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 367,514 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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 127/AHD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

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…

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 126/AHD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

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…

M/S. Asian Agency, Ahmedabad vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circel-7(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3448/AHD/2016[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…

M/S. Asian Agency, Ahmedabad vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, VII, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 844/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

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…

The ITO, Ward-7(2)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Asian Agency, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3336/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

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…

M/S. Asian Agency, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-12, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3048/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

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…

Praphull Kaluram Shivale, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 12, Pune

ITA 490/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No. 490/Pun/2019 करिनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2015-16 Shri Praphull Kaluram Shivale, 234, Balu Shetpabal Road, Vadhu Budruk, Shirur,Pune – 412216 Pan :Bfqps4176B . . . . . . . अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 12, Pune . . . . . . . ""थ" / Respondent "ारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri B. C. Malakar Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing :16/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement :26/08/2022 आदेश / Order Per G.D. Padmahshali, Am; The Present Appeal Of The Appellant Assessee Is Challenged Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Pune [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 14/02/2019 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 [For Short “The Act”] Which In Turn Dove Out Of Order Of Penalty [For Short “Po”] Of Asstt. Commission Of Income Tax, Circle-12 Pune [For Short “Ao”] Dt.28/06/2018 U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2015-16. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 14

For Appellant: Shri B. C. MalakarFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 43C

…आयकर अपीलीय "ायािधकरण, पुणे "ायपीठ,“बी” ब"च पुणे म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE“B” BENCH,PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA No. 490/PUN/2019 करिनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2015-16 Shri Praphull Kaluram Shivale, 234, Balu Shetpabal Road, Vadhu Budruk, Shirur,Pune – 412216 PAN :BFQPS4176B . . . . . . . अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 12, Pune . . . . . . . ""थ" / Respondent "ारा / Appearances Assessee by : Shri B. C. Malakar Revenue by : Shri M. G. Jasnani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of…

ACIT Circle-12(1), New Delhi vs. Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Limited, Gurgaon

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 497/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature. (iii) The law laid down in Dilip Shroff 291 ITR 519 (SC) as to the meanings of the words “conceal” and "inaccurate” continues to be good law because what was overruled in Dharmendra Textile Processors 306 ITR 277 (SC) was only that part in Dilip Shroff where it was held that mens rea was an essential requirement for penalty u/s 271(l)(c). ” 5.7 The judgment of Reliance Petroproducts clearly shows the rejection of claim would not result in penalty consequences to the appellant. The penalty is therefore not sustainable and is deleted.” 8. We concur with the…

Deco Mica Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The JCIT(OSD), Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1243/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Deco Mica Limited, Joint Commissioner Of 306, 3Rd Floor, Iscon Mall, Star Bazar Vs Income-Tax (Osd), Building, Jodhpur Cross Road, Circle 1(1)(2), Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015 Ahmedabad Pan : Aaacd 8652 J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ramesh Kumar, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

…, the appellant has clearly furnished inaccurate particulars of income to that extent. As regard to appellant's argument that there was no intent to evade the tax, it has been clarified by Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Dharmendra Textile Processors [306 ITR 277] (2008) (SC) that penalty is a civil liability to compensate the revenue. Therefore, AO is not required to prove the intent. In view of the above, AO is directed to levy the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in respect of loss on sale of assets of Rs.3,35,499/-. In view of the above facts…

The Tamilnadu Circle Postal Cooperative Bank Ltd. (1031), Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncc-12(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3002/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3002/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. The Tamilnadu Circle Postal Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Cooperative Bank Ltd. (1031), Income Tax, 18/19, Postal Bank, Jahangir Street, Non Corporate Circle 12(1), Second Line Beach, Chennai 600 001. Greams Road, Chennai 600 006. [Pan:Aaaat4900D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Rajagopalan, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Mrs. L. Jancy Elizabeth Rani, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.06.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 13, Chennai, Dated 21.08.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09 Challenging Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri S. Rajagopalan, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. L. Jancy Elizabeth Rani, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी. दुगा" राव, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद" के सम" । Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3002/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. The Tamilnadu Circle Postal Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Cooperative Bank Ltd. (1031), Income Tax, 18/19, Postal Bank, Jahangir Street, Non Corporate Circle 12(1), Second Line Beach, Chennai 600 001. Greams Road, Chennai 600 006. [PAN:AAAAT4900D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respond…

