Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 271(1)(c), Section 143(3), Section 115JB, Section 37(1), Section 147, Section 14A.

Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors

Q: How many judgments cite Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors?

501 judgments on BharatTax cite Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors (306 ITR 277), spanning 2009 to 2026.

306 ITR 277Supreme Court of India2008#136 most cited

What is Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors authority for?

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is a strict civil liability, and willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting it. The explanation appended to the section indicates this element of strict liability for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

501

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,368 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 115JB Section 37(1)Section 147 Section 14A Section 1961 Section 148

Issues it is cited on

furnishing inaccurate particulars of income furnishing inaccurate particulars penalty u/s 271(1)(c)penalty under section 271(1)(c)concealment of income section 274 levy of penalty section 271(1)section 271 section 271(1)(c)section 27 section 115jb

Judgments citing Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors

M/S. Abbott Cold Storages Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5819/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 271(1)(c)

…lations available in the penalty order. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Assessing Officer while levying the penalty, relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. AtuI Mohan Bindal 317 ITR 1, the judgment of Dharmendra Textile 306 ITR 277 as also the judgment of Hon’ble High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 7 of 2010 dated 17.05.2010. All such judgments are distinguishable on facts and are not relevant. The Ld. AR submitted that the main item of disallowance i.e. loss on account of forfeiture of advance for purchase of land could have been claimed…

The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Intas Pharma Ltd., Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2247/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kishan Vyas, C.I.T. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 272(1)(c)Section 274Section 276C

…आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद"यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’ B’’BENCH, AHMEDABAD (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT AT AHMEDABAD) BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And Ms MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 2247/AHD/2018 "नधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 D.C.I.T., Intas Pharma Ltd., Circle-2(1)(1), Vs. 203, Chinubhai Centre, Ahmedabad. Nr. Neharu Bridge Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. PAN: AABC10331E (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Shri Kishan Vyas, C.I.T. D.R Assesseeby : Shri Biren Shah, A.R सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 13/01/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement:…

Rasal Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

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

ITA 287/JPR/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Mar 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Us. 2 M/S Rasal Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Shivpuri (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhari (Addl.CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

…tk;s fd vk; dh fof’kf"V;ksa dks fNik;k x;k gS rks vk;dj vf/kdkjh ds le{k /kkjk 271¼1½¼c½ ds varxZr 'kkfLr vf/kjksfir djus ds vfrfjDr vkSj dksbZ fodYi ugha gksrk gSA lkFk gh lkFk ekuuh; mPpre u;k;ky; }kjk UOI & Ors v. Dharmendra Textile Processors & Ors.[2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC) ds dsl esa fn;s x;s fu.kZ; ds vk/kkj ij ;g dgk tk ldrk gS fd 'kkfLr vf/kjksfir djus gsrq vkijkf/kd eu% fLFkfr dks fl} djuk vko’;d ugha gSA mijksDr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij esjk ekuuk gS fd :i;s 2]79]500@& ds dfFkr vlqjf{kr _.k ds laca/k esa /kkjk 271¼1½¼c½ ds varxZr 'kkfLr vf/kjksfir djuk U;k;ksfpr gS vkSj eSa ml 'kkfLr dks iq"V djrk gwWaA bl iz…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Lipi Data System Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 5028/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalethe Acit- 3 (2) (1), M/S Lipi Data System बनाम/ Room No. 674, 6 Th Floor, Ltd., Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, 1, Mittal Chambers, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl0916F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) अपीलाथी ओर से / Shri Brajendra Kumar, Dr Appellant By : प्रत्यथी की ओर None से/Respondent By : सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of 09/02/2021 Hearing घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of 11/02/2021 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -8 M/S Lipi Data System Ltd. Mumbai, Passed U/S. 271 (1) (C) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 115Section 143Section 14ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…t any basis and the explanation furnished by the assessee for making such a claim is not found to be bonafide triggering Explanation I to section 271 (1)(c of the I.T. Act, 1961 as held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd., 40 DTR 249 (2010). 5. The appellant prays that the order of C!T(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of Assessing Officer be restored. 6. The appellant craves leave to amend, alter, delete or add grounds which may be necessary.” At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor adjournment petition was filed. We heard the Ld. DR a…

Illies Engineering India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 109/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Michael Jerald, DR

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

…e's action. For the sake of argument, even if it is assumed that there was no deliberate act on the part of the assessee with intention to defraud the Revenue, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharmendra Textiles Processors &Ors (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC) goes against the assessee. It has been held by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case that- ".......the explanation appended to section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 indicates the element of strict liability on the assessee for concealment 4 Illies Engg. or for giving inaccurate particulars while filing the return. The object behind…

