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 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.

91

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 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 · return filed · furnishing particulars of income

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

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Acee Enterprises, New Delhi

ITA 6518/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.P.Jain & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Satendra Pal, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri M.P. Rastogi, Adv
Section 143Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. This court referred to another decision of this court in Union of India versus Dharamendra Textile Processors (2008) 13 SCC 369 as also, the decision in Union of India versus Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills (2009) 13 SCC 448 and reiterated in paragraph 13 that (page 13 of 317 ITR): “13. It goes without saying that for applicability of section 271 (1) (c), conditions stated therein must exist.” Ays 2005-06 to 2008-09 5.1 The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT versus Amit Jain (supra) upheld the order of the ITAT upholding the deletion of the penalty by the L…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Acee Enterprises, New Delhi

ITA 6517/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.P.Jain & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Satendra Pal, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri M.P. Rastogi, Adv
Section 143Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. This court referred to another decision of this court in Union of India versus Dharamendra Textile Processors (2008) 13 SCC 369 as also, the decision in Union of India versus Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills (2009) 13 SCC 448 and reiterated in paragraph 13 that (page 13 of 317 ITR): “13. It goes without saying that for applicability of section 271 (1) (c), conditions stated therein must exist.” Ays 2005-06 to 2008-09 5.1 The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT versus Amit Jain (supra) upheld the order of the ITAT upholding the deletion of the penalty by the L…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Acee Enterprises, New Delhi

ITA 6516/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri B.P.Jain & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Satendra Pal, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri M.P. Rastogi, Adv
Section 143Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. This court referred to another decision of this court in Union of India versus Dharamendra Textile Processors (2008) 13 SCC 369 as also, the decision in Union of India versus Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills (2009) 13 SCC 448 and reiterated in paragraph 13 that (page 13 of 317 ITR): “13. It goes without saying that for applicability of section 271 (1) (c), conditions stated therein must exist.” Ays 2005-06 to 2008-09 5.1 The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT versus Amit Jain (supra) upheld the order of the ITAT upholding the deletion of the penalty by the L…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Pvr Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the department is

ITA 1577/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2006-07 Dcit, Vs Ms/ Pvr Ltd., Circle 14(1), 61, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. New Delhi-110057 (Pan No. Aaacp4526D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr. Dr Respondent By : Shri V.K. Garg, Advocate

For Appellant: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Garg, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…culars of such income. This court referred to another decision of this court in Union of India versus Dharamendra Textile Processors (2008) 13 SCC 369 as also, 7 Assessment year 2006-07 the decision in Union of India versus Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills (2009) 13 SCC 448 and reiterated in paragraph 13 that (page 13 of 317 ITR): “13. It goes without saying that for applicability of section 271 (1) (c), conditions stated therein must exist.” 5.3 Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT (A) on this issue also and we uphold the same. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the departme…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Rama Vision Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the Department stands dismissed

ITA 2898/DEL/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiay: 2002-03 Dcit, Vs Rama Vision Ltd., Circle-15(1), Rama House 23, C.R. Building, Najafgarh Road Indl. Area, New Delhi. Shivaji Marg, New Delhi-110015 (Pan: Aaaca0221R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Department By: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. This court referred to another decision of this court in Union of India versus Dharamendra Textile Processors (2008) 13 SCC 369 as also, the decision in Union of India versus Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills (2009) 13 SCC 448 and reiterated in paragraph 13 that (page 13 of 317 ITR): “13. It goes without saying that for applicability of section 271 (1) (c), conditions stated therein must exist.” 5.4 Thus, in view of the facts of the case and the settled legal position, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deletin…

DCIT 19(3), Mumbai vs. Wadhwa Constructions, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4470/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2017AY 2008-09
Section 2Section 271(1)(c)

…her decision of this Court in Union of India vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors (2007) 212 CTR (SC) 432 : (2008) 13 SCC 369, as also, the decision in Union of India vs. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills (2009) 224 CTR (SC) 1 : (2009) 23 DTR (SC) 158 : (2009) 13 SCC 448 and reiterated in para 13 that: "13. It goes without saying that for applicability of s. 271 (l)(c), conditions stated therein must exist. " Therefore, it is obvious that it must be shown that the conditions under s. 271 (l)( c) must exist before the penalty is imposed. There can be no dispute that everything would depend upon the return filed bec…

Asst CIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Trends Holding & Consultancy P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the appellant is allowed

