SWABHIMAN VIJ TANTRIK NAGARI SEVA SAHAKARI SANSTHA,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -4, AMRAVATI, AMRAVATI

ITA 446/NAG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur04 August 20263 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition/disallowance, which formed the basis for the penalty, had been deleted by a previous order of the Tribunal, the penalty itself had no basis and was liable to be deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was based on a disallowance of a deduction under Section 80P. The penalty amount was Rs. 2,31,812.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) can sustain when the underlying addition/disallowance has been deleted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 80P,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC BENCH,

Before: Dr. MANISH BORAD

For Appellant: CA (Through Virtual)
For Respondent: Shri Shiv Shankar Yadav, DR (Virtual)
Hearing: 04.08.2026Pronounced: 07.08.2026

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, AM :

This appeal at the instance of assessee is directed against the order passed by Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 31.10.2025 which is arising out of the Assessment Order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act dated 28.02.2025. 2

2.

Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

1.

That considering the facts of the case, the lower authorities erred in levying penalty of Rs 2,31,812/- u/s 271(1)(c) on account of disallowance of bonafide claim of deduction u/s 80P. The addition made by AO and confirmed by

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →