How many judgments cite CIT v. Shri Samson Perinchery?

417 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Shri Samson Perinchery (392 ITR 4), spanning 2017 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Shri Samson Perinchery come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 271(1)(c), Section 274, Section 143(3), Section 115JC, Section 142(1), Section 115JB.

CIT v. Shri Samson Perinchery

392 ITR 4High Court2017#175 most cited

What is CIT v. Shri Samson Perinchery authority for?

A penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act is unsustainable if it is initiated on one limb (e.g., concealment of income) but ultimately levied on the other limb (e.g., furnishing inaccurate particulars). This also applies if the initial penalty notice is vague or ambiguous regarding the specific charge.

417

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Samson Perinchery · 392 ITR 4 · Section 271(1)(c) · Section 274 · penalty · concealment of income · furnishing inaccurate particulars · penalty initiated on one limb · penalty levied on other limb · vague penalty notice · penalty unsustainable · non-application of mind

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274 Section 143(3)Section 115JC Section 142(1)Section 115JB Section 143 Section 14A

Issues it is cited on

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

Judgments citing CIT v. Shri Samson Perinchery

Tahir Khan, Jhansi vs. Income Tax Officer-2(3)(1), Jhansi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 468/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292BSection 56(2)(vii)

…ii). PCIT vs. Times Global Broadcasting Ltd. 2025(3) TMI 229 (Bombay High Court – order dated 27.02.2025 (ix). Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. ACIT [2021] 434 ITR 1 (Bombay H.C.) (Full Bench - order dated 11.03.2021). (x). CIT vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bombay HC – order dated 05.01.2017). 7. Learned DR for revenue has supported the orders of the authorities below. 8. We have gone through the penalty notice dated 24.11.2016 issued u/s. 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Act, as placed at page 16 of the paper book. On perusal of the said notice, it is evident that the assessee was called u…

Klin Industries, Sandha Khamidana, Junagadh vs. The ACIT, Circle, Junagadh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 857/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot15 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Gopi Nath Chaubey, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 273BSection 80J

…othered to strike down the relevant portion of the printed form in order to indicate whether the satisfaction is based upon the concealment of particulars or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. He relies on CIT v. Samson Perinchery [2017] 88 taxmann.com 413/392 ITR 4 (Bom.) and CIT vs. New Era Sova Mine [2019] SCC online Bom.1032 to submit that on the basis of such a defective notice, award of penalty can never be sustained. 5. We have carefully examined the record as well as duly considered the rival contentions. Both the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the ITAT have categorically held that in the present ca…

Janseva Majoor Sahakari Sanshtha Maryadit, Mahim vs. ITO 22(1)(6), Lower Parel, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5752/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. Piyush ChhachedFor Respondent: 12/11/2025

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

…income and in this regard the Ld. A.R. relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. SSA’S Emerald Meadows (2016) 242 Taxman 180 (SC) and also the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bombay). 5. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. strongly supporting the order of the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that it is a clear case of deliberate attempt to conceal particulars of income which is evident from the fact gathered by the AO during the course of assessment proceeding that the assessee neither filed its regular return of income under section…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Nevales Networks Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4827/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-14(1)(1), M/S. Nevales Networks Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 432, 4Th Floor, The Capital, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Level 7, Plot-C70, M.K.Road, G Block, Mumbai-400020. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan : Aadcn1748A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Piyush Chhajed Revenue By : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui

For Appellant: Shri Piyush ChhajedFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “B” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2013-14 DCIT, Circle-14(1)(1), M/s. Nevales Networks Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 432, 4th Floor, The Capital, Aayakar Bhavan, vs. Level 7, Plot-C70, M.K.Road, G Block, Mumbai-400020. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. PAN : AADCN1748A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Piyush Chhajed Revenue by : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui Date of Hearing : 06-11-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 17-11-2025 O R D E R PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV,…

Dialnet Communications Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 7(3), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7885/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year: 2015-16 Dial Net Communications Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, C-31, Ground Floor, Greater Ward-7(3), New Delhi. Kailash, Part-I, Delhi-110048. Pan: Aabcd 5472 D Appellant Respondent

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

…ITA No. 7885/Del/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year: 2015-16 Dial net Communications Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, C-31, Ground Floor, Greater Ward-7(3), New Delhi. Kailash, Part-I, Delhi-110048. PAN: AABCD 5472 D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Harsh Gollmudi, Adv. Department represented by Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR Date of hearing 24.07.2025 Date of pronouncement 19.09.2025 O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M: This appeal, preferred by the assessee for…

Income-Tax Officer-8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Vibgyor Texotech Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4705/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble ()

