K.C. Builders & Anr. v. ACIT

265 ITR 562Supreme Court of India2004#362 most cited

What is K.C. Builders & Anr. v. ACIT authority for?

When the addition made in the assessment order, on the basis of which a penalty for concealment under section 271(1)(c) is levied, is subsequently deleted, the penalty has no basis and must be cancelled.

241

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,368 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

K.C. Builders v. ACIT · 265 ITR 562 · section 271(1)(c) penalty · concealment of income · deletion of quantum addition · penalty not sustainable · penalty cancellation · basis for penalty

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 43ASection 80IBSection 80IB(10)Section 11
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 271(1)(c)penalty u/s 271(1)(c)concealment of incomesection 271levy of penaltyincriminating materialsection 271(1)section 153section 153asection 15section 27section 143

Judgments citing K.C. Builders & Anr. v. ACIT

Rama Allied Products Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Central Circle-14, New Delhi

ITA 2672/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Madhav Kapur, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amisha Gupta, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…stances, the ITA Nos.2687, 2688, 2689, 2690, 2691 & 2692/DEL/2024 ITA Nos.2668, 2669, 2670, 2671 & 2672/DEL/2024 penalty levied by the AO is not sustainable in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case cited as K.C. Builders & Anr vs. ACIT – 265 ITR 562 (SC) because “when the addition made in the assessment order on the basis of which penalty for concealment is levied have been deleted there remains no basis at all for levying the penalty for concealment and in such case, no penalty can survive and the penalty is liable to be cancelled.” So, in view of the matter, the penalty order passed by the…

Rama Allied Products Marketing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Central Circle-14, New Delhi

ITA 2671/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Madhav Kapur, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amisha Gupta, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…stances, the ITA Nos.2687, 2688, 2689, 2690, 2691 & 2692/DEL/2024 ITA Nos.2668, 2669, 2670, 2671 & 2672/DEL/2024 penalty levied by the AO is not sustainable in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case cited as K.C. Builders & Anr vs. ACIT – 265 ITR 562 (SC) because “when the addition made in the assessment order on the basis of which penalty for concealment is levied have been deleted there remains no basis at all for levying the penalty for concealment and in such case, no penalty can survive and the penalty is liable to be cancelled.” So, in view of the matter, the penalty order passed by the…

Rama Allied Products Marketing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Central Circle-14, New Delhi

ITA 2670/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Madhav Kapur, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amisha Gupta, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…stances, the ITA Nos.2687, 2688, 2689, 2690, 2691 & 2692/DEL/2024 ITA Nos.2668, 2669, 2670, 2671 & 2672/DEL/2024 penalty levied by the AO is not sustainable in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case cited as K.C. Builders & Anr vs. ACIT – 265 ITR 562 (SC) because “when the addition made in the assessment order on the basis of which penalty for concealment is levied have been deleted there remains no basis at all for levying the penalty for concealment and in such case, no penalty can survive and the penalty is liable to be cancelled.” So, in view of the matter, the penalty order passed by the…

Rama Allied Products Marketing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Central Circle-14, New Delhi

ITA 2669/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Madhav Kapur, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amisha Gupta, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…stances, the ITA Nos.2687, 2688, 2689, 2690, 2691 & 2692/DEL/2024 ITA Nos.2668, 2669, 2670, 2671 & 2672/DEL/2024 penalty levied by the AO is not sustainable in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case cited as K.C. Builders & Anr vs. ACIT – 265 ITR 562 (SC) because “when the addition made in the assessment order on the basis of which penalty for concealment is levied have been deleted there remains no basis at all for levying the penalty for concealment and in such case, no penalty can survive and the penalty is liable to be cancelled.” So, in view of the matter, the penalty order passed by the…

Rama Allied Products Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Central Circle-14, New Delhi

ITA 2668/DEL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Madhav Kapur, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amisha Gupta, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…stances, the ITA Nos.2687, 2688, 2689, 2690, 2691 & 2692/DEL/2024 ITA Nos.2668, 2669, 2670, 2671 & 2672/DEL/2024 penalty levied by the AO is not sustainable in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case cited as K.C. Builders & Anr vs. ACIT – 265 ITR 562 (SC) because “when the addition made in the assessment order on the basis of which penalty for concealment is levied have been deleted there remains no basis at all for levying the penalty for concealment and in such case, no penalty can survive and the penalty is liable to be cancelled.” So, in view of the matter, the penalty order passed by the…

Manmohan Khemka, New Delhi vs. ITO, Waqrd-61(2), New Delhi

ITA 2688/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Madhav Kapur, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amisha Gupta, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…stances, the ITA Nos.2687, 2688, 2689, 2690, 2691 & 2692/DEL/2024 ITA Nos.2668, 2669, 2670, 2671 & 2672/DEL/2024 penalty levied by the AO is not sustainable in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case cited as K.C. Builders & Anr vs. ACIT – 265 ITR 562 (SC) because “when the addition made in the assessment order on the basis of which penalty for concealment is levied have been deleted there remains no basis at all for levying the penalty for concealment and in such case, no penalty can survive and the penalty is liable to be cancelled.” So, in view of the matter, the penalty order passed by the…

DCIT, Circle- I, Faridabad vs. Intuitent Online Venture P. Ltd., Faridabad

ITA 2687/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Madhav Kapur, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amisha Gupta, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…stances, the ITA Nos.2687, 2688, 2689, 2690, 2691 & 2692/DEL/2024 ITA Nos.2668, 2669, 2670, 2671 & 2672/DEL/2024 penalty levied by the AO is not sustainable in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case cited as K.C. Builders & Anr vs. ACIT – 265 ITR 562 (SC) because “when the addition made in the assessment order on the basis of which penalty for concealment is levied have been deleted there remains no basis at all for levying the penalty for concealment and in such case, no penalty can survive and the penalty is liable to be cancelled.” So, in view of the matter, the penalty order passed by the…

Gbs Marketing Pvt Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-10(1), Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 4811/DEL/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Sh. Sandeep Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…on 07.03.2022 has already deleted the corresponding quantum addition of Rs.50,00,000/- representing section 68 unexplained cash credits and therefore, the impugned penalty 2 GBS Marketing Pvt. Ltd. has no less to stand going by K. C. Builders Vs. ACIT (2004) 265 ITR 562 (SC). The assessee’s instant appeal succeeds for this precise reason alone. 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 07/01/2025. (Satbeer Singh Godara) Judicial Member Dated: 07/01/2025 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS*…

Shri Mukesh Rasiklal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-9, Now Circle-4(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 3218/AHD/2015[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Dec 2024AY 1993-94

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh R. Shah – Party in personFor Respondent: Shri Karun Kant Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153Section 250

…133 ITR 909 (SC), Shivsankar Shah 106 Taxman 536 (Ρatna HC), that once penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of income tax act has been cancelled by tribunal, prosecution proceedings automatically ends. It is further pleaded that it has been held in the case of K.C. Builders 265 ITR 562(SC), that findings of tribunal are binding on the criminal court. It is further pleaded that in this case, prosecution cannot be sustained, as tribunal has restored the case matter to the CIT (Appeal) vide its order dt 08/06/2005 in ITA nos. 2664, 2665/Abad/1997. It is further pleaded that Hon'ble Guj HC has passed an order dt 28/12/2005 in sp. C…

Shri Mukesh Rasiklal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-9, Now Circle-4(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 3217/AHD/2015[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Dec 2024AY 1992-93

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh R. Shah – Party in personFor Respondent: Shri Karun Kant Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153Section 250

