← All Phrases

“Section 27(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 27Section 27(1)44 judgments

LALJIBHAI PARSHOTTAMBHAI GAUDANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHEMDABAD

ITA 1238/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year:2012-13

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 27(1)(c)Section 50CSection 50C(5)Section 53A

further completed assessment under section 143 of the Act, without refuting to facts brought on record by the AO. 5. Penalty proceedings under Section 27(1)(c) and 271(1)-(b) of the Act: All the above grounds of appeal are independent from one other and without prejudice

PANKAJ CHHATWAL,DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-49(1), DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

ITA 4142/DEL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 23Section 23(1)(c)Section 250Section 27(1)

which the assessee has been held to be the deemed owner of the property as the property belongs to his wife under Section 27(1) of the Act in the absence of any corroborative evidence as observed by the authorities below. 5. During the assessment proceedings the assessee was issued ... absence of source disclosed on behalf of the assessee, the assessee finally been treated owner of the said property as per provisions of Section 27(1) of the Act and total income from the house property was added in the hands of the assessee disallowing the claim of interest

RUPESH TAMBI,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

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

ITA 1470/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S. R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 1Section 132Section 133ASection 271Section 271A

defaulter and\nthat a deterrent must be imposed to discourage the repetition of the offence. In the case\nof proceeding under Section 27(1)(a), however, it seems that the intention of the\nlegislature is to emphasise the fact of loss of revenue and to provide a remedy for such

DCIT 3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4634/MUM/2023[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2004-05

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

For Respondent: Shri Farrokh V. Irani, Adv. &
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 44

penalty for the reason that the Tribunal in assessee's own case has upheld the orders of the lower authorities. Penalty under section 27(1)(c) is levied where the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The assessee in the present

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NOIDA vs. AJAY GOEL, HARYANA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1459/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Kanchan Kaushal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 54F

share of the assessee has already\nbeen transferred in the name of his daughter. Thus even if, as per the provision\nof section 27(1) of the Act, the assessee is considered to be a deemed owner of\nthe Goa flat, but even then, assessee would still being

JOKHIRAM DURGADUTT,RANCHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 400/RAN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayjokhiram Durgadutt, D.C.I.T., 9, J.D. Corporate, Behind J.D. High Circle-1, Vs. Street, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 Ranchi. (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aabfj 2200 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

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

consultant or Chartered Accountant - Whether, on facts, assessee was not guilty of any violation resulting in imposition of penalty under section 27(1)(c) and, therefore, impugned penalty imposed upon assessee was to be set aside - Held, yes." In view of the above kindly delete the penalty

ASCOT REALTY PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1-, THANE

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

ITA 4644/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh MarwahaFor Respondent: Shri. Ram Krishn Kedia (SR. DR.)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

concealment of particulars of income, whereas penalty was levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which are two different limbs as per Section 27(1)(c) of the Act. Further, the ld. AR contended that the show cause notice dated 18.12.2018 was also issued for concealment of income, whereas penalty

ASCOT REALTY PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1 , THANE

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

ITA 4643/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh MarwahaFor Respondent: Shri. Ram Krishn Kedia (SR. DR.)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

concealment of particulars of income, whereas penalty was levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which are two different limbs as per Section 27(1)(c) of the Act. Further, the ld. AR contended that the show cause notice dated 18.12.2018 was also issued for concealment of income, whereas penalty

RINA S. MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CC-4(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue\nis dismissed

ITA 704/MUM/2023[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2025AY 1993-94
Section 234ASection 249(4)Section 250

Similarly, under Section 27 of the securities Contracts (Regulation) Act,\n1956 (hereinafter referred to the Security Contract Act\") the relevant\nprovision is section 27(1), which reads as under :-\n27(1) It shall be lawful for the holder of any security whose name\nappears on the books of the company ... also it is the registered shareholder alone who would be entitled\nto receive the dividend subject to the limitation as set out under section 27 (1)\nand 27 (2).\n6. Learned Counsel for the assessee has also drawn attention to the\nAccounting Standard (AS) 9 to contend that once there

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(1), MUMBAI vs. SMT REENA SUDHIR MEHTA , MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1177/MUM/2023[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2025AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel (Spl. Counsel for the department), Sr. DR
Section 144Section 234ASection 249(4)Section 250

Similarly, under Section 27 of the securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to the Security Contract Act") the relevant provision is section 27(1), which reads as under :- 27(1) It shall be lawful for the holder of any security whose name appears on the books of the company ... also it is the registered shareholder alone who would be entitled to receive the dividend subject to the limitation as set out under section 27 (1) and 27 (2). 6. Learned Counsel for the assessee has also drawn attention to the Accounting Standard (AS) 9 to contend that once there