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 4705/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2009-10 ITO-8(3)(1), Room No. 617, 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Appellant Vs. Vibgyor Texotech Ltd., 309, Navyug, 167 Tokersi Jivraj Road, Sewree, Mumbai-400015. PAN NO. AACCV 0752 D Respondent Assessee by Revenue by Date of Hearing Date of pronouncement : None : Mr. Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR : 09/09/2025 : 09/09/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the Revenue is directed aga…

M/S Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 310/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80

…rate particulars of income by using slash between the two expressions. Such error is not procedural but goes to the root of the matter and is not saved by s. 292B. The error renders the penalty order unsustainable in law. CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom.) (HC) The relevant finding at Para 6 of the order reads as under:- “6. The above submission on the part of the Revenue is in the face of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ashok Pai v/s. CIT 292 ITR 11 [relied upon in Manjunath Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra)] – wherein it is observed that concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate…

M/S Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

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

ITA 309/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80

…urnishing inaccurate particulars of income' (and vice versa). In the same manner, he cannot be uncertain in the penalty order as to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by using slash between the CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom.) (HC) The relevant finding at Para 6 of the order reads as under:- “6. The above submission on the part of the Revenue is in the face of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ashok Pai v/s. CIT 292 ITR 11 [relied upon in Manjunath Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra)] wherein it is observed that concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate…

Mohd. Umar, Nuh, Mewat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(5), Faridabad

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3078/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.3078/िद"ी/2025 (िन.व. 2011-12) Mohd. Umar, Village Siroli, Tehsil Punhana, Mewat, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Nuh, Palwal, Haryana 121103 Pan: Aabpu-9980-G बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5) ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Cgo Complex, Faridabad, Haryana 121001 अपीलाथ" "ारा/Appellant By : None "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 31/07/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 31/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)] Dated 03.02.2025, For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 8 Days. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Supported By An Affidavit & Medical Records. After Perusal Of Same, I Am Satisfied That Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is Not Intentional, But Is For The Reasons Stated In The Condonation Petition Which Appears To Be Bonafide. Hence, Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is Condoned & Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing On Merits.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr.DR

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

…inaccurate particulars’ carry different connotations. 5. Thereafter, the AO vide order dated 26.06.2018 levied penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of particulars of income. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samson Perinchery, 392 ITR 4 has held that penalty initiated on one limb and levied on the other limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act is unsustainable. 6. In light of the fact that penalty has been initiated by the AO in a vague and ambiguous manner and thereafter, the penalty has been levied on a charge different from the one invoked in the assessment order at the time of rec…

Unitech Hi-Tech Developers Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 27(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2913/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalआअसं.2909/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2011-12) Unitech Hospitality Services Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-8460-H बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 आअसं.2912/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2013-14) Unitech Acacia Services Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-9453-H बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 आअसं.2913/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2013-14) Unitech Hi-Tech Developers Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-8064-B बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 (Ays 2011-12 & 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri D.C Garg, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR

Section 144CSection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ourt of India in the case of T. Ashok Pai vs CIT, 161 Taxman 340 has held that the expression ‘concealment of income’ and ‘furnishing inaccurate particulars’ carry different connotations. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samson Perinchery, 392 ITR 4 has held that penalty initiated on one limb and levied on the other limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act is unsustainable. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. DCIT(supra) has held that non striking of irrelevant matter in the notice issued u/s. 274 r.w.s. (AYs 2011-12 & 2013-14) 271 of the Act would make the not…

Unitech Acacia Projects P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-27(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2912/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri D.C Garg, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR

Section 144CSection 271(1)(c)Section 274

Unitech Hospitality Services Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-27(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2909/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri D.C Garg, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR

Section 144CSection 271(1)(c)Section 274

Fresenius Kabi Oncology Limited, West Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax/ National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 176/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Fresenius Kabi Oncology Vs. Dcit/ National Faceless Limited B-310 Somdatt Assessment Centre Chambers I R K Puram New Delhi (Main) South West Delhi 110006 Pan No. Aabcd7720L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Aditya Vohra, Advocate Ms. Aakriti Bansal, Ca Respondent By Sh. Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22 /07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/07/2025 Order Per Sudhir Kumar: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-26 New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 12.11.2024 Pertaining To A.Y. 2012-13 Confirming The Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (In Short ‘The Act’).