ITA 7379/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.7379/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बनाम/ Acit 2(3) M/S. Trends Holdings & R. No.552, 5Th Floor, Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, 11, Horizone View, 381, Mumbai – 400020 J. General Bhonsale Marg, Opp. Sachivalaya Gymkhana Mumbai - 400021 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaact3203D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Sambit Mishra
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई "ायपीठ “ई‘’ मुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.7379/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बनाम/ ACIT 2(3) M/s. Trends Holdings & R. No.552, 5th Floor, Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, 11, Horizone view, 381, Mumbai – 400020 J. General Bhonsale Marg, Opp. Sachivalaya Gymkhana Mumbai - 400021 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAACT3203D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) .. Revenue by: Shri Sambit Mishra Assessee by: Shri Vipul Joshi सुनवाईकीतारीख…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-19 vs. Shri Neeraj Jindal

ITA/464/2016HC Delhi09 Feb 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 260Section 263Section 264Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…ITA 463/2016 & CONNECTED CASES Page 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 07.12.2016 Pronounced on: 09.02.2017 + ITA 463/2016 & CM No. 26604/2016 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-19 ..... Appellant Versus SHRI NEERAJ JINDAL ..... Respondent + ITA 464/2016 & CM No. 26605/2016 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-19 ..... Appellant Versus SHRI NEERAJ JINDAL ..... Respondent + ITA 465/2016 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-19 ..... Appellant Versus SHRI…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-19 vs. Shri Ankur Aggarwal

ITA/465/2016HC Delhi09 Feb 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 260Section 263Section 264Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…ITA 463/2016 & CONNECTED CASES Page 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 07.12.2016 Pronounced on: 09.02.2017 + ITA 463/2016 & CM No. 26604/2016 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-19 ..... Appellant Versus SHRI NEERAJ JINDAL ..... Respondent + ITA 464/2016 & CM No. 26605/2016 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-19 ..... Appellant Versus SHRI NEERAJ JINDAL ..... Respondent + ITA 465/2016 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-19 ..... Appellant Versus SHRI…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-19 vs. Shri Ankur Aggarwal

ITA/466/2016HC Delhi09 Feb 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 260Section 263Section 264Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…ITA 463/2016 & CONNECTED CASES Page 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 07.12.2016 Pronounced on: 09.02.2017 + ITA 463/2016 & CM No. 26604/2016 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-19 ..... Appellant Versus SHRI NEERAJ JINDAL ..... Respondent + ITA 464/2016 & CM No. 26605/2016 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-19 ..... Appellant Versus SHRI NEERAJ JINDAL ..... Respondent + ITA 465/2016 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-19 ..... Appellant Versus SHRI…

Hemalatha, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1029/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1029/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Respondent: Mr.B. Sahadevan, JCIT
Section 24Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…the case law cited supra and we extract the relevant paragraphs of the judgment Hon’ble Jurisdiction High Court in Para No.10 as under: ‘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 con…

DCIT 8(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Vinamra Universal Traders P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 2019/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain Dy. C.I.T. – 8(3)(2) M/S. Vinamra Universal Room No. 615, 6Th Floor Traders Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Jai Centre, 1St Floor Mumbai 400020 34, P. D’Mello Rd., Opp. Red Gate Mumbai 400009 Pan – Aaccv5090J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. S. Padmaja & Shri S.K. PodarFor Respondent: Shri Vijaya Mehta & Shri Govind Javeri
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…o another decision of this Court in Union of India vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors (2007) 212 CTR (SC) 432 (2008) 13 SCC 369, as also, the decision in Union of India vs. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills (2009) 224 CTR (SC) ; (2009) 23 DTR (SC) 158 (2009) 13 SCC 448 and reiterated in para 13 that: It goes without saying that for applicability of s. 271(1)(c), conditions stated therein must exist," 8. Therefore, it is obvious that it must be shown that the conditions under s. 271(1)(c) must exist before the penalty is imposed. There can be no dispute that everything would depend upon the return filed because t…

Winsmile Infrastructure P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 2935/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Winsmile Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Acit-8(3), 255, Sharma Estate, S. V. Road, Mumbai. Vs. Jogeshwari (West), Mumbai. Pan: Aaacw3470D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dr. K.Shivaram & Rahul Hakani (Ar’S) Revenue By : Ms. Mahua Sarkar (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 29.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2016 O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Jm: 1. This Appeal U/S. 253 Of Income Tax Act (,Act’) Is Directed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-38, Mumbai Dated 21.02.2013 For Assessment Years (Ay) 2006-07. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee-Company Filed Its Return Of Income For Relevant Ay On 21.11.2009, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.95,530/-. Subsequently, The Action U/S 133A Of The Act Was Carried Out On 08.03.2010. & The Case Of Assessee Was Reopened. Notice U/S 148 Was Issued On 20.10.2010. In Response To The Notice, The Assessee-Company Filed Revised Return Of Income On 12.08.2011 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 62,38,023/-. In The Revised Return Of Income, The Assessee Included Rs. 45 Lakhs Which The Assessee Has Write Off In Its Books Of Account In Ay 2006-07, Thus The Penalty Proceeding Was Initiated Against The Assessee & The Assessing Officer (Ao) Levied The Penalty Of Rs. 20,67,563/- Being Minimum Penalty On M/S Winsmile Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Dr. K.Shivaram & RahulFor Respondent: Ms. Mahua Sarkar (DR)
Section 133ASection 148Section 253Section 274

…me 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: (Atul Mohan Bindal case [(2009) 9 SCC 589] , SCC p. 597, para 13) "13. It goes without saying that for applicability of Section 271 (1)( c), conditions stated therein must exist." 12. Therefore, it is obvious that it must be shown that the conditions under Section 271 (1)(c) must exist before the penalty is imposed…

ITO 3(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Cyrus Engineers P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4552/MUM/2014[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2016AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 4552/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1997-98)

For Appellant: Shri Bihanlal
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…ther decision of this Court in Union of India vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors (2007) 212 CTR (SC) 432: (2008) 13 SCC 369, as also, the decision in Union of India us. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills (2009) 224 CTR (SC) 1 : (2009) 23 DTR (SC) 158 : (2009) 13 SCC 448 and reiterated in para 13 that: 13. It goes without saying that for applicability of s. 271 (1)(c), conditions stated therein must exist. " 8. Therefore, it is obvious that it must be shown that the conditions under s. 271(1)(c) must exist before the penalty is imposed. There can be no dispute that everything would depend upon the return filed b…

ACIT, Sonepat vs. M/S. Atlas Cycles (Haryana) Ltd., Sonepat

In the result ITA Nos. 2484/Del/2011 and 4049/Del/2013 preferred by the department are dismissed

ITA 4049/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

…h income. This Court referred to another decision of this Court in Union of India v. Page 64 of 70 Atlas Cycles (Haryana) Sonepat 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(l)(c) must exist before the penalty is imposed. There can be no dispute that everything would depend upon the Retu…

ACIT, Sonepat vs. M/S Atlas Cycles (Haryana) Ltd., Sonepat

In the result ITA Nos. 2484/Del/2011 and 4049/Del/2013 preferred by the department are dismissed

ITA 4000/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

…h income. This Court referred to another decision of this Court in Union of India v. Page 64 of 70 Atlas Cycles (Haryana) Sonepat 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(l)(c) must exist before the penalty is imposed. There can be no dispute that everything would depend upon the Retu…

Rdc Concrete (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2918/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Kesang Y. Sherpa, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

…f great controversy. Finally, after referring to the decisions in the case of Dilip N. Shroff vs JCIT & Another, 291 ITR 519, Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 13 SCC 369, as well as Union of India vs Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills [2009] 13 SCC 448, the Hon'ble Supreme Court 8 in the case of CIT vs Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd, 322 ITR 158, has held as under: “A glance at the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, suggests that in order to be covered by it, there has to be concealment of the particulars of the income of the assessee. Secondly, the assessee must ha…

ACIT, Sonepat vs. M/S. Atlas Cycles (Haryana) Ltd., Sonepat

In the result ITA Nos. 2484/Del/2011 and 4049/Del/2013 preferred by the department are dismissed

ITA 2132/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

…h income. This Court referred to another decision of this Court in Union of India v. Page 64 of 70 Atlas Cycles (Haryana) Sonepat 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(l)(c) must exist before the penalty is imposed. There can be no dispute that everything would depend upon the Retu…

Addl. CIT, Sonepat vs. M/S Atlas Cycles Haryana Ltd., Sonepat

In the result ITA Nos. 2484/Del/2011 and 4049/Del/2013 preferred by the department are dismissed

ITA 3473/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

…h income. This Court referred to another decision of this Court in Union of India v. Page 64 of 70 Atlas Cycles (Haryana) Sonepat 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(l)(c) must exist before the penalty is imposed. There can be no dispute that everything would depend upon the Retu…

ACIT, Sonepat vs. M/S. Atlas Cycles Haryana Ltd., Sonepat

In the result ITA Nos. 2484/Del/2011 and 4049/Del/2013 preferred by the department are dismissed

ITA 3472/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

…h income. This Court referred to another decision of this Court in Union of India v. Page 64 of 70 Atlas Cycles (Haryana) Sonepat 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(l)(c) must exist before the penalty is imposed. There can be no dispute that everything would depend upon the Retu…