“Section 271(1)(b)”

Section References (mined)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)1,252 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 271(1)(b) is Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa (83 ITR 26), cited in 502 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 271(1)(b)

Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa

83 ITR 26 · 1972 · Supreme Court

502

citing judgments

An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation results from quasi-criminal proceedings. Penalty is not ordinarily imposed unless the party acted deliberately in defiance of law, was guilty of contumacious or dishonest conduct, or acted in conscious disregard of their obligation.

CIT v. Hero Cycles (P.) Ltd.

228 ITR 463 · 1997 · Supreme Court

262

citing judgments

A point not examined on facts or in law cannot be treated as a mistake apparent on record for rectification purposes.

CIT v. K.G. Rukminiamma

331 ITR 211 · 2011 · High Court

104

citing judgments

For capital gains exemption under Sections 54 and 54F of the Income Tax Act (prior to the 2015 amendment), the expression "a residential house" includes multiple residential units and should not be construed in the singular, by applying Section 13 of the General Clauses Act.

Velu Palandar v. DCIT

83 ITR 683 · 1972 · High Court

citing judgments

The opportunity of hearing provided to an assessee must be real, effective, and realistic, not merely notional, and tax authorities are incumbent to decide cases on their merits after affording due opportunity.

Duggal & Co. v. CIT

220 ITR 456 · 1996 · High Court

citing judgments

An assessment order becomes erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue under Section 263 if the Assessing Officer fails to conduct a proper inquiry or investigation, even if the return appears prima facie correct. The Income-tax Officer has a duty to investigate and cannot remain passive.

Maria Fernandes Cheryl v. ITO

187 ITD 738 · 2021 · ITAT

citing judgments

The third proviso to Section 50C(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which provides a tolerance band of 10% between the sale consideration and the stamp duty value, is retrospective. This curative and declaratory amendment applies from the date of the insertion of Section 50C.

Addl. CIT v. J.K. D'Costa

133 ITR 7 · 1982 · High Court

citing judgments

Debatable issues cannot be rectified under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, as rectification is limited to mistakes apparent from the record.

Akhil Bhartiya Prathamik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust v. ADIT

5 DTR 429 · High Court

citing judgments

To levy a penalty under section 271(1)(b), the Assessing Officer (AO) must record satisfaction in the assessment order. Mere initiation of penalty proceedings without such recorded satisfaction does not confer jurisdiction on the AO to levy the penalty.

Judgments citing Section 271(1)(b)

Mr. Kantilal Laxmichand Jain, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 800/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 799 & 800/Ahd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15) बनाम/ Mr. Kantilal Laxmichand Ito Jain Ward - 1(2)(3), Vs. 22 Jakorbal Chamber, Opp. Ahmedabad Madhubaug Panchkuwa, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380002 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abbpj6013E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Malay Kalavadia, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. Dr 19/09/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 03/10/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’), Dated 29.12.2023 & 28.12.2023 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Malay Kalavadia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249Section 249(4)Section 69A

facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in confirming initiation of penalty proceedings by learned AO under section 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act.” 7. Shri Malay Kalavadia, Ld. AR appearing for the assessee submitted that the assesse being senior

Mr. Kantilal Laxmichand Jain, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 799/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Malay Kalavadia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249Section 249(4)Section 69A

Bhuwneshwar Singh Maran, Bhopal vs. ITO 1(1), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 331/IND/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Sept 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2007-08 Bhuwneshwar Singh Income-Tax Officer, Maran, 1(1), H.No.05, Neelbad Bhopal बनाम/ Bhadbhada Road, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Ahepm8432B Assessee By Shri Shreya Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27.09.2024

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर "ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO

Bapatla Mahila Mutually Aided Co-Op Thrift Societ Limited, Bapatla vs. Income-Tax Officer, Wrd-1, Bapatla

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 321/VIZ/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 321/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Bapatla Mahila Mutually Aided Vs. Income Tax Officer, Co-Op. Thrift Society Limited, Ward-1, Bapatla. Bapatla. Pan: Aaaab6442N (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri I. Kama Sastry, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23/09/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 25/09/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271FSection 69A

आयकर अपीलीयअिधकरण, िवशाखापटणम पीठ, िवशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM "ी दु"वू" आर एल रे"ी, "याियक

Mansi Devang Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 26(20(6), Mumbai

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

ITA 1868/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Amarjit Singh & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 144Section 148Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI. AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. RAJ KUMAR

Somnath Nagnathappa Mukta, Latur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle - 2, Aurangabad

ITA 63/PUN/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh and Mrs. J.R. ChandekarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari, CIT

Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(b)

1 ITA.Nos.61, 62 & 63/PUN./2022 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA

Somnath Nagnathappa Mukta, Latur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle - 2, Aurangabad

ITA 62/PUN/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Sept 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh and Mrs. J.R. ChandekarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari, CIT

Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(b)

1 ITA.Nos.61, 62 & 63/PUN./2022 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA

Somnath Nagnathappa Mukta, Latur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle - 2, Aurangabad

ITA 61/PUN/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Sept 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh and Mrs. J.R. ChandekarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari, CIT

Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(b)