Ecofriendly Hotels India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO-5(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 108/MUM/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pawan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Ecofriendly Hotels Ito-5(1)(4), India P. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 36/40, Mahalaxmi Bridge Churchgate, Vs. Arcade Mahalaxmi, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400 034 Pan: Aabce2260L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Haridas Bhat, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Amit Pratap Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 22.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2020 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, D.R

Section 111Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…round that there is only change of heads of income which is not shown to be perverse and therefore no substantial question of law arises. The Revenue, on the other hand, relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs. Dharmendra Textile 306 ITR 277 SC. After perusing the decision relied by the Revenue, we find that the same is not applicable to the present case as the facts are 4 M/s. Ecofriendly Hotels India P. Ltd. different and distinguishable. Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the penalty. 7. In the result, the appeal of the ass…

Abs Entertainment Private Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Ward 9(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3467/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3467/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) बिधम/ Abs Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Ward 9(1) Hariom Chambers, 7Th Floor, 203, Aaykar Bhavan, 2Nd Vs. B-16, Veera Industrial Floor, Maharshi Karve Road, Estate, Off Link Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai- Andheri (W), Mumbai- 400020. 400053. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3468/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिधम/ Abs Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward 9(1) Hariom Chambers, 7Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Vs. B-16, Veera Industrial Room No. 203, Maharshi Estate, Off Link Road, Karve Road, New Marine Andheri (W), Mumbai- Lines, Mumbai-400020. 400053. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahca1347E (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Jayesh Desi (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Michael Jerald (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/10/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/11/2020 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)- 16, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh Desi (AR)For Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald (DR)

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

…im. But, that does not mean that the assessee has concealed its income or furnished inaccurate particulars. 10. The Revenue has relied on the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors [2008] 306 ITR 277/174 Taxman 571, wherein the hon'ble apex court has held that mens rea is not an essential ingredient for levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, as it is in the nature of a civil liability. The present case does not reach to the point where the above decision should be considered by us. The above decision declares that mens rea need n…

Advent Computer Services Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Company Ward 1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 222/CHNY/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Nov 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.222/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) M/S. Advent Computer Services Ltd., Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of C/O.M/S. Anil Nair Associates Income Tax, Casa Blanca, 1St Floor,11,Casa Major Company Ward-1(1), Road. Egmore, Chennai-600 034. Chennai-600 008. Pan:Aacea 0326L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…term capital gain derived from transfer of shares, even though the said transactions generate 4 long term capital gain . The Assessing Officer further referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI Vs. Dharmendra Textiles (2008) (306 ITR 277) observed that penalty u/s.271(1)(c) is a civil liability and wilful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting such liability, accordingly rejected the explanation furnished by the assessee and levied penalty of Rs.5,36,600/- which is at 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. 4. Being aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee…

Shree Naman Developers, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 5(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 2796/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2796/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Shree Naman बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-5(4) Developers Limited (Now Mumbai. Vs. Known As M/S. Shree Namn Developers Pvt. Ltd.) 315, Parekh Market, 39, J.S.S, Road, Opera House, Mumbai-400004. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn2568H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Jitendra Jain Revenue By: Shri Rahul Raman (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04 /09/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 30.01.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13 Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed.

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman (DR)

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

…sidering 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.2796/M/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 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…

Vidyasagar Mahavir Prasad Sah, Mumbai vs. Adcit 23(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 2460/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2460/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Vidyasagar Mahavir Prasad बिधम/ Adcit 23(3) 104, 1St Floor, Matru Mandir, Sah Vs. 22 A Band Stand Society Tardeo Rd, Mumbai-400007. 197-C, Kane Rd Bandra (W), Mumbai-400050. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafps5412H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Madhur Aggarwal (Dr) Revenue By: Shri Padma Ram Mirdha (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03/02/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/ 08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 21.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-34, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed.

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Aggarwal (DR)For Respondent: Shri Padma Ram Mirdha (DR)

Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

…nsidering 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 ITA. No2460/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 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…

Jamsetji Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. ACIT (E) I-1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 1010/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1010/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Jamsetji Tata Trust बिधम/ Acit (E) 1-1 Bombay House, Homi Mody Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Vs. Street, Mumbai-400001. Road, Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatj0095N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sukhsagar Syal Revenue By: Shri Shishir Dhamija (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/02/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/07/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 24.12.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Shri Shishir Dhamija (DR)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(5)Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)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 issuing…

Value Line Equities P. Ltd ( Formerly Knwoan As M.S Sb & T Securities P.Ltd), Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 4(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 4605/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm& Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4605/Mumbai/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant Pathak, AR byFor Respondent: Ms. Bharati Singh, DR

Section 143(3)Section 271

…the assessee and found that the assessee has concealed the particulars of income furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by relying on the following cases: 1. UOI versus Dharmendra Textile Processors (2007) 295 ITR 244 (SC) 2. Zoom Communication (P) Ltd 40 DTR 249 (2010) 8. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) along with detailed submission. After considering the submissions of the assessee, Ld CIT(A) gave partial relief to the assessee by deleting the penalty on foreign travel expenses by observing that the disallowance is made on ad hoc basis that is at an estima…

L.Rajalakshmi, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 1680/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Jun 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Mr. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1678, 1679 & 1680/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 Smt. L.Rajalakshmi, Hyderabad अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Afgpr3011K …..

For Respondent: : Shri Sunku Srinivasu, DR

Section 147Section 148Section 50C

…R.Bharathi (240 ITR 697 (Mad)) (ii) CIT Vs.N. Bhargavathy Ammal & Another (240 ITR 451 (Mad)) (iii) CIT Vs.P. Manonmani (245 ITR 48 (Mad) I.T.A. Nos. 1678, 1679, 1680 :- 15 -: & 1138/Chny/2014 (iv) Union of India & Others vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors (306 ITR 277 SC)) 5. For these and other grounds that may adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the order of the learned CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored”. 25. The limited issue which is arising in the present appeal is the rate to be adopted for indexation of cost of acquisition of the property. The assessee…

L.Rajalakshmi, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 1679/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Jun 2020AY 2008-09

For Respondent: : Shri Sunku Srinivasu, DR

Section 147Section 148Section 50C

L.Rajalakshmi, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 1678/CHNY/2014[2007-08]Status: PendingITAT Hyderabad26 Jun 2020AY 2007-08

For Respondent: : Shri Sunku Srinivasu, DR

Section 147Section 148Section 50C

DCIT, Chennai vs. L.Rajalakshmi, Chennai

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 1138/CHNY/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Jun 2020AY 2007-08

For Respondent: : Shri Sunku Srinivasu, DR

Section 147Section 148Section 50C

DCIT-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Tpi India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1792/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Manjunatha G, Am आयकर अपील िं./ Ita No.1792/Mum/2019 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2009-10) The Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Tpi India Ltd. बनाम/ Tax, 102, Atlanta, Nariman Point, Circle 3(3)(2), Mumbai Mumbai-400 021 Vs. (अपीलाथी / Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aacct7772P अपीलाथी की ओर े/ Appellant By : Shri Akhtar H. Ansari, Dr प्रत्यथी की ओर े/ Respondent By : None ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18.06.2020 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 18.06.2020

For Appellant: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari, DRFor Respondent: None

Section 271(1)(c)

…basis and the explanation furnished by it for making such a TPI India Ltd. claim is not found to be bona fide triggering Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. As held by Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd. 40 DTR 249 (2010)?.” 3. At the outset, it is noticed that the amount involved is ₹39,120/- Which is the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer on estimated addition and further it is below the prescribed limit of circular issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes which authorize Revenue not to file the appeal below the tax effect of ₹50 lacs vide circular No.…

M/S. C.S. Datamation Research Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 3915/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 43B

…id and there was no justification for quashing the same on the ground of absence of jurisdiction. He also relied on the following decisions:- i) Trimurti Engineering Works vs. ITO (2012) 150 TTJ 195 (Del); ii) Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors, 306 ITR 277 (SC); iii) Chairman SEBI vs. Shri Ram Mutual Fund (2006) 68 SCL 216 (SC); & iv) CIT vs. Zoom Communications P. Ltd. (2010) 327 ITR 510 (Del). 11. The ld. Counsel for the assessee in his rejoinder submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. has approved and followed the decision of…

Amit Rajaram Nar, Mumbai vs. ITO-33(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 7402/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Amarjit Singh. Amit Rajaram Nar, The Income-Tax Officer, 604, Kesar Asish Coop.Hsg, Vs. 33(1), Mumbai. Village Mouze, Kndivli, Mumbai-400067. Pan Aecpn5244D. Appellant. Respondent.

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil R. Padvekar.(A.R.)For Respondent: Shri Akhtar Ali Ansari (D.R)

Section 131Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…pheld the levy of penalty. In this decision the learned CIT(Appeals) held that the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petro Products stood distinguished by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Zoom Communication Pvt. Lt. 40 DTR 249. 4. Now the assessee is in appeal before us. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. We find that the penalty has been levied in this case for disallowance of commission expenses. These commission expenses were provisions in the account. The payment by cheque subsequently in this regard was duly submitted before the AO. However, th…

DCIT - (Ltu) - 1, Mumbai vs. Reliance Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue and Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6267/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Yadav &For Respondent: Shri H.N. Singh (CIT-DR)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

…on loan to subsidiaries. The Ld. A.O did not find merit in the submissions of the assessee and by following various judicial precedents, including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textile Pvt Ltd. and others (306 ITR 277) has held that the assessee company has filed inaccurate particulars of its income and concealed the particulars of its income within the meaning the Sec. 271(1)(c) read with explanation (1) thereto of the Act, in respect of additions made towards disallowance of depreciation on steel purchase, disallowance out of professional fees paid to variou…