Zoom Communications (P) Ltd. 327 ITR 51 (Del), Thakur v. Hari Prasad

167 ITR 603High Court1987#19527 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 276CSection 37Section 40(a)(ia)

Judgments citing Zoom Communications (P) Ltd. 327 ITR 51 (Del), Thakur v. Hari Prasad

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 13(1), NEW DELHI, I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI vs. LOGIC EASTERN (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, NOIDA, UTTAR PRADESH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 437/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17] Deputy Commissioner Of Logic Eastern (India) Private Income Tax, Circle-13(1), Limited, Room No.316A, 3Rd Floor, Vs C-56/39, 5Th Floor, Sector-62, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301 New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aaacl3539Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Amisha S. Gupta, Cit(Dr) Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 07.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07.07.2025 Order Per Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am

Section 143(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 37Section 40

…the scrutiny guidelines. This is to mean that the deterrence for filing inaccurate particulars in the return of income has to be served by imposition of penalty as envisaged in the Income- tax Act, 1961. 4.5 In the case of Thakur Vs. Hari Prasad vs CIT (1987) 167 ITR 603 (AP), it was held that the act of conduct of an assessee to conceal the income is an inferential fact to be drawn or deduced from totality of facts and circumstances. Evidence may be oral, documentary and circumstantial. Adduction of evidence during the proceedings to impose penalty is not in the strict sense of the term 'evidence' under the Indi…

JAIN PERIPHERALS P.LTD,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 7640/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Jain, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ravi Kant Choudhary, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…ead of actual long term capital gain, as held by the AO. Reliance is placed to the judgment by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd. 327 ITR 51 and also KP Madhusudan vs. CIT, 251 ITR 99 (SC), Thakur Hariprasad vs. CIT, 167 ITR 603 (AP). 5.6 Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of this case and following the above referred judgments and as discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, no interference is made with reference to the imposition of penalty on additions amounting to Rs.78,95,407/-, @ 100% of tax sought to be evaded.” 4. The Assessee being aggrieved is in a…

M/S. MOUNT EVEREST MINERAL WATER LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and assessee are partly

ITA 1498/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

…e assessee would not have offered the same for taxation. Therefore, relying on the following decisions, the AO imposed penalty on the basis of this addition : (i). CIT vs. Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd., 327 ITR 51 (Del.) (ii). Thakur V. Hari Prasad vs. CIT, 167 ITR 603 (AP) (iii). Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors, 166 Taxman 65(SC) (iv). K.P. Madhusudan vs. CIT, 251 ITR 99. (v). Mussadilal Ram Bharose’s case, 165 ITR 14 (SC). 5. As far as the disallowance u/s. 14A is concerned, it was noticed that the assessee earned an income of Rs.3,06,59,085/- from dividends and claimed exemption u/s. 10(33…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MODERN STAGE SERVICE, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 198/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2009-10 Acit, Vs Modern Stage Service, Ward-32(1), 35, Municipal Market, New Delhi. Lodhi Road, New Delhi. (Pan: Aaafm8966F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri P. Damkanunja, Sr. Dr Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Kumar Garg, Adv. Date Of Hearing: 05.01.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.03.2016 Order

For Appellant: Shri P. Damkanunja, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar Garg, Adv
Section 27Section 27(1)(c)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…ome and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of explanation 1 to sub-section (1) of the section 271(l)(c). Later on, the AO, placing reliance on the cases Zoom Communications (P) Ltd. 327 ITR 51 (Del), Thakur V. Hari Prasad (1987) 167 ITR 603 (AP), Dharmendra Textile Processors I.T.A. NO. 198/D/2014 Assessment Year 2009-10 (2008) 166 Taxman 65 (SC), K.P. Madhusudan 251 ITR 99 (SC) and Drapco Electric Corporation 122 ITR 341 (Guj), levied penalty u/s 271(l)(c) holding as under: "There is no force in this argument of the assessee. The deduction of tax at source by any deductor unde…

Zoom Communications (P) Ltd. 327 ITR 51 (Del), Thakur v. Hari Prasad (167 ITR 603) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax