Union of India v. Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills

13 SCC 448Reported decision2009#1241 most cited

What is Union of India v. Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills authority for?

For a penalty to be imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, all statutory conditions specified in that section must explicitly exist. The liability arises when the particulars of income disclosed in the return of income are found to be inaccurate.

91

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Union of India v. Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills · Section 271(1)(c) penalty · conditions for penalty · inaccurate particulars of income · penalty for concealment · statutory conditions · return of income · Dharamendra Textile Processors · Section 274 · penalty imposition

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 276CSection 274Section 14ASection 115JBSection 115JCSection 143Section 143(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 276csection 276section 270a(6)(a)section 40a(2)(a)section 115jcsection 270a(6)true and full disclosureagency pesection 24(a)section 92dpenalty under section 271(1)(c)section 271aab

Judgments citing Union of India v. Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2175/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40A(2)(a)

…come or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. This Court referred to another decision of this Court in Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors [2008] 13 SCC 369, as also, the decision in Union of India v. Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills [2009] 13 SCC 448 and reiterated in para 13 that :— "13. It goes without saying that for applicability of section 271(1)( c), conditions stated therein must exist." 8. Therefore, it is obvious that it must be shown that the conditions under section 271(1)(c) must exist before the penalty is imposed. There can be no dispute that everything would depend upon the Retu…

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA\nNo

ITA 2174/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Dec 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40A(2)(a)

…e or\nfurnished inaccurate particulars of his income. This Court referred to\nanother decision of this Court in Union of India v. Dharamendra\nTextile Processors [2008] 13 SCC 369, as also, the decision in Union\nof India v. Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills [2009] 13 SCC 448 and\nreiterated in para 13 that :—\n\"13. It goes without saying that for applicability of section 271(1)( c),\nconditions stated therein must exist.\"\n\n8. Therefore, it is obvious that it must be shown that the conditions\nunder section 271(1)(c) must exist before the penalty is imposed. There\ncan be no dispute that everything would depend upo…

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2173/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40A(2)(a)

…come or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. This Court referred to another decision of this Court in Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors [2008] 13 SCC 369, as also, the decision in Union of India v. Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills [2009] 13 SCC 448 and reiterated in para 13 that :— "13. It goes without saying that for applicability of section 271(1)( c), conditions stated therein must exist." 8. Therefore, it is obvious that it must be shown that the conditions under section 271(1)(c) must exist before the penalty is imposed. There can be no dispute that everything would depend upon the Retu…

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2172/PUN/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40A(2)(a)

…come or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. This Court referred to another decision of this Court in Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors [2008] 13 SCC 369, as also, the decision in Union of India v. Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills [2009] 13 SCC 448 and reiterated in para 13 that :— "13. It goes without saying that for applicability of section 271(1)( c), conditions stated therein must exist." 8. Therefore, it is obvious that it must be shown that the conditions under section 271(1)(c) must exist before the penalty is imposed. There can be no dispute that everything would depend upon the Retu…

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA\nNo

ITA 2171/PUN/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Dec 2025AY 2009-10
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40A(2)(a)

…or\nfurnished inaccurate particulars of such income. This Court referred to\nanother decision of this Court in Union of India v. Dharamendra\nTextile Processors [2008] 13 SCC 369, as also, the decision in Union\nof India v. Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills [2009] 13 SCC 448 and\nreiterated in para 13 that :—\n\n\"13. It goes without saying that for applicability of section 271(1)( c),\nconditions stated therein must exist.\"\n\n8. Therefore, it is obvious that it must be shown that the conditions\nunder section 271(1)(c) must exist before the penalty is imposed. There\ncan be no dispute that everything would depend u…

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2170/PUN/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Dec 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40A(2)(a)

…come or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. This Court referred to another decision of this Court in Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors [2008] 13 SCC 369, as also, the decision in Union of India v. Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills [2009] 13 SCC 448 and reiterated in para 13 that :— "13. It goes without saying that for applicability of section 271(1)( c), conditions stated therein must exist." 8. Therefore, it is obvious that it must be shown that the conditions under section 271(1)(c) must exist before the penalty is imposed. There can be no dispute that everything would depend upon the Retu…

