“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)

Pallavi Mehta, Mumbai vs. Comm of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

ITA 1190/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mahita Nair

Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 246ASection 271(1)(b)Section 273B

even date, 28.03.2022, passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai (in short ‘CIT(A)’) in relation to proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) by levying penalty of Rs.10,000/-. 2. Facts in brief emanating from the appellate ... members were infected with Covid and, therefore, even if part compliance was made, it was not a case for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 5. Once the assessee has given such a reason and during that time the entire country was going through

Pallavi Mehta, Mumbai vs. Comm of Income Tax(A), Mumbai

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

ITA 1189/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mahita Nair

Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 246ASection 271(1)(b)Section 273B

Pallavi Mehta, Mumbai vs. Comm of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

ITA 1188/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mahita Nair

Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 246ASection 271(1)(b)Section 273B

Pallavi Mehta, Mumbai vs. Comm of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

ITA 1187/MUM/2022[2015-16`]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mahita Nair

Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 246ASection 271(1)(b)Section 273B

Pallavi Mehta, Mumbai vs. Comm of Income Tax (A) -50, Mumbai

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

ITA 1186/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mahita Nair

Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 246ASection 271(1)(b)Section 273B

Pallavi Mehta, Mumbai vs. Com of Income Tax (Appeals) -50, Mumbai

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

ITA 1185/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mahita Nair

Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 246ASection 271(1)(b)Section 273B

Ria Cetp Co-Operative Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 1, Panvel

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1909/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1909/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) Ria Cetp Co-Operative बिधम/ Ito, Ward-1 Society Ltd 3Rd Floor, Trifed Tower, Vs. Riacetp Co-Op. Ltd. Plot Opp. Khanda Colony, No.6, Bldg, Dhatav Midc New Panvel Roha C/O Adv. N. A. Kulkarni Wadal Building, 1St Floor, Near Dns Bank, Manpada Road, Dombivli (E)- 421201. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabar0138A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Ashish Deharia (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Society Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Nfac), Delhi Dated 23.09.2021 For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Against Confirmation Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. None Appeared For The Assessee. We Note That The Despite Listing The Appeal Several Times & Even Though Notices Were Issued, None Appeared For The Assessee. The Impugned Penalty Of Rs.20,000/- Has Been Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A), Which Was Levied By The Ao For Failure Of Assessee To Comply/Respond To The Notices Issued By Him U/S 142(1) Of The Act. Even Though, Non-Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Deharia (Sr. AR)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

saved by section 273B of the Income-tax Act,1961. I am satisfied that the appellant has committed default under the provisions of section 271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act,1961. without reasonable cause. Penalty of Rs.20,000/-, levied u/s. 271(1)(b

M/S Anaya Global Suppliers Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 9(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 911/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 911/Mum/2020 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ito-9(1)(3), M/S Anaya Global Mumbai, Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Pin Code-400 099 3Rd Floor, Subham बनाम/ Centre-1, 491 Cardinal Gracious Road,, Nr. Vs. Holy Family Church, Andheri(E), Mumbai-400099 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaack5044K (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Mehul Jain, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 01.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 24.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 30.09.2019 Passed By Ld. Cit (A)-16, Mumbai In Relation To Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(B) Of Rs.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain, Ld. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G. S. PANNU, PRESIDENT & SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM आयकरअपीलसं

Tata Communications (Uk) Limited, United Kingdom vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 555/BANG/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CA

Section 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESEIDENT AND SHRI PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT

Tata Communications (Uk) Limited, United Kingdom vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 554/BANG/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CA

Section 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESEIDENT AND SHRI PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT

Swati Jignesh Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 20(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1971/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Smt

Salasar Derivatives Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 8(1) (4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1916/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: The Ld. Ao On 29/05/2018 Being The Scheduled Date Of Hearing. However, On 30/05/2018, The Assessee Had Duly Appeared & Submitted The Relevant Papers Physically Before The Ld. Ao. However, The Ld. Ao Proceeded To Levy Penalty U/S.271(1)(B) Of The Act For Non-Compliance On The Scheduled Date Of Hearing & Levied Penalty Of Rs.10,000/- Thereon Vide Order U/S.271(1)(B) Of The Act Dated 13/05/2019. This Penalty Was Upheld By The Ld. Cit(A).

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s

ITO - 21 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. Satishkumar Kundanmalji Porwal, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3240/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awashty & Shri Amarjit Singhincome Tax Officer- Vs. Shri Satish Kumar 21(3)(2), R. No. 203, Kundanmalji Porwal 2Nd Floor, Piramal D-23, 1St Floor, Zia Chambers, Lalbaug, Masum Chawl, N.M. Mumbai – 400012 Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400013 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aadpp9461D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Hemant Kumar ChimanlalFor Respondent: None

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271

ITA No.3240/Mum/2018 A.Y. 2009-10 1 ITO-21(3)(2) Vs. Shri Satish Kumar Kundanmalji Porwal IN THE INCOME TAX

Chandani Gems P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 7323/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Vranda U. Matkari

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 68

ITA No.7323/Mum/2012 AY. 2006-07 1 M/s Chandani Gems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO-5(1)(3) IN THE INCOME TAX

Tara Kabra, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-1(3), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 1313/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Section 139Section 153CSection 153DSection 68

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” Bench, Mumbai Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (JM) I.T.A. No. 1313/Mum/2021 (A.Y

Royal Home Collections Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT-4(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 910/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 910/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Acit-4(2)(1), Royal Home Collections R. No. 642, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, बिधम/ Plot No. 33, Abcd Govt. Mumbai-400 020 Industrial Estate, Charkop, Vs. Kandivali, Mumbai-400 067 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccm4922G (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant None : By प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent : Shri T. Shankar, Ld. Dr By सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 09.03.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 13.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-9, Mumbai Dated 30.01.2019 Pertains To Ay 2014-15. The Solitary Ground Of Appeal Is Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Upholding The Penalty Of Rs. 10,000/- Levied U/S 271(1)(B) Of The I.T. Act.

For Respondent: Shri T. Shankar, Ld. DR by

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM & Ms. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM आयकरअपीलसं

Stuti Tading LLP, Mumbai vs. ITO 20(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1086/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalestuti Trading Llp Vs. Ito 20(3)(4) B-401, Naman Midtown, Piramal Chamber Tulsi Pipe Road, Mumbai – 400012. Elphiston Road, Mumbai – 400028. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acxfs7406F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Mr.Hoshang .B.Irani Date Of Hearing 15.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr.Hoshang .B.Irani

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL