How many judgments cite CIT v. Manu Engg?

505 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Manu Engg (122 ITR 306), spanning 2012 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Manu Engg come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 271(1)(c), Section 274, Section 143(3), Section 250, Section 68, Section 132.

CIT v. Manu Engg

122 ITR 306High Court1980#133 most cited

What is CIT v. Manu Engg authority for?

When levying a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), the Assessing Officer must clearly specify whether it is for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. An ambiguous notice or order using "and/or" for these limbs, or a standard proforma without striking irrelevant clauses, indicates non-application of mind and renders the penalty unsustainable.

505

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Manu Engg · Manu Engineering · Section 271(1)(c) · Section 274 · levy of penalty · penalty notice · concealment of income · furnishing inaccurate particulars of income · ambiguous penalty order · non-application of mind · penalty unsustainable

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274 Section 143(3)Section 250 Section 68 Section 132 Section 153A Section 154

Issues it is cited on

section 271(l)section 271(l)(c)furnishing inaccurate particulars of income penalty under section 271(1)(c)furnishing inaccurate particulars section 274 non-application of mind concealment of income penalty u/s 271(1)(c)levy of penalty section 271(1)section 271

Judgments citing CIT v. Manu Engg

Arun Ravindranath Sawhney, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 7192/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 7192/Mum/2016 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2007-08) Arun Ravindranath Sawhney The Dy. Commissioner Of 502, Daisylea Apartment, 17- Income Tax, Central Circle A Mount Pleasant Road, 3(4), Old Acit Central Vs. Mumbai-400 006 Circle 24& 26 Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aafps4688F

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: S/shri Anadi Varma

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…urt in the case of Ashok Pai reported in [2007] 292 ITR 11 (SC) at page 33 19 has held that concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income carry different connotations. The Gujarat High Court in the case of Manu Engineering reported in 122 ITR 306 and the Delhi High Court in the case of Virgo Marketing P. Ltd., reported in 171 Taxman 156, has held that levy of penalty has to be clear as to the limb for which it is levied and the position being unclear penalty is not sustainable. Therefore, when the Assessing Officer proposes to invoke the first limb being concealment, then the notice has t…

Roopchand Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 490/MUM/2017[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2019AY 2000-01

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri G. Manjunatha, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.490 & 491/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2000-01 & 2001-02) In The Matter Of;

For Appellant: Sh. N. M. Porwal, ARFor Respondent: Sh. D. G. Pansari, DR

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

…ars. The Apex Court in the case of Ashok Pai reported in 292 ITR 11 at page 19 has held that concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income carry different connotations, The Gujarat High Court in the case of MANU ENGINEERING reported in 122 ITR 306 and the Delhi High Court in the case of VIRGO MARKETING reported in 171 Taxman 156, has held that levy of penalty has to be clear as to the limb for which it is levied and the position being unclear penalty is not sustainable. Thom, when the Assessing Officer proposes to invoke the first limb being concealment, then the notice has to be appropria…

M/S. Kanishka Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 8, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2634/KOL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 May 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2006-07

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

…concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income carry different connotations. The Gujarat High Court in the case of MANU ENGINEERING ITA No.2634/Kol/2018 A.Y. 2006-07 M/s Kanishka Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Cri-8, Kol. Page 4 reported in 122 ITR 306 and the Delhi High Court in the case of VIRGO MARKETING reported in 171 Taxman 156, has held that levy of penalty has to be clear as to the limb for which it is levied and the position being unclear penalty is not sustainable. Therefore, when the Assessing Officer proposes to invoke the first limb being concealment, then the notice has to be appr…

Jagdish Kumar Arora, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 44, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2012/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2014-15

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

…held that concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income carry different connotations. The Gujarat High Court in the case of MANU ENGINEERING ITA No.2012/Kol/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 Jagdish Kr. Arora Vs. aCIT, Cri-44 Kol. Page 4 reported in 122 ITR 306 and the Delhi High Court in the case of VIRGO MARKETING reported in 171 Taxman 156, has held that levy of penalty has to be clear as to the limb for which it is levied and the position being unclear penalty is not sustainable. Therefore, when the Assessing Officer proposes to invoke the first limb being concealment, then the notice has to be appr…

Indian Marble Traders, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 29(4), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2645/KOL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2007-08

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

…ars. The Apex Court in the case of Ashok Pai reported in 292 ITR 11 at page 19 has held that concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income carry different connotations. The Gujarat High Court in the case of MANU ENGINEERING reported in 122 ITR 306 and the Delhi High Court in the case of VIRGO MARKETING reported in 171 Taxman 156, has held that levy of penalty has to be clear as to the limb for which it is levied and the position being unclear penalty is not sustainable. Therefore, when the Assessing Officer proposes to invoke the first limb being concealment, then the notice has to be appr…

Swapan Kumar Basu, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 53(4), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1943/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13

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

…s held that concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income carry different ITA No.1943/Kol/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 Swapan Kr. Basu Vs. ITO Wd-53(4), Kol. Page 4 connotations. The Gujarat High Court in the case of MANU ENGINEERING reported in 122 ITR 306 and the Delhi High Court in the case of VIRGO MARKETING reported in 171 Taxman 156, has held that levy of penalty has to be clear as to the limb for which it is levied and the position being unclear penalty is not sustainable. Therefore, when the Assessing Officer proposes to invoke the first limb being concealment, then the notice has to be appr…

Shri V Babukumar, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(2), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 is allowed as indicated above

ITA 1410/BANG/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2006-07 Shri. V. Babukumar, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of No.3667, 8Th Cross, Income Tax, 13Th E Main, Indiranagar, Circle – 7(2), Bangalore – 560 038. Bengaluru. Pan : Aebpb 3981 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 11.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2019

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2006-07 Shri. V. Babukumar, Vs. Deputy Commissioner of No.3667, 8th Cross, Income Tax, 13th E Main, Indiranagar, Circle – 7(2), Bangalore – 560 038. Bengaluru. PAN : AEBPB 3981 N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT Date of hearing : 11.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 30.04.2019 O R D E R Per Shri Jason P Boaz, A.M. : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of…

Dilipbhai A. Patel, Gandhinagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gandhinagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3021/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Appellant: Shri D. K. Parikh, A.R

Section 271(1)(c)

…so. For such a view, we may usefully refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of New Sorathia Engineering Co. (supra) as well as another decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manu Engineering Works (1980) 122 ITR 306 (Guj). Thus, in totality, penal action under s.271(1)(c) of the Act is not sustainable in law.” 6. In parity with the view taken as quoted above, we find force in the plea of the assessee that where the penalty has been imposed on a ground different from the ground for which the penalty was originally initiated, the imposition of penalty is viti…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Gellette Diversified Operations Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, in view of the aforesaid finding, the Revenue’s appeal is treated as dismissed and assessee’s is appeal as allowed

ITA 4585/DEL/2015[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Smt. Parmita Bishwas, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Dinodiya, Adv

Section 271(1)(c)Section 43B

…reme Court in the case of VeerbhadrappaSangappa & Co. (TS- 381-SC-216), wherein Revenue’s SLP has been dismissed against the Karanataka High Court judgment. He also referred to judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Manu Engineering reported in 122 ITR 306 (Guj.) and Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Virgo Marketing reported in 171 Taxman 156 (Del). He also relied upon various Tribunal decisions of the Co-ordinate Benches on similar issue following the aforesaid judgments. 7. On the other hand, learned Department Representative, submitted that here in this case, Assessing Officer in the asse…

M/S. Gillette Diversified Operations Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, in view of the aforesaid finding, the Revenue’s appeal is treated as dismissed and assessee’s is appeal as allowed

ITA 3238/DEL/2015[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Smt. Parmita Bishwas, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Dinodiya, Adv

Section 271(1)(c)Section 43B

M/S. Sparsh Agro - Pro Pvt. Ltd., Raniganj vs. ACIT, Circle - 3, Asansol

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1419/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2010-11

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

…concealment of ITA No.1419/Kol/2018 A.Y. 2010-11 M/s Sparsh Agro Pro Pvt.Ltd. vs. ACIT, Cir-3, Asl. Page 4 income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income carry different connotations. The Gujarat High Court in the case of MANU ENGINEERING reported in 122 ITR 306 and the Delhi High Court in the case of VIRGO MARKETING reported in 171 Taxman 156, has held that levy of penalty has to be clear as to the limb for which it is levied and the position being unclear penalty is not sustainable. Therefore, when the Assessing Officer proposes to invoke the first limb being concealment, then the notice has to be appr…

Shri V Rajesh Kumar, Chitradurga vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Chitradurga

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is allowed as indicated above

ITA 1422/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year : 2011-12 Shri. V. Rajesh Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, M/S. Sha Phoolchand Vijayraj, Ward – 1, Head Post Office Road, Chitradurga. Chitradurga. Pan : Abopr 2336 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sandeep C, Ca Revenue By : Shri. L. V. Bhaskar Reddy, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 04.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.04.2019

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep C, CAFor Respondent: Shri. L. V. Bhaskar Reddy, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year : 2011-12 Shri. V. Rajesh Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, M/s. Sha Phoolchand Vijayraj, Ward – 1, Head Post Office Road, Chitradurga. Chitradurga. PAN : ABOPR 2336 M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Sandeep C, CA Revenue by : Shri. L. V. Bhaskar Reddy, Addl. CIT Date of hearing : 04.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 24.04.2019 O R D E R Per Shri Jason P Boaz, A.M. : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A), Davangere, dated…

Smt B Sumathy, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-1(2)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06 is allowed as indicated above

ITA 1777/BANG/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2005-06 Smt. B. Sumathy, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, #T-401, Poorva Park, Ward – 1(2), Now Jeevana Halli Main Road, Ito, Ward – 1[2][2], Cox Town, Bangalore-560 005. Bangalore. Pan : Aseps 7079 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. T. Chandrasekhar, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.04.2019