…133 ITR 909 (SC), Shivsankar Shah 106 Taxman 536 (Ρatna HC), that once penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of income tax act has been cancelled by tribunal, prosecution proceedings automatically ends. It is further pleaded that it has been held in the case of K.C. Builders 265 ITR 562(SC), that findings of tribunal are binding on the criminal court. It is further pleaded that in this case, prosecution cannot be sustained, as tribunal has restored the case matter to the CIT (Appeal) vide its order dt 08/06/2005 in ITA nos. 2664, 2665/Abad/1997. It is further pleaded that Hon'ble Guj HC has passed an order dt 28/12/2005 in sp. C…

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Muniwar Abad Charitable Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3559/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanito, Vs. Muniwar Abad Charitable 618, Mtnl Cumballa Hill Telephone Trust, Exchange Building, Peddar Road, 405A, 407, Jolly Bhavan No. 1, Maharashtra – 400 026 10, New Marine Lines, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Pan: Aaatm0140K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 276C

…not justified. On the other hand, Ld. AR opposed the argument of Ld. DR and submitted that once the quantum appeal has been decided in favour of the assessee and in view of the judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of K. C. Builder & another vrs. ACIT 265 ITR 562, the Ld. CIT (A) has rightly deleted the penalty and decided the appeal in favour of the assessee. Ld. AR has drawn our attention to the order of Hon‟ble ITAT in quantum appeal bearing ITA No. 2176 & 7235/Mum/2016 for AY 2011-12 & 2012- 13 dated 11.10.2018 in assessee‟s own case, wherein the additions confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) were deleted and appe…

ACIT-3(4), Mumbai vs. Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2898/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Reliance Industries Ltd., Dy. Cit Circle 3(4), 3Rd Floor, Maker Chamber Iv 222 Room No. 559, Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, Vs. Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr 5055 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2016-17 Acit-3(4), Reliance Industries Ltd., Room No. 481(2), 4Th Floor, 3Rd Floor, Maker Chamber Iv Aayakar Bhavan, N.M. Road, Vs. Nariman Point, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr 5055 K Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Madhur Agrawal
Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 32A

…nsaction of subscription of NCCCPS and subscription of Class A shares survived. It is now a settled position of law that when the addition itself got deleted, no penalty u/s.271(1)(c) is leviable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K C Builders vs ACIT (265 ITR 562) has held that penalty cannot survive when the addition on which the penalty has been levied is deleted by the appellate authority. The relevant para of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.C. Builders vs. ACIT is as under - "The word 'concealment' as used in section 271(1)(c) inherently carried with it the element of mens r…

Ansal Housing Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-1(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1157/DEL/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Ms. Bharti Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…y must fall. We, therefore hold that the decision of the CIT(A) is unsustainable on the issue of penalty on disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB. We are fortified in our view by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of KC Builders V ACIT (2004) 265 ITR 562(SC) for the proposition that no penalty for concealment can be made where the additions made by the AO are deleted. 23. The only point of contention remains is the penalty levied on account of the addition of 57,89,199/- on account of ALV, sustained by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. On this issue the ld AR of the assessee vehemently argued tha…

Ansal Housing Limited, Barakhamba Road vs. Assistant Commissioner Income Tax, Cr Building

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1128/DEL/2024[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Ms. Bharti Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…y must fall. We, therefore hold that the decision of the CIT(A) is unsustainable on the issue of penalty on disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB. We are fortified in our view by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of KC Builders V ACIT (2004) 265 ITR 562(SC) for the proposition that no penalty for concealment can be made where the additions made by the AO are deleted. 23. The only point of contention remains is the penalty levied on account of the addition of 57,89,199/- on account of ALV, sustained by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. On this issue the ld AR of the assessee vehemently argued tha…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central 1 Kolkata vs. M/S Magnetic Niryat Pvt Ltd

ITAT/206/2023HC Calcutta22 Jan 2024

Bench: The Learned Special Judge, Cbi Court No.1 (Being The Learned Judge-In-Charge Of E.D. Court) As He Is In Custody For More Than 14 Months & There Has Been No Progress In The Case, Further According To The Petitioner

