“Section 27(1)(c)”

Section References (mined)Section 27Section 27(1)(c)33 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 27(1)(c) is CIT v. Chaphalkar Bro (88 Taxmann.com 178), cited in 95 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 27(1)(c)

CIT v. Chaphalkar Bro

88 Taxmann.com 178 · 2017 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Subsidies granted under a Government Industrial Scheme to accelerate industrial development and generate employment are capital in nature, determined by the 'purpose test', regardless of the timing, source, or form of the subsidy.

Sanjay Sawhney v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax

116 Taxmann.com 701 · 2020 · High Court

citing judgments

Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules allows a respondent to defend a favourable order of the CIT(A) by raising grounds decided against them, even without filing an appeal or cross-objection. Such issues can be raised orally and for the first time before the Tribunal.

Rajesh Kumar v. CIT

27 SCC 181 · 2007 · Reported

citing judgments

Where civil or evil consequences ensue from the action of a statutory authority, the principles of natural justice must be followed, even if not explicitly stated in the statute. Failure to comply with these principles may render a statute ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution.

CIT v. Hotline International Pvt. Ltd.

296 ITR 333 · 2008 · High Court

citing judgments

Section 282 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 specifies the modes for serving notices, including by post or summons under the Code of Civil Procedure. A valid service of notice is essential for assessment or reassessment proceedings, and its absence renders such proceedings bad in law.

(4) In Chandra Prakash Bubna v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 27(3), Kolkata (ITAT Kolkata Bench)

64 Taxmann.com 155 · 2015 · Reported

citing judgments

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is liable to be deleted if the Assessing Officer levies it without specifying any particular charge of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

CIT v. Impel Forge and Allied

326 ITR 27 · 2010 · High Court

citing judgments

An assessee is entitled to claim deductions under Section 80IC (and other similar sections like 80IB) for profits derived from job work charges, as carrying out such work is considered part of the manufacturing process of an industrial undertaking.

C.C.AIavi Haji v. Palapatty Muhammed

6 SCC 555 · 2007 · Reported

citing judgments

When a notice is sent by registered post to the correct address, it is deemed to have been served at the time it would ordinarily be delivered, unless the contrary is proven by the addressee. This principle applies even if the notice is returned unserved.

CIT v. Kaushalya (Smt

426 ITR 478 · 2020 · High Court

citing judgments

Penalty proceedings can be vitiated if the notice issued under section 274 contains inapplicable portions, requiring deletion to ensure clarity and fairness, as distinguished from judgments like CIT v. Kaushalya (Smt).

Judgments citing Section 27(1)(c)

Rupmata Zilla Nagari Sahakari Pathsanstha Ltd., Osmanabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Latur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 256/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.256/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Rupmata Zilla Nagari Sahakari Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Latur. Pathsanstha Ltd., Samarth Nagar, Osmanabad, Osmanabad- 413501. Pan : Aajfr0354D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pratik Sandbhor Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 27.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.12.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. C1T(A) Erred In Not Condoning The Delay In Filing Of Appeal In As Much As The Appellant Received The Impugned Order Dated 29/03/2022 Only On 23/08/2022. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Assessing Officer Erred In Assessing The Total Income At Rs.3,79,38,930/-

For Appellant: Shri Pratik SandbhorFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY

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

Sri Sanat Kumar Das, Kolkata vs. DCIT, (I.T.), Cir. 2(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 202/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 27(1)(c)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 90Section 90(2)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'ए' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री राजपाल

Paras Equipments & Engineering Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1774/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Deepti Chandola, Sr. DR

Section 27(1)(c)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Kul Bharat, Judicial Member Dr. B. R

Dhanraj Distributors (P) Ltd., Indore vs. DCIT (1), Indore

ITA 950/IND/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Jun 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyani

Section 27(1)(c)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40A(2)Section 68

आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण,इंदौर"यायपीठ,इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO

The ITO 2 (2), Bhopal vs. Shri Munshiram Balkishan Verma, Bhopal

ITA 9/IND/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court)

Section 147Section 148Section 27(1)(c)Section 54B

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर "ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL

The ITO 2 (2), Bhopal vs. Shri Munshiram Balkishan Verma, Bhopal

ITA 8/IND/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court)

Section 147Section 148Section 27(1)(c)Section 54B

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर "ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL

Keystone Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 5, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2558/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

Section 14ASection 244ASection 27(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI BEFORE MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH

Htc India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2247/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 27(1)(c)Section 92C

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘I-1’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

CIT vs. Narinder Kr Budhiraja

ITA - 1095 / 2011HC Delhi01 Jul 2014

For Appellant: Mr Roy ChaudhuriFor Respondent: Dr Rakesh Gupta, Mr Rishabh Kapoor, Mr Sohil

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69B

framed by this Court: “Whether did the ITAT fall into error in setting aside the penalty imposed upon the assessee under Section 27(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.” 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the respondent. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent supported the decision

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. M/S Usha International Ltd

ITA - 1696 / 2006HC Delhi05 Nov 2012

Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 260ASection 27(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35C

short): “Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in deleting the penalty imposed on the Assessee under Section 27(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?” 2. The assessee, which is the appellant, is a public limited company. It filed a return of income

Psb Industries India Pvt Ltd

Appeal is dismissed

ITA - 792 / 2011HC Delhi11 Jul 2011

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 269USection 27(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee was liable for penalty of `17,82,078/- under Section 27(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (2) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in confirming imposition of penalty under Section

Astra Housing & Investment P.Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi New Delhi

ITA - 622 / 2008HC Delhi03 Jun 2011

Section 158Section 158BSection 260ASection 271(1)(c)

absence of such satisfaction, the penalty proceedings were bad. 7. The CIT(A) recorded the finding that satisfaction, as required in Section 27(1)(c), is not envisaged in Section 158BFA(2). While recording findings against the assessee in this regard, the CIT(A), on merits held that the Assessing ... Revenue and that satisfaction was required to be recorded by the Assessing Officer in this regard before proceedings to levy any penalty under Section 27(1)(c). Learned counsel relied upon various judgments in support of his submissions. A reference can be made to those, viz., Dilip N. Shroff