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

For the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c), the specific conditions laid down in the section must be demonstrably met. The assessee's filed return is the primary document for furnishing income particulars, and inaccuracies therein are crucial for penalty imposition.

How many judgments cite Union of India v. Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills?

91 judgments on BharatTax cite Union of India v. Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills (13 SCC 448), spanning 2010 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Union of India v. Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 271(1)(c), Section 276C, Section 274, Section 14A, Section 115JB, Section 115JC.

Union of India v. Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills (13 SCC 448)

Kpc Medical College and Hospital vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax(Central), Kol-1

ITAT/107/2015HC 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…

ACIT-2(1)(1), Kanpur vs. Up State Yarn Company Limited, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 469/LKW/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Nov 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraacit-2(1)(1) Up State Yarn Company V. 15/295-A, Civil Lines, Kanpur, Limited Uttar Pradesh-208001. 1 Smith Square, 14/72, Civil Lines, Uttar Pradesh- 208001. Pan:Aaacu1674K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 11 11 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 11 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl

Section 254Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACIT-2(1)(1) UP State Yarn Company v. 15/295-A, Civil Lines, Kanpur, Limited Uttar Pradesh-208001. 1 Smith Square, 14/72, Civil Lines, Uttar Pradesh- 208001. PAN:AAACU1674K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent by: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 11 11 2024 Date of pronouncement: 13 11 2024 O R D E R PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, A.M.: The present appeal has been filed by Revenue, challenging the impugned o…

General Electric International Inc., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, International Taxation Circle 2(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 3498/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Veerbhandra Mahajan

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…ncome 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." 9. 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 return…

Eureka Outsourcing Solutions Pvt Ltd, Thane vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle (1), Thane

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

ITA 2845/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Eureka Outsourcing Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Circle (1) 5Th Floor, High Street Cum Highland Thane Corporate Centre, Kapurbawadi, Vs. Thane-400 607

For Appellant: Shri Vijaykumar S. BiyaniFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Choughule

Section 143(3)Section 197Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(2)(b)

…income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. This Court referred to another decision of this Court in Union of Indiav. Dharamendra Textile Processors [2008] 13 SCC 369, as also, the decision in Union of Indiav. 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." 6 Eureka Outsourcing Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dy CIT 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…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-3 vs. Ms. Minu Bakshi

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/57/2021HC Delhi12 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 164Section 271(1)(c)

…7) 7 SCC 162, that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not to be mandatorily imposed. In other words, the levy of penalty under this provision is not automatic. This view has been reiterated in Union of India v. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills, (2009) 13 SCC 448 to say that for there to be a levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c), the conditions laid out therein have to be specifically fulfilled. Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, being in the nature of a penal provision, requires a strict construction. While considering the interpretation of this provision, this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. S…

The ACIT Circle-3(3), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Chandrakant G Patel, Ahmedabad

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 799/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.R

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH (Conducted Through Virtual Court) Before: Ms. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2014-15 Asst. Commissioner of Shri Chandrakant G. Income Tax, Circle-3(3), Patel, 401/402, Ratnam Ahmedabad Tower, Nr. Chief Vs Justice Bunglow, (Appellant) Bodakdev, Ahmedabad PAN: ACPPP9429B (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R. Respondent by: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.R. Date of hearing : 13-01-2022 Date of pronouncement : 08-02-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND 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…

Ge Capital Services India, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2412/DEL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Sunit Singh, CIT-DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37Section 38

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Through Video Conferencing I.T.A. No.2412/DEL/2011 Assessment Year: 2002-2003 GE Capital Services India, vs. ACIT, AIFACS Building, Circle-12(1), 1, Rafi Marg, New Delhi. New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAACG0239L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Sachit Jolly, Adv. & Shri Siddharth Joshi, Adv. Respondent by: Shri Sunit Singh, CIT-DR Date of hearing: 31 08 2020 Date of pronouncement: 31 08 2020 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The aforesaid appeal has bee…

Deepak Jatia, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 940/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri N. K. Pradhan, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 940 To 943/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2013-14) बिधम/ Deepak Jatia Dcit-Central Circle-1(1) Room No.903, 9Th Floor, Old Marathon Innova, „A‟ Wing, Vs. 7Th Floor, Off. G. K. Marg, Cgo Bldg, Annexure, M.K. Lower Parel, Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400020. 400013. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adxpj8701D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Narendra Singh Jang Pangi (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/01/2020 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)- 47, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed.

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala (AR)For Respondent: Shri Narendra Singh Jang Pangi

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 27Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…(2007) 7 SCC 162, that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not to be mandatorily imposed. In other words, the levy of penalty under this provision is not automatic. This view has been reiterated in Union of India v. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills, (2009) 13 SCC 448 to say that for there to be a levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c), the conditions laid out therein have to be specifically fulfilled. Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, being in the nature of a penal provision, requires a strict construction. 12. In this case, the A.O. in his order noted that the disclosure of higher income in the return filed by…

DCIT Cen Cir 8(2), Mumbai vs. Dorf Ketal Chemicals (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4682/MUM/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Mr. Nilesh Patel, ARFor Respondent: Mr.Rajesh Ojha, &

Section 132(1)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 251Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dy. CIT, CC-8(2), 6th floor, Room M/s Dorf-Ketal Chemical (I) No. 658, AayakarBhavan, M.K. Vs. Pvt. Ltd. Drof Ketal Towers, Road, Mumbai-400020. D’Monte Lane, Oriem, Malad (W), Mumbai-400064. PAN No. AAACD3819P Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Mr.Rajesh Ojha, & Assessee by : Mr. Nilesh Patel, AR Date of Hearing : 23/07/2019 Date of pronouncement: 18/10/2019 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM The captioned appeals filed…