Section 120B

…t Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (1999) 9 SCC 252 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1156] , Babba v. State of Maharashtra [Babba v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 11 SCC 569 : (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 118] and Umarmia v. State of Gujarat [Umarmia v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 2 SCC 731 : (2017) 2 SCC (Cri) 114] enlarged the accused on bail when they had been in jail for an extended period of time with little possibility of early completion of trial. The constitutionality of harsh conditions for bail in such special enactments, has thus been primarily justified on the touchstone of speedy trials to ensure the protection of in…

Avinash Narayan Sutar, Mumbai vs. CIT Appeals, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2464/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2012-13
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2462/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2463/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2464/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Avinash Narayan Sutar बिधम/ ITO-28(1)(2) Plot No.582, Laxmi Niwas, Tower No-6, Vashi Vs. Sector-1, Shiravana, Nerul, Station, Navi Mumba- Navi Mumbai-400706. 400703. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : ARSPS9036R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी /…

Avinash Narayan Sutar, Thane vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2463/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2011-12
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2462/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2463/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2464/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Avinash Narayan Sutar बिधम/ ITO-28(1)(2) Plot No.582, Laxmi Niwas, Tower No-6, Vashi Vs. Sector-1, Shiravana, Nerul, Station, Navi Mumba- Navi Mumbai-400706. 400703. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : ARSPS9036R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी /…

Avinash Narayan Sutar, Navi Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) (NFAC), Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2462/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2010-11
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2462/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2463/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2464/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Avinash Narayan Sutar बिधम/ ITO-28(1)(2) Plot No.582, Laxmi Niwas, Tower No-6, Vashi Vs. Sector-1, Shiravana, Nerul, Station, Navi Mumba- Navi Mumbai-400706. 400703. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : ARSPS9036R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी /…

Shivom Vidyapeeth Shikshan Samiti, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemetion 2, Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 261/RPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.261/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shivom Vidyapeeth Shikshan Samiti V Income Tax Officer 214, Shivom Vihar Raipur-492 013 S Exemption-2 Chhattisgarh Raipur Pan: Aahts 6464M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri G.S. Agrawal & Shubham Agarwal, Cas राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 08/08/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 26.10.2022 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For Ay 2015-16, Instituted Against The Penalty Order By Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Dated 28.06.2018. The Grounds Of The Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. That Under The Facts & The Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Confirming The Order Of Penalty Levied By The Ld. Ao U/S 271(1)(C) At Rs.2,40,630/- Rejecting The Explanation. Prayed That Provisions Of Sec.271(1)(C) Are Not Applicable, Penalty Levied At Rs.2,40,630/- Kindly Be Cancelled. 2. That Under The Facts & The Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Further Erred In Confirming The Penalty Levied At Rs. 2,40,630/- U/S 271(1)(C) By The Ld. Ao, Though The Ld. Ao Did Not Allow Opportunity To The Appellant As To For Which Default, Penalty Proceedings Were Initiated. Prayed To Cancel The Penalty.

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Agrawal & ShubhamFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 57

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, रायपुर "यायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR "ी र"वश सूद, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"ण खोड़"पया, लेखा सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.261/RPR/2022 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shivom Vidyapeeth Shikshan Samiti V Income Tax Officer 214, Shivom Vihar Raipur-492 013 s Exemption-2 Chhattisgarh Raipur PAN: AAHTS 6464M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by : Shri G.S. Agrawal & Shubham Agarwal, CAs राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR सुनवाई क"…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Jalandhar vs. Shri Madan Lal, Shahkot

In the result, the appeals of the revenue bearing ITA Nos

ITA 28/ASR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 153DSection 250(6)Section 27Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos.23 to 28/Asr/2022 Assessment Years: 2008-09 to 2013-14 Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Sh. Madan Lal, H. No.24, Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Model Town, Shahkot, Jalandhar. Punjab [PAN: -ABFPL4650B] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Rajiv Wadhera Sr. DR & Sh. S.R. Kaushik, CIT DR Respondent by None Date of Hearing 25.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement 27.07.2023 ORDER Per: Bench: A batch of six appeals of the revenue was filed against the order of the…