Shree Sainath Sarvajanik Sewa Mandal Trust, Una vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 204/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.204/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17) (Physical Court Hearing) Shree Sainath Sarvajanik Sewa Vs. The Ito, Exemption Ward, Mandal Trust, Surat. N.H. No.8, Near Ganesh Sisodra, Unn-396445, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aafts7802P (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Revenue By: Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 12/05/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-17, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [In Short ‘Ld. Cit(A)’] National Faceless Appeal Centre (In Short ‘Nfac), Delhi, In Appeal No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021-22/1036051308(1) Dated 30.09.2021, Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penalty Order Passed By Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. DR
Section 11(6)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…so payment of provident fund under section 43B of the Act. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings and also imposed penalty relying on the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors [2008] 306 ITR 277/174 Taxman 571. Before the lower authorities including the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings, during penalty proceedings and even before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) during appellate proceedings, the assessee claimed that depreciation was claimed on the basis of tax audit report and complete particulars reg…

Kishor Madhav Paranjape, Pune vs. DCIT, Central Circle 2(2), Pune

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1887/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1887/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Kishor Madhav Paranjape, The Dcit, Central 1139/516, Venu Apts, Vs Circle-2(2), Pune. Off F C Road, Shivajinagar, Pune – 411016. Pan: Abipp 3973 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas P Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe– Dr Date Of Hearing 28/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30/06/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-12, Pune For The Assessment Year 2015-16, Dated 23.09.2019. 2. The Facts Emanating From The Assessment Order & Penalty Order Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Deriving Income From Business. He Is A Partner In Various Firms, Earning Share Of Profit, Interest On Capital & Remuneration From Partnership Firms. It Is Pertinent To Note That All The Firms Wherein The Assessee Is A Partner, Are All Engaged In The Business Of Land Development & Building Construction. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For Assessment

Section 2(14)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…re addition of concealed income reduces the returned loss and finally the assessed income is also a loss or a minor figure. In this regard, it will be beneficial to refer to the decision in Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 174 Taxman 571/306 ITR 277(SC), which has been referred to and relied on in ITA No.1887/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2015-16 Kishor Madhav Paranjape Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Pune (A) 17. As against the decision in the case of Jivanlal and Sons, a Special Leave Petition filed against the decision of the High Court which confirmed the penalty order passed by the Tribunal rejecti…

ACIT-24(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Atul Properties, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 4394/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 4393 & 4394/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2010-11 & 2011-12) Acit-24(1) बिधम/ M/S. Atul Properties Room No.604, Piramal 501-502, Trade Avenue, Off Vs. Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Suren Road, Western Express Mumbai-400012. Highway, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aamfa3756F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Damor (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Naresh Jain/Mahaveer Jain & Ms. Carmi Shroff सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeal Preferred By Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-36, Mumbai Dated 29.12.2017 For A.Y.2010-11 & 2011- 12 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Jain/Mahaveer Jain &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Damor (DR)
Section 80Section 801B(10)

…nded that we should adhere to the opinion expressed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and set aside the judgment of the ITAT. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the following judgments: i. Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile processors [2008] 306 ITR 277/174 Taxman 571 (SC) and (para 13 and 14) ii. CCE v. Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd. [2007] 10 SCC 352. (para 13) A.Ys.2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. Atul Properties Para Nos. 13, 14 and 15 in the case of Dharamendra Textiles Processors (supra) read as under:— '13. It is well settled principle in law that the court cannot read anything into a statutory provisio…

ACIT-24(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Atul Properties, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 4393/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 4393 & 4394/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2010-11 & 2011-12) Acit-24(1) बिधम/ M/S. Atul Properties Room No.604, Piramal 501-502, Trade Avenue, Off Vs. Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Suren Road, Western Express Mumbai-400012. Highway, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aamfa3756F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Damor (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Naresh Jain/Mahaveer Jain & Ms. Carmi Shroff सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeal Preferred By Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-36, Mumbai Dated 29.12.2017 For A.Y.2010-11 & 2011- 12 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Jain/Mahaveer Jain &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Damor (DR)
Section 80Section 801B(10)

…nded that we should adhere to the opinion expressed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and set aside the judgment of the ITAT. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the following judgments: i. Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile processors [2008] 306 ITR 277/174 Taxman 571 (SC) and (para 13 and 14) ii. CCE v. Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd. [2007] 10 SCC 352. (para 13) A.Ys.2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. Atul Properties Para Nos. 13, 14 and 15 in the case of Dharamendra Textiles Processors (supra) read as under:— '13. It is well settled principle in law that the court cannot read anything into a statutory provisio…

DCIT(It)-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Venu Raman Kumar, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3559/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit (It) – 3(3)(2) Vs. Shri Venu Raman 16Th Floor, Room No. Kumar, 1634, Air India Bldg, Flat No. 2, Hermes Nariman Point, House-Iii, Mumbai – 400020. Worli Sea Face, Mumbai – 400025. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abapk9122E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Achal Sharma. Cit. Dr Respondent By : Shri.Vijay Mehta.Ar Date Of Hearing 01.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 13.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 57, Mumbai Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri.Achal Sharma. CIT. DRFor Respondent: Shri.Vijay Mehta.AR
Section 114Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 5(2)

…isions of section 271 (1)(c) r/w explanation 1 thereto attracting penal action for the above. 12. Reliance is also placed on the recent Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Union of India Vs Dharmendra Textiles Processors & Others (2008) reported in 306 ITR 277 (SC) that "the object behind the enactment of S. 271(1)(c) read with the Explanations indicates that the said Section has been enacted to provide for a remedy for loss of revenue and it is also held that willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Supreme Court also held in the…

Nandivardhan Construction Pvt Ltd., Thane vs. DCIT CC-2, Thane

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

ITA 4973/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 4973/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिधम/ Nandivardhan Construction Dcit, Central Circle-2 Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 201, 2Nd Floor, Oasis Silver Wagle Industrial Estate Stone, Near Gajanan (West), Thane-400604. Maharaj Temple Ram Maruti Road, Thane-West, Thane- 400601. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccn1260G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Prateek Jain Revenue By: Shri C. T. Mathews (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/04/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 29.02.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Pune [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2007-08 In Which The Penalty Levied By Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant’S Case & In Law, The Notice Issued Under Section 274 Read With Section 271(1)(C) By The Ld. Assessing Officer Without Recording Any Satisfaction Is Bad In Law & The Consequential Penalty Order

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JainFor Respondent: Shri C. T. Mathews (Sr. AR)
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…idering the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Kaushalya & Ors., (supra) as also the judgments of the ITA. No.4973/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2007-08 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…

Shri Ajaybhai Ishwarlal Gogia, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 (2) (5), Rajkot

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 176/RJT/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Apr 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri R. D. Lalchandani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-D.R
Section 2(47)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 276C

…der dated 09-06-2014 has held that mere admittance by the High Court does not tantamount to issue being debatable. He further held that the scope of s. 271(l)(c) has also been elaborately discussed by the Supreme Court in UOI vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors 306 ITR 277 (SC) and CIT vs. Atul Mohan Bindal 317 ITR 1 (SC). The Explanations appended to section 271(l)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, entirely indicates the element of strict liability on the assessee for concealment or for giving inaccurate particulars while filing the return. The object behind the enactment of section 271(l)(c) read with Explanation i…

Memon Co Op Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5990/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5990/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Memon Co-Op Bank Ltd बिधम/ Dcit-1(3)(2) C/O Memon Co-Op Bank Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Ltd, Patel & Sony Arcade, Mumbai-400020. 234 Bellasis Road, Nagpada, Mumbai-400008. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaat0066G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Pankaj Toprani Revenue By: Ajay Chandra (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 02/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 17.07.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-03, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2009-10 Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “A. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.70,61,337/- U/S 271(1)(C). B. The Learned C.1.T. (A) Failed To Appreciate That:

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj TopraniFor Respondent: Ajay Chandra (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…). 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…

Sankalp Retail Value Stores Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT 13(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2426/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2426/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Sankalp Retail Value Stores बिधम/ Acit-13(2)(1) Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai- Vs. 401, Rajiv Premji Apts., S.V. 400020. Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai-400092. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaapc5897R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Hoshang Boman Irani (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 02/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, (Jm): The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 29.12.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2008-09 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang Boman Irani (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…). Our coordinate Bench, after considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Kaushalya & Ors., (supra) as also the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff (supra) and Dharmendra Textile Processors, 306 ITR 277 (SC) deduced as under :- ITA. No. 2426/Mum/2018 A.Y. 2008-09 “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…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Jabalpur vs. Madhya Pradesh Power Generating Co. Ltd., Jabalpur

In the result, the Revenue's appeal is dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 251/JAB/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur23 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Bardia, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Halder, DR
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR (through web-based video conferencing platform) BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 251/JAB/2018 (Asst. Year: 2008-09) Dy. CIT, Circle-2(1), vs. Madhya Pradesh Power Jabalpur. Generating Co. Ltd., Block No.09, Shakti Bhavan, Vidyut Nagar, Rampur, Jabalpur. PAN : AADCM 4472 A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Rahul Bardia, CA. Department by : Shri S.K. Halder, DR Date of hearing : 23/02/2022 Date of pronouncement : 23/03/2022 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is a…