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

…shing inaccurate particulars of income. He also submitted that the AO did not specify which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated. Reliance has placed on the following decisions: 1. CIT Vs. Samson Perichery : {2017} 392 ITR 4 (Bom) 2. CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory : {2013} 359 ITR 565 3. Multivision Infotech (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT {2017} 88 taxmann.com 874 4. Fairdeal Tradelink Company Vs. ITO ITA No.3445/Mum/2016 (Mum) 5. CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginnin Factory {2013} 359 ITR 565 6. CIT Vs. SSA’s Emerald Meadows {2016} 73 taxmann.com 241 (Kar) 7. Mohd. Farh…

Rakesh Kumar Jain, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Jaipur

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

ITA 212/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

For Appellant: Shri C.L. Yadav, CA and Shri Vikas Yadav AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary

Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,’’SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;dlnL; ,oaJhjkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihyla-@ITA No. 212/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2014-15 Shri Rakesh Kumar Jain cuke The DCIT Vs. 4365, KGB Ka Rasta, Johri Bazar Circle-2 Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkjla-@PAN/GIR No.: AANPJ 9249 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri C.L. Yadav, CA and Shri Vikas Yadav Advocate jktLo dh vksjls@Rev…

DCIT(It)-3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Murex Southeast Asia Private Limited, Singapore

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1453/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS PADMAVATHY S, AM & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JM I.T.A. No. 1453/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) DCIT (IT)-3(2)(2), Room No. 614, 6th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, BKC, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Murex Southeast Asia Pvt. Ltd., 10, Marina Bay Financial Centre, Vs. Tower-2, Marina Boulevard, 19-01, Singapore, Maharashtra-400051. PAN: AAICM4006F Appellant) Respondent) Appellant/Assessee by Shri Ajit Jain / Ms. Shreya Sejpal, AR Revenue / Respondent by Shri Satya Pal Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 25.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement 30.06.2025 ORDER Per Padm…

Jethanand Atmaram Dhanwani, Adipur vs. ITO Ward - 1, Gandhidham

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 51/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 51/Rjt/2025 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Jethanand Atmaram Dhanwani Vs. Ito, Ward - 1 Plot No. 368, Wd – 2/B, Adipur – Kutch-370205 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं.At/Pan/Gir No.: Afvpd8813Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. A.R. Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04/06/2025

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

…t even bothered to strike down the relevant portion of the printed form in order to indicate whether the satisfaction is based upon the concealment of particulars or furnishing of inaccurate particulars He relies on C Samson Permchery (2012/88 taxmann.com 413/392 ITR 4 (Bom) and CTT vs. New Era Sova Mine (2019) SCC online Bom 1032 to submit that on the basis of such a defective notice award of penalty can never be sustained 5 We have carefully examined the record as well as duly considered the rival contentions Both the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the II AT have categorically held that in the present case,…

Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd, Jaipur vs. ACIT/DCIT Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1488/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar Giya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 80P

…, but the claim was not acceptable in law, it would not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The court emphasized that there must be a conscious act or omission on the part of the assessee to attract penalty. CIT v. Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bombay) The Bombay High Court ruled that where the assessee had disclosed all facts material for computation of income, the mere fact that such a claim was not acceptable would not justify imposition of penalty for furnishing inaccurate 7 Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd., Jaipur. particulars. The court stressed on the difference b…

Ila Jitendra Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5219/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Ganatra, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 133Section 139(1)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

…nt of income on which the penalty proceedings were initiated, is sustainable or not”. 31. Admittedly, both the limbs are distinct from each other and having its own connotations. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samson Perinchery (392 ITR 4) while respectfully following the judgement rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T. Ashok Pai vs. CIT (292 ITR 11), has also clearly held that concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income are two separate connotations. 32. On the aforesaid analyzations, we are of the considered view that where there is confusio…

Smt. Rajeshwari Devi, Uttar Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer, Shamli

In the result, impugned order is quashed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1221/DEL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav SachdevaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

…e. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T. Ashok Pai vs CIT, 161 Taxman 340 has held that the expression ‘concealment of income’ and ‘furnishing inaccurate particulars’ carry different connotations. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Samson Perinchery, 392 ITR 4 has held that order imposing penalty has to be made only on ground for which penalty proceedings has been initiated and it cannot be on a ground other than for which satisfaction has been recorded. Thus, in light of facts of the case and the decisions 4 cited above the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is liable to be quashed for the afores…

Cornerstone Ondemand Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT(It)-2(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5677/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Hiten Thakkar, AR

Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

…hat when penalty is initiated for the reason of misreporting the penalty could not have been levied for under reporting by the AO. In this regard the ld AR placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samson Perinchery [(392 ITR 4) (Bom.)]. We have while considering the appeal for AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19 have already held that the penalty under section 270A for under 17 ITA 3747, 3751, 3753, 3752 and 5677/Mum/2024 Cornerstone Ondemand Limited reporting is not sustainable in assessee's case. In our considered view our decision is mutatis mutandis applicable for AY 2019-20…