1 ITA.Nos.61, 62 & 63/PUN./2022 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA

Niraj Pratapbhai Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(2)(Formerly ITO, Ward-3(3)(3)), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 86/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming levy of penalty of Rs.40,000/- under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 2. Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the facts and they further erred in grossly ignoring ... filed any submissions to the notice under Section 142(1) of the Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. The assessee did not file any reply and, therefore, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 06.01.2022 passed penalty order under Section 271

Gurindersingh Indrajeetsingh Nayyar, Nagpur vs. DCIT/ACIT Circle-2, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 61/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 56(2)(vii)

notices issued during the reassessment proceedings could not be complied with by the assessee. Further, it was only when the notice under section 271(1)(b) was issued for non-compliance dated 28th July 2022, the assessee came to know about the ex-parte order passed under section 147 r.w.s

Milan Hasmukhlal Mithawala, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 42(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 1504/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 206CSection 250Section 271(1)(b)

submit the details required for completing the assessment. However, the assessee did not reply to the notices issued. Therefore, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(b) of the Act were initiated and the penalty was levied vide order dated 03/12/2018. In order to grant the final opportunity to the assessee

The M K Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemptions), Mumbai

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

ITA 1743/MUM/2024[ 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2024

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Shri Vishal D Shah & Shri Jainam SonaiyaFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, CIT, DR

Section 11Section 11(5)Section 11(6)Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR

The M K Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemptions), Mumbai

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

ITA 1742/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Shri Vishal D Shah & Shri Jainam SonaiyaFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, CIT, DR

Section 11Section 11(5)Section 11(6)Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR

Mr. Ganesh Ayodhyaprasad Jaiswal, Nanded vs. Assessing Officer, Ward-1, Nanded

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee vide ITA No

ITA 732/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271FSection 44A

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

Mr. Ganesh Ayodhyaprasad Jaiswal, Nanded vs. Assessing Officer, Ward-1, Nanded

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee vide ITA No

ITA 731/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271FSection 44A

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

Mr. Ganesh Ayodhyaprasad Jaiswal, Nanded vs. Assessing Officer, Ward, Nanded

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee vide ITA No

ITA 729/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271FSection 44A

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

Jagmandri Finvest Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2934/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt Renu Jauhriassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri S G GoyalFor Respondent: Shri R R Makwana (Sr. DR)

Section 151Section 250Section 68

were issued to the assessee. However, there was no compliance on behalf of the assessee. Even the notice under section 274 r/w section 271(1)(b) of the Act was also issued to the assessee for non-compliance with the statutory 5 Jadmandri Finvest Pvt. Ltd. notices. However, in spite

Vishal Laxman Kakade, Mumbai vs. ITO 32(2)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2854/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Bhagwat Shendge, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 274Section 68

notices issued under sections 148, 143(2), 2 Vishal Laxman Kakade. 142(1), and show cause notice issued under section 274 r/w section 271(1)(b) of the Act, the Assessing Officer (“AO”) proceeded to assess on best judgment basis under section 144 of the Act and treated the entire

M/S Emerson Automation Solutions Intelligent Platforms Pvt. Ltd, Bangalore vs. DCIT, C-3(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the Ground Nos

ITA 9/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedm/S Emersion Automation Solutios The Deputy Commissioner Intelligent Platforms Private Limited Of Income Tax, Circle- (Formerly M/S Ge Intelligent 3(1)(2), Bmtc Building, Platforms Private Limited), Velankani Vs. Koramangala, Bangalore Tech Park, Building 9, First Floor, 43 Hosur Road, Bangalore-560100 Pan – Aaacg7573K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri. Sachit Jolly & Sri. Rishabh Malhotra, Advocates Revenue By: Sri. Subramanian. S, Jcit Date Of Hearing: 13.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.08.2024 O R D E R Per: Prakash Chand Yadav,J.M. Present Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising From The Order Of Ld. Ao / Drp Dated 30Th October, 2018. The Assessee Has Raised 19 Grounds Of Appeal Out Of Which Ground Nos. 1 To 5 Are General In Nature & Hence Not Required Specific Adjudication. Ground No. 6 Related To The Grievance Of The Assessee With Respect To The Adjustment Of Custom Duty, Base Cost, Working Capital Not Granted By The Ao While Completing The Assessment. Ground No. 7 Is With Respect To The Applicability Of Tnmm Method Instead Of Rpm Method Applied By The Assessee For Its Trading Segment Transactions. Ground Nos. 8, 9 & 10 Are Related To The Rejection Of Comparability Analysis Conducted By The Tpo As Affirmed By The Drp & Followed By Ao. Ground No. 11 Is With Respect To The Adjustment Of Working Capital Denied By Tpo Affirmed By Drp & Followed By Ao. Ground No. 12 Is With Respect To The Disallowance Of Foreign Exchange Fluctuation & Ground Nos. 13 & 14 Is With Respect To The Payments Made To Headquarters In Lieu Of Services Obtained By Applying

For Appellant: Sri. Sachit Jolly & Sri. RishabhFor Respondent: Sri. Subramanian. S, JCIT

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 271(1)(b)Section 5

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU “B” BENCH, BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM

Manjudevi Ranjitlal Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 27(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2932/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri. Himanshu GandhiFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. Appellant craves leave to add further grounds or to amend or alter the existing