. Rubamin Limited., Baroda

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

ITA 196/AHD/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Jha, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Ms. Amrin Pathan, A.R

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

…Act cannot be levied in such circumstances. However, the above submissions have been rejected by the Assessing officer and relying upon Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors & Others reported in [2008] 306 ITR 277 and levied a penalty of Rs. 84,69,600/-. 4. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted for the earlier assessment years 2005-06 & 2006-07 on sales tax subsidy as revenue receipt instead of capital receipt, Ld.C…

Phoenix International Freight Services P. Ltd( Now Known As As C.H. Robinson International (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3206/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shripavankumargadale,Judicialmember & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S. Phoenix Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of International Freight Income Tax, Range-2(1) Services Pvt. Ltd. (Now Mumbai-400050 Known As C.H. Robinson International (India) Pvt. Ltd.) Excom House 7, Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai-400072 Pan No.Aabce0443R Appellant Respondent

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…lanation. Therefore, in this case, the Revenue had discharged its onus and it did not have to prove mens rea in this case. 5.9. Hon'ble Supreme Court Three Members Bench in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs Dharmendra Textile Processors reported in (2003) 306 ITR 277 ruled that the object behind enactment of Section 271(l)(c) read with Explanation indicate the said section has been enacted to provide for a remedy for loss of revenue, penalty u/s.271(l)(c) is a civil liability. Willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability. The explanations appended to section 271(l) (c) ent…

M/S Orthononva Hospital, Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

ITA 65/ASR/2021[2006-07]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar30 Sept 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…efore the penalty is levied. Further, the appellant has not produced any details in respect of his claim during the assessment proceedings or appellate proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs Dharmendra Textile Processors &Ors [306 ITR 277] has held that the explanation appended to section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act entirely indicate the element of strict liability on the assessee for concealment or for giving inaccurate particulars while filing the return. It was further held that the enactment of Sec 271(1)(c) read with explanation indicates that the said section has been enacted…

Shri Sukhdev Singh Prop Karnail Singh Sukhdev Singh, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(4), Amritsar

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

ITA 107/ASR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Ghansham Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 44

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 107/Asr/2020 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sh. Sukhdev Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Prop. Karnail Singh Sukhdev Ward -3(4), Amritsar Singh, Kot Baba Deep Singh, Sultanwind Road, Amritsar [PAN: AOLPS 4655Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by: Sh. Ghansham Sharma, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 13.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 22.09.2022 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order da…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle -5, Pune vs. Serum Institute of India Pvt Ltd., Pune

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

ITA 323/PUN/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Chadraker

Section 10ASection 14ASection 35Section 35(1)

…cessary. Legislative casus omissus cannot be supplied by judicial interpretative process. A casus omissus ought not to be created by interpretation, save in some case of strong necessity as held in Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textiles Processors and Others, 306 ITR 277 at 278 (SC). The Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai vs. Dilip Kumar & Company, 95 tamann.com 327 (SC) after referring to its earlier judicial precedents concurred with the view expressed by its earlier Constitutional Bench’s decision in the case of CCE vs. Hari Chand Shri Gopal, (…

DCIT, Central Circle - 1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Fortune Furnitech Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2627/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Fortune Furnitech Pvt. Income-Tax, Central Circle- Ltd. 6, Ashoka Chambers, 2Nd Vs. 1(1), Kolkata. Floor, Grastin Place, Kolkata- 700 001. (Pan: Aaacf9440Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Sudipta Guha, Cit, Dr Respondent By : N O N E Date Of Hearing : 31.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.09.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-20, Kolkata Vide Itba Appeal No. Cit(A), Kolkata- 20/12489/2015-16 Dated 03.10.2018 For A.Y. 2011-12 Arising Out Of Order Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 153A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Dcit, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata Dated 31.03.2015. 2. Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sudipta Guha, CIT, DRFor Respondent: N o n e

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…issued on the assessee but none appeared nor any submissions were filed except for one written submission praying for dropping the penalty proceedings by giving reference to one decision in the case of Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textiles Processors (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC). By applying the provisions of Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, Ld. AO levied penalty of Rs.1,85,40,000/- @ 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 6. From the perusal of the order of Ld. CIT(A), we note that before him also there was no attendance nor any response to the…

Vijay Grihnirman P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 15 & 16, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3279/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Us.

Section 271Section 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. Asian Agency, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circel-7(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 128/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Shri Parin

Section 23Section 251Section 271Section 69C

…ulars of income by the assessee. Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) after making reference to the judicial precedents laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme court in case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt Ltd 322 ITR 158 and in case of Dharmendra Textile Processor 306 ITR 277 held that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particular of income and levied penalty of Rs. 83,97,220/- being 100% of the amount of tax sought to be evaded. 36. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 36.1 The learned AR before us contended that there was no inaccurate particulars of income fu…

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

J C Antiques and Crafts, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle-7, Jaipur

R.R. Fleet Management Pvt. Ltd, Haryana vs. ITO Ward-3(3), Gurgoan

DCIT Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai vs. Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Ltd., Chennai

DCIT Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai vs. Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Ltd., Chennai

Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai

Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai

S.M.Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

S.M.Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

S.M.Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

S.M.Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

S.M.Enterprisera, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

S M Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

The DCIT, Central Circle-2, Baroda vs. Rubamin Limited., Baroda

Phoenix International Freight Services P. Ltd( Now Known As As C.H. Robinson International (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 2(1), Mumbai

M/S Orthononva Hospital, Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Jalandhar

Shri Sukhdev Singh Prop Karnail Singh Sukhdev Singh, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(4), Amritsar

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle -5, Pune vs. Serum Institute of India Pvt Ltd., Pune

DCIT, Central Circle - 1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Fortune Furnitech Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

Vijay Grihnirman P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 15 & 16, Mumbai

M/S. Asian Agency, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circel-7(2), Ahmedabad