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,SHIROL vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2169/PUN/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Dec 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40A(2)(a)

…come or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. This Court referred to another decision of this Court in Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors [2008] 13 SCC 369, as also, the decision in Union of India v. Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills [2009] 13 SCC 448 and reiterated in para 13 that :— "13. It goes without saying that for applicability of section 271(1)( c), conditions stated therein must exist." 8. Therefore, it is obvious that it must be shown that the conditions under section 271(1)(c) must exist before the penalty is imposed. There can be no dispute that everything would depend upon the Retu…

ROHINI MARUTI DESHMUKH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

ITA 1839/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sarang Gudhate, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi, Addl.CIT
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 54B

…come or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. This Court referred to another decision of this Court in Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors [2008] 13 SCC 369, as also, the decision in Union of India v. Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills [2009] 13 SCC 448 and reiterated in para 13 that :— "13. It goes without saying that for applicability of section 271(1)( c), conditions stated therein must exist." 8. Therefore, it is obvious that it must be shown that the conditions under section 271(1)(c) must exist before the penalty is imposed. There can be no dispute that everything would depend upon the Retu…

TULSABAI VASANT DESHMUKH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

ITA 1838/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sarang Gudhate, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi, Addl.CIT
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 54B

…come or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. This Court referred to another decision of this Court in Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors [2008] 13 SCC 369, as also, the decision in Union of India v. Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills [2009] 13 SCC 448 and reiterated in para 13 that :— "13. It goes without saying that for applicability of section 271(1)( c), conditions stated therein must exist." 8. Therefore, it is obvious that it must be shown that the conditions under section 271(1)(c) must exist before the penalty is imposed. There can be no dispute that everything would depend upon the Retu…

AMOL VASANT DESHMUKH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

ITA 1837/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sarang Gudhate, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi, Addl.CIT
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 54B

…come or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. This Court referred to another decision of this Court in Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors [2008] 13 SCC 369, as also, the decision in Union of India v. Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills [2009] 13 SCC 448 and reiterated in para 13 that :— "13. It goes without saying that for applicability of section 271(1)( c), conditions stated therein must exist." 8. Therefore, it is obvious that it must be shown that the conditions under section 271(1)(c) must exist before the penalty is imposed. There can be no dispute that everything would depend upon the Retu…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VENKATA SITA RAMACHANDRA RAO KANCHUMARTHY, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 352/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.352/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2016-17) Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Venkata Sita Ramachandra Rao Kanchumarty International Taxation, Circle H.No. 26-22-16 Ground Floor, Infinity Tower Near Chinna Anjaneya Swamy Temple Sankarmattam Road Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry Visakhapatnam – 530016 East Godavari District – 533103 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Edzpk3519Q]

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 292B

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM “DIVISION” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM (HYBRID HEARING) श्री रिीश सूद ,न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री एस बालाकृष्णन,लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.352/VIZ/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2016-17) Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Venkata Sita Ramachandra Rao Kanchumarty International Taxation, Circle H.No. 26-22-16 Ground Floor, Infinity Tower Near Chinna Anjaneya Swamy Temple Sankarmattam Road Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry…

KANHAIYALAL RAMESHWAR DAS,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

ITA 1454/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Oct 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Rajnikant Bhatra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR (Thru: V.C)
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 154Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…me or furnished inaccurate particulars of\nsuch income. This court referred to another decision of this court in Union of\nIndia v. Dharamendra Textile Processors [2008] 13 SCC 369 as also, the\ndecision in Union of India v. Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills [2009] 13 SCC 448 and\nreiterated in paragraph 13 that:\n\"13. It goes without saying that for applicability of section 271(1)(c), conditions\nstated therein must exist.\"\nTherefore, it is obvious that it must be shown that the conditions under section\n271(1)(c) must exist before the penalty is imposed. There can be no dispute that\neverything would depend upon t…

CORNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT(IT)-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5677/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Hiten Thakkar, AR
Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

…Ondemand Limited inaccurate particulars of such income. This Court referred to another decision of this Court in Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors [2008] 13 SCC 369, as also, the decision in Union of India v. Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills [2009] 13 SCC 448 and reiterated in para 13 that :— "13. It goes without saying that for applicability of section 271(1)( c), conditions stated therein must exist." 8. Therefore, it is obvious that it must be shown that the conditions under section 271(1)(c) must exist before the penalty is imposed. There can be no dispute that everything would depend upon the Retu…

CONNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3753/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Hiten Thakkar, AR
Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

…Ondemand Limited inaccurate particulars of such income. This Court referred to another decision of this Court in Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors [2008] 13 SCC 369, as also, the decision in Union of India v. Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills [2009] 13 SCC 448 and reiterated in para 13 that :— "13. It goes without saying that for applicability of section 271(1)( c), conditions stated therein must exist." 8. Therefore, it is obvious that it must be shown that the conditions under section 271(1)(c) must exist before the penalty is imposed. There can be no dispute that everything would depend upon the Retu…

CORNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3752/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Hiten Thakkar, AR
Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

…Ondemand Limited inaccurate particulars of such income. This Court referred to another decision of this Court in Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors [2008] 13 SCC 369, as also, the decision in Union of India v. Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills [2009] 13 SCC 448 and reiterated in para 13 that :— "13. It goes without saying that for applicability of section 271(1)( c), conditions stated therein must exist." 8. Therefore, it is obvious that it must be shown that the conditions under section 271(1)(c) must exist before the penalty is imposed. There can be no dispute that everything would depend upon the Retu…

CORNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3751/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Hiten Thakkar, AR
Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

…Ondemand Limited inaccurate particulars of such income. This Court referred to another decision of this Court in Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors [2008] 13 SCC 369, as also, the decision in Union of India v. Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills [2009] 13 SCC 448 and reiterated in para 13 that :— "13. It goes without saying that for applicability of section 271(1)( c), conditions stated therein must exist." 8. Therefore, it is obvious that it must be shown that the conditions under section 271(1)(c) must exist before the penalty is imposed. There can be no dispute that everything would depend upon the Retu…

CORNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-291)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3747/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Hiten Thakkar, AR
Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

…Ondemand Limited inaccurate particulars of such income. This Court referred to another decision of this Court in Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors [2008] 13 SCC 369, as also, the decision in Union of India v. Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills [2009] 13 SCC 448 and reiterated in para 13 that :— "13. It goes without saying that for applicability of section 271(1)( c), conditions stated therein must exist." 8. Therefore, it is obvious that it must be shown that the conditions under section 271(1)(c) must exist before the penalty is imposed. There can be no dispute that everything would depend upon the Retu…

KALI PADIP CHAUDHARI FOUNDATION vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), KOL-1

ITA/21/2015HC Calcutta19 Mar 2025

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam

Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)

…, Tax Case (Appeal) No. 504 of 2009 dated 12th November, 2013 and the relevant paragraphs of the decision are quoted hereinbelow : “10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills reported in (2009) 13 SCC 448, considered the earlier decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors vs. Dharmendra Textiles Processors & Ors., reported in [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC) and held that it goes without saying that for applicability of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, condition stated therein must exist. The above said decision came up for…

KPC MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) KOL-1

ITAT/105/2015HC Calcutta19 Mar 2025

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam

Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)

…, Tax Case (Appeal) No. 504 of 2009 dated 12th November, 2013 and the relevant paragraphs of the decision are quoted hereinbelow : “10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills reported in (2009) 13 SCC 448, considered the earlier decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors vs. Dharmendra Textiles Processors & Ors., reported in [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC) and held that it goes without saying that for applicability of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, condition stated therein must exist. The above said decision came up for…

KPC MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), KOL-1

ITAT/108/2015HC Calcutta19 Mar 2025

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam

Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)

…, Tax Case (Appeal) No. 504 of 2009 dated 12th November, 2013 and the relevant paragraphs of the decision are quoted hereinbelow : “10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills reported in (2009) 13 SCC 448, considered the earlier decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors vs. Dharmendra Textiles Processors & Ors., reported in [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC) and held that it goes without saying that for applicability of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, condition stated therein must exist. The above said decision came up for…

Showing 1–20 of 91 · Page 1 of 5

Union of India v. Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills (13 SCC 448) — Cited in 91 Judgments | BharatTax