GROWMORE LEASING & INVESTMENT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-4(1) (ERSTWHILE DCIT-31, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 660/MUM/2023[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2025AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Dr. P. Daniel, Spl. Counsel
Section 144

also has been received by some other person. There is also nothing brought on record to indicate that the assessee in terms of section 27(1) of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act has lodged the shares for transfer. Considering these circumstances, in our opinion, we find no reason to interfere

GROWMORE LEASING AND INVESTMENTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-4(1) (ERSTWHILE DCIT-31, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 452/MUM/2023[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2025AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Dr. P. Daniel, Spl. Counsel
Section 144

also has been received by some other person. There is also nothing brought on record to indicate that the assessee in terms of section 27(1) of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act has lodged the shares for transfer. Considering these circumstances, in our opinion, we find no reason to interfere

DHIRENDRA MOHANLAL GUPTA,SANTACRUZ EAST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 22(1)(1), MUMBAI, LALBAUG

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6505/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 144Section 27(1)(c)Section 271(1)(C)Section 68

erred in not adjudicating the issue of penalty of Rs. 89,28,026/- made under section 27(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” P a g e | 3 ITA Nos. 6502, 6503, 6504 & 6505/Mum/2024 A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Dhirendra Mohanlal Gupta 3. Since facts in all four

DHIRENDRA MOHANLAL GUPTA,SANTACRUZ EAST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 22(1)(1), MUMBAI, LALBAUG

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6504/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 144Section 27(1)(c)Section 271(1)(C)Section 68

erred in not adjudicating the issue of penalty of Rs. 89,28,026/- made under section 27(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” P a g e | 3 ITA Nos. 6502, 6503, 6504 & 6505/Mum/2024 A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Dhirendra Mohanlal Gupta 3. Since facts in all four

DHIRENDRA MOHANLAL GUPTA,SANTACRUZ EAST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 22(1)(1), MUMBAI, LALBAUG

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6503/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 144Section 27(1)(c)Section 271(1)(C)Section 68

erred in not adjudicating the issue of penalty of Rs. 89,28,026/- made under section 27(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” P a g e | 3 ITA Nos. 6502, 6503, 6504 & 6505/Mum/2024 A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Dhirendra Mohanlal Gupta 3. Since facts in all four

DHIRENDRA MOHANLAL GUPTA,SANTACRUZ EAST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 22(1)(1), MUMBAI, LALBAUG

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6502/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 144Section 27(1)(c)Section 271(1)(C)Section 68

erred in not adjudicating the issue of penalty of Rs. 89,28,026/- made under section 27(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” P a g e | 3 ITA Nos. 6502, 6503, 6504 & 6505/Mum/2024 A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Dhirendra Mohanlal Gupta 3. Since facts in all four

MUKESH KUMAR,SONIPAT vs. ITO, SONIPAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

ITA 4142/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 23Section 23(1)(c)Section 250Section 27(1)

which the assessee has been held to be the deemed owner of the property as the property belongs to his wife under Section 27(1) of the Act in the absence of any corroborative evidence as observed by the authorities below. 5. During the assessment proceedings the assessee was issued ... absence of source disclosed on behalf of the assessee, the assessee finally been treated owner of the said property as per provisions of Section 27(1) of the Act and total income from the house property was added in the hands of the assessee disallowing the claim of interest

MR. CHITTARANJAN TRIMBAK GAIKWAD,PUNE vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 759/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri B.C. MalakarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

return income filed under section 153A is accepted by the Assessing Officer, there will be no concealment of income and, consequently, penalty under section 27(1) can be imposed. Similar view was also taken in the case of Mansukhbhai R. Sorathia & Ors. (supra). vii. Alok Bhandari & Anr. Vs. ACIT

JEETENDRA CHANDRAKANT NAYAK,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOM TAX(OSD), NAGPUR

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

ITA 368/NAG/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jun 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri M.G.Moryani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Singhai, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 54F

Rs.83,85,792/- has to be charged to tax which is added to the returned income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings under section 27(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for concealment of income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income are hereby initiated.” 4. The appellant filed

MALLA APPALARAJU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 253/VIZ/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 27(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69

done on estimation basis. However, the total addition made of Rs. 39,58,613/- towards unexplained investment U/s. 69 attracts the provisions of section 27(1)(c) as the same amount to ‘concealment of income’ because the assessee was unable to explain the sources for the same with any material

Showing 1–20 of 44 · Page 1 of 3