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. T. Chandrasekhar, Addl. CIT

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2005-06 Smt. B. Sumathy, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, #T-401, Poorva Park, Ward – 1(2), now Jeevana Halli Main Road, ITO, Ward – 1[2][2], Cox Town, Bangalore-560 005. Bangalore. PAN : ASEPS 7079 K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. T. Chandrasekhar, Addl. CIT Date of hearing : 27.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 16.04.2019 O R D E R Per Shri Jason P Boaz, A.M. : This appeal by the assessee is directed a…

Smt. Suchitra S. Dhanani, Indore vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Vadodara

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 293/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

For Appellant: Shri Divyakant Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Somugyan Pal, Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…so. For such a view, we may usefully refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of New Sorathia Engineering Co. (supra) as well as another decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manu Engineering Works (1980) 122 ITR 306 (Guj). Thus, in totality, penal action under s.271(1)(c) of the Act is not sustainable in law.” 12. Respectfully following the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court order as well as in parity without own Bench order, we delete the penalty imposed and confirmed by the revenue. 13. In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in…

M/S. Ochoa Laboratories Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 4967/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Sh. Manu Monga, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…urt in the case of T Ashok Poi v. CIT [2007] 292 ITR 11 /161 Taxman 340 at page 19 has held that concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income carry different connotations. The Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Manu Engg. [1980] 122 ITR 306 and the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Virgo Marketing (P) Ltd. [2008] 171 Taxman 156, has held that levy of penalty has to be clear as to the limb for which it is levied and the position being unclear penalty is not sustainable. Therefore, when the Assessing Officer proposes to invoke the first limb being concealment, then the notice has…

Shri Arun Kumar Gupta, West Singhbhum vs. ACIT Central Circle, Jamshedpur

ITA 334/RAN/2017[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 Apr 2019

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

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

…ncealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income carry different ITA No.332-334/Rana/2017 A.Ys. 08-09, 12-13 to 13-14 Sh Arun Kr. Gupta Vs. ACIT CC-JSD Page 4 connotations. The Gujarat High Court in the case of MANU ENGINEERING reported in 122 ITR 306 and the Delhi High Court in the case of VIRGO MARKETING reported in 171 Taxman 156, has held that levy of penalty has to be clear as to the limb for which it is levied and the position being unclear penalty is not sustainable. Therefore, when the Assessing Officer proposes to invoke the first limb being concealment, then the notice has to be appr…

Shri Arun Kumar Gupta, West Singhbhum vs. ACIT Central Circle, Jamshedpur

ITA 333/RAN/2017[12-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 Apr 2019

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

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

Jhantu Ghosh, Burdwan vs. I.T.O., Ward-1(4), Burdwan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 396/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ars. The Apex Court in the case of Ashok Pai reported in 292 ITR 11 at page 19 has held that concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income carry different connotations. The Gujarat High Court in the case of MANU ENGINEERING reported in 122 ITR 306 and the Delhi High Court in the case of VIRGO MARKETING reported in 171 Taxman 156, has held that levy of penalty has to be clear as to the limb for which it is levied and the position being unclear penalty is not sustainable. Therefore, when the Assessing Officer proposes to invoke the first limb being concealment, then the notice has to be appr…

Shah Khadri Syed Safffiulla Sakhaff, Channapatna vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15 is allowed as indicated above

ITA 2145/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri. Shah Khadri Syed Saffiulla Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Sakhaff, Income Tax, Prop: M/S. Saffi Traders, Circle – 3(2)(1), No.299, Syedwadi, Bengaluru. Channapatna – 571 501. Pan : Alrps 4018 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. H. N. Khincha, Ca Revenue By : Shri. L. V. Bhaskar Reddy, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 02.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2019

For Appellant: Shri. H. N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. L. V. Bhaskar Reddy, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year : 2014-15 Shri. Shah Khadri Syed Saffiulla Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Sakhaff, Income Tax, Prop: M/s. Saffi Traders, Circle – 3(2)(1), No.299, Syedwadi, Bengaluru. Channapatna – 571 501. PAN : ALRPS 4018 A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. H. N. Khincha, CA Revenue by : Shri. L. V. Bhaskar Reddy, Addl. CIT Date of hearing : 02.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 05.04.2019 O R D E R Per Shri Jason P Boaz, A.M. : This appeal by the assessee is dir…

The Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Bagalkot vs. M/S Rytara Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamitha, Bagalkot

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed, while the CO is allowed

ITA 1277/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Smt. Vani H., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40

…ars. The Apex Court in the case of Ashok Pai reported in 292 ITR 11 at page 19 has held that concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income carry different connotations. The Gujarat High Court in the case of MANU ENGINEERING reported in 122 ITR 306 and the Delhi High Court in the case of VIRGO MARKETING reported in 171 Taxman 156, has held that levy of penalty has to be clear as to the limb for which it is levied and the position being unclear penalty is not sustainable. Therefore, when the Assessing Officer proposes to invoke the first limb being concealment, then the notice has to be appr…