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 367,368 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. Chemstar Organics (India) Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-1(1), Baroda

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

ITA 2493/AHD/2014[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 2493 & 2494/Ahd/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 1998-99 & 2010-11) बिधम/ M/S. Chemstar Organics (India) Dcit, Central Circle-1(1) Ltd. Baroda. Vs. 4Th Floor, Pnb House, Sir P. M. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc9210F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satish Modi Revenue By: Shri Mehul Jain (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -01, Baroda [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 1998-99 & 2010-11. Ita. No.2493/Ahd/2014 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 09.06.2014 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -01, Baroda [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.1998-99 Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModiFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain (Sr. AR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271

…). 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…

DCIT 10 (2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Maharashtra Electronic Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 8051/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – 10(2)(2) V. M/S. Maharashtra Electronics Room No. 216-A Corporation Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Plot No. Am-3, Midc Cross Road “A” Marol Industrial Area, Andheri (E) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400093 Pan: Aaacm4980A (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri R.C. Jain Assessee By : Department By : Shri Achal Sharma

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 57

…o. Ltd. [1993] 204 ITR 804 (Cal.). 5 M/s. Maharashtra Electronics Corporation Limited 3.2 Before Hon. Supreme Court the question arose whether penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for making a Wrong claim was imposable and the dept relied on Dharmendra Textiles Processors 306 ITR 277 (SC) to argue that penalty was automatic for a wrong claim, HELD: (i) The mere fact that an addition is confirmed cannot per se fead to the confirmation of the penalty because quantum and penalty proceedings are independent of each other; (ii) In order for the deeming provision of Explanation 1 to s. 271(1)(c) to apply it must be show either th…

Sujata Surendra Khandekar, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 4135/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 4135/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Sujata Surendra Khandekar बिधम/ Ito 19(3)(4) 6. Federation House, 4Th Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Vs. Floor, 24/30, A.P. Marg, Mumbai-400007. Opp. Metro, Mumbai- 400002. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abbpk9552B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Hoshang B. Irani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24/01/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/01/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 08.05.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-52, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2008-09 In Which The Penalty Levied By Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Appeals)-52, Mumbai Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Assessing Officer, Mumbai In

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)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…

Smt. Neha Gopal Sharma, Mumbai vs. ITO 29(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 417/MUM/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 417/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Smt. Neha Gopal Sharma बिधम/ Ito-29(2)(4) Room No.205, C-10, 2Nd 1501, B Wing, Tower-1, Vs. Vikas Paradise, Lbs Marg, Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Mulund (W), Mumbai- Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. 400080. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aobps8089J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Ms. Ekta Dodhia Revenue By: Shri Himanshu Sharma (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/01/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 23.10.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-40, Mumbai [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. The Learned Cit(A)-40 Has Erred In Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Learned Assessing Officer Without Appreciating The Fact Of The Case In The Right Perspective.

For Appellant: Ms. Ekta DodhiaFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 27Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 274Section 68

…). 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…

Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Satara vs. Karad Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd, Satara

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

ITA 2600/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2600/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward- 1, Vs. Karad Janata Sahakari Bank Satara. Ltd., A/P. 100/101, Shivaji Nagar, Karad, Tal. Karad, Dist. Satara-415110. Pan : Aaaat7863R Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare : Date Of Hearing : 18.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.01.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 4, Pune [‘Cit(A)’ For Short] Dated 08.05.2017 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Revenue Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. C I T (A) Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs. 59,00,884/- Levied U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act Holding That The Ao Was Not Able To Prove That Is A Fit Case For Imposition Of Penalty Either Under The Main Part Of Section U/S. 271(1)(C) Or Under The Deeming Provisions Of Explanation 1 To Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 3Section 36(1)(viia)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE – VIRTUAL COURT BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2600/PUN/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 ITO, Ward- 1, Vs. Karad Janata Sahakari Bank Satara. Ltd., A/p. 100/101, Shivaji Nagar, Karad, Tal. Karad, Dist. Satara-415110. PAN : AAAAT7863R Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Shri M. G. Jasnani Assessee by Smt. Deepa Khare : Date of hearing : 18.01.2022 Date of pronouncement : 18.01.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by the Revenue d…

Shri Jai Hind Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD-5(4), Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 146/JPR/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.” 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

…essed on a particular income. The decision of the apex court was based on the provisions as they were originally enacted. The view taken by the division be nch in the cas e of Dilip N. Shroff was doubted and overruled in UOI-v- Dharmendra Textiles Processors 306 ITR 277 SC by holding that- penalty under the above provision is a civil liability and therefore willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting the civil liability. It was pointed out that the division bench in the case of Dilip N Shroff failed to notice conceptual and contextual difference between sec 271(1)(c); and sec 271C. Further,…

Shri Hajaram P. Purohit, Mumbau vs. ACIT Cent Cir-36, Mumbai

In the result, these assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 7634/MUM/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm) I.T.A. Nos.7634 & 7635/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2007-08)

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 276C

…u/s.271(l)(c) of the Act. In the first place, it deserves to be noted that mens rea is no longer an essential ingredient for the levy of penalty u/s 271(l)(c) as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India & ors. v. Dharamendra Textile Processors & ors. 306 ITR 277 (SC). It has been held that the objective behind enactment of Section 271(l)(c) is to provide remedy for loss of revenue and that such a penalty is a civil rather than a quasi-criminal liability and, therefore, wilful or conscious concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability as is the case in the matter of prosecution…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Lucknow vs. Scooters India Limited, Lucknow

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 270/LKW/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

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

…u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 ignoring the fact that the additions made by the AO had been confirmed in the appellate proceedings. The reliance is also placed on Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 306 ITR 277/174 Taxman 571 and Hon'ble High court of Madras Order in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Co. Circle -VI(4), Chennai, 93 taxmann.com 250 (Madras) (2018)403 ITR 407 where it had been held that mens rea is not an essential element for imposing penalty for breach of civil obligations or liabilities and that e…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Lucknow vs. Scooters India Limited, Lucknow

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 269/LKW/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Oct 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

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

…u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 ignoring the fact that the additions made by the AO had been confirmed in the appellate proceedings. The reliance is also placed on Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 306 ITR 277/174 Taxman 571 and Hon'ble High court of Madras Order in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Co. Circle -VI(4), Chennai, 93 taxmann.com 250 (Madras) (2018)403 ITR 407 where it had been held that mens rea is not an essential element for imposing penalty for breach of civil obligations or liabilities and that e…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Lucknow vs. Scooters India Limited, Lucknow

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 268/LKW/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Oct 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

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

…u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 ignoring the fact that the additions made by the AO had been confirmed in the appellate proceedings. The reliance is also placed on Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 306 ITR 277/174 Taxman 571 and Hon'ble High court of Madras Order in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Co. Circle -VI(4), Chennai, 93 taxmann.com 250 (Madras) (2018)403 ITR 407 where it had been held that mens rea is not an essential element for imposing penalty for breach of civil obligations or liabilities and that e…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Lucknow vs. Scooters India Limited, Lucknow

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 267/LKW/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Oct 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

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

…u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 ignoring the fact that the additions made by the AO had been confirmed in the appellate proceedings. The reliance is also placed on Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 306 ITR 277/174 Taxman 571 and Hon'ble High court of Madras Order in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Co. Circle -VI(4), Chennai, 93 taxmann.com 250 (Madras) (2018)403 ITR 407 where it had been held that mens rea is not an essential element for imposing penalty for breach of civil obligations or liabilities and that e…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Lucknow vs. Scooters India Limited, Lucknow

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 266/LKW/2019[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Oct 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

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

…u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 ignoring the fact that the additions made by the AO had been confirmed in the appellate proceedings. The reliance is also placed on Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 306 ITR 277/174 Taxman 571 and Hon'ble High court of Madras Order in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Co. Circle -VI(4), Chennai, 93 taxmann.com 250 (Madras) (2018)403 ITR 407 where it had been held that mens rea is not an essential element for imposing penalty for breach of civil obligations or liabilities and that e…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Lucknow vs. Scooters India Limited, Lucknow

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 265/LKW/2019[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Oct 2021AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

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

…u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 ignoring the fact that the additions made by the AO had been confirmed in the appellate proceedings. The reliance is also placed on Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 306 ITR 277/174 Taxman 571 and Hon'ble High court of Madras Order in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Co. Circle -VI(4), Chennai, 93 taxmann.com 250 (Madras) (2018)403 ITR 407 where it had been held that mens rea is not an essential element for imposing penalty for breach of civil obligations or liabilities and that e…

Peartree Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-19(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7225/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Shivani Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 2(24)(x)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35DSection 36(1)(v)Section 40Section 40A(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member (Through Video Conferencing) ITA No. 7225/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Peartree Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Vs DCIT, C4/142, Safdarjang Development Area, Central-19(2), New Delhi-110016 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AACCP8759Q Assessee by : None Revenue by : Ms. Shivani Bansal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 15.09.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 22.09.2021 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the orde…

Asset Motors Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15 (1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1463/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Asset Motors Private Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income Bungalow No. 3, Plot No. 14, Union Vs. Tax-15(1)(1), Park, Chembur, Room No. 470, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Mumbai-400071. Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aahca 7847 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Prasad Paranjape, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Brajendra Kumar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 35DSection 36(1)(iii)

…s of the assessee, the Assessing Officer rejected the contentions of the assessee by relying on section 271(1)(c) Explanation 1 and decisions in the case of Union of India v. Dharmendra Asset Motors Pvt. Ltd. 4 Textiles Processors & Others (2008) reported in 306 ITR 277 (SC) and MAK Data P. Ltd. v. CIT (Supreme Court) levied penalty at 100% of the said tax sought to be evaded to the extent of Rs.70,54,549/-. 5. Aggrieved with the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee sustained the penalty levied by the Assessing Offic…

ITO, Ward-4(2)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S.Rushabh Vatika, Rajkot

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

ITA 3431/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…f income in return occurring at any stage up to and inclusive of ultimate stage or working out of total income would attract penalty provisions of section 271(1)(c)." (ii) In a judgment in the case of Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textiles Processor &. Others 306 ITR 277 the Honorable Supreme Court observed that the object of enactment of section 271(1)(c) read with explanation indicated that the section had been enacted to provide for a remedy for the loss of revenue. The penalty under this section is a civil liability. Willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability as is in th…

M/S Aanya Real Estate Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 15 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and direct that the penalty in this case be deleted

ITA 115/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm M/S. Aanya Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit 15(1)(1) R. No. 470, 4Th Floor, 120 A Wing 02, Commercial Building 23-24, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Minerva Industrial Estate, Aasha Nagar, Mumbai-400 020 Mulund (W), Mumbai-400 080

For Appellant: Shri K. P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…issued a show cause notice u/s.274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the assessee. In this regard, while levying the penalty, the A.O. placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC), Mak Data Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT and Hon’ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd.(ITA No. 07/2010 dated 24.05.2010). 4. Upon the assessee’s appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of penalty. While passing the order he did not deal with the issue in appeal or the fact of the case. Rather he gave a the…

M/S Transcon Sheth Creators Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 13 (3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, all assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 7130/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2021AY 2009-10
Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

…)(c) was levied. While levying penalty, the AO did not discuss the decision of CIT vs Reliance Petroproduct Pvt.Ltd. [322 ITR 158] (SC) referred by assessee. He referred to Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in Union of India v Dharmendra Textile Processors(2006) 306 ITR 277 and Hon’ble Delhi High Court decision in Zoom Communication(2010) 327 ITR 510. Upon assessee’s appeal Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the penalty. 5. Against this order assessee is in appeal before us. 6. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the record and Ld. DR supported the order of authorities below. He further pointed out that assessee in quantum addi…

ACIT Circle-3(3)92), Mumbai vs. M/S Tania Industries Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 7312/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2021AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Kumar Menon, DRFor Respondent: None
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ACIT – 3(3)(2) Vs. M/s Tania Industries Room No. 628, 6TH Pvt Ltd., Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 111-A, Raheja MK Road, Mumbai – Chambers, 213 Free 400020. Press Journal Mark, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400002 PAN/GIR No. : AAACT6053D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Shri Vijay Kumar Menon, DR Respondent by : None Date of Hearing 07.06.2021 Date of Pronouncement 11.06.2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM: The appeal is filed by the revenue against the order of…

Sai Samarth Enterprises, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 1, Thane

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

ITA 3718/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3718/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3720/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3721/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ M/S. Sai Samarth Enterprises Dcit-Central Circle-1, 107, Patel Building, Parel, Thane. Vs. Mumbai. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abufs9008B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Suchek Anchaliya Revenue By: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/03/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/05/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, (Jm): The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 29.03.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 11, Pune [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed.

For Appellant: Shri Suchek AnchaliyaFor Respondent: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Sr. AR)
Section 132Section 132oSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 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 issuing…