← All Phrases

“Section 221(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 221Section 221(1)66 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 221(1) is CIT v. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd. (221 ITR 110), cited in 146 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 221(1)

CIT v. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd.
221 ITR 110 · 1996 · High Court
146
citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act cannot be levied when an addition to income is based purely on an estimate, without concrete evidence proving concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.

CIT v. Ramco International
332 ITR 306 · 2011 · High Court
69
citing judgments

Assessing Officers and appellate authorities must consider and grant correct deductions for fresh legal claims or revised computations made during assessment or appellate proceedings, subject to due verification.

CIT Vs. L&T Ltd (2009) 313 ITR 1 (SC0 2. CIT Vs. ITI Ltd. (2009) 221 CTR (SC) 609 3. CIT v. Gostino Mario & Others
323 ITR 670 · 2010 · High Court
62
citing judgments

An assessee-employer is not bound to collect and verify proof of journey and actual expenditure before granting exemption under Section 10(5).

CIT v. T. Rangroopchand Chordia
241 Taxmann 221 · 2016 · High Court
54
citing judgments

Loose sheets recovered from an assessee's premises constitute a 'document' as defined in Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

CIT v. Graphite India Ltd.
221 ITR 420 · 1996 · High Court
52
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred for the expansion of an existing business is revenue in nature and allowable as a deduction if it does not create a new asset. Accounting entries in books of accounts do not solely determine the allowability of an expenditure for income tax purposes.

M/s Puri Construction Private Limited v. Addl. CIT & Ors.
159 Taxmann.com 444 · 2024 · High Court
42
citing judgments

External Development Charges (EDC) paid by a developer to a government body like Haryana Shahari Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP) for a development project are contractual payments, making them liable for tax deduction at source under Section 194C of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Kartik Vijaysinh Sonavano v. DCIT
132 Taxmann.com 293 · 2021 · High Court
33
citing judgments

The tax department cannot speculate to deny the benefit of tax deducted at source by the employer to the petitioner.

SC in Singapore Airlines Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax
144 Taxmann.com 221 · 2022 · Supreme Court
30
citing judgments

TDS under Section 194H is applicable to standard and supplemental commission paid to travel agents operating under an admitted principal-agent relationship where specific contractual clauses indicate agents hold collected monies in trust for the airline.

Judgments citing Section 221(1)

Satish Kumar Jain, Prop. M/S Jain Industries vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Jammu

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 563/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 563/Asr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Satish Kumar Jain Ito बनाम/ Vs. H No 579 Airport Road Panama Chowk Rani Bagh, Jammu-180003 Jammu-180004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ablpj-6598-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri K.R. Jain (Advocate) – Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondentby : Sh. Charan Dass (Addl. Cit)– Ld. Sr Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17-07-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07-08-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Arises Out Of An Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 30-08- 2024 Confirming Penalty Levied By Ld. Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S 221(1) Vide Order Dated 29-06-2017. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under. 2. The Assessee Was Assessed U/S 143(3) On 19-12-2016. The Assessee Declared Income Of Rs.9.75 Lacs. The Assessee Claimed

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Jain (Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (Addl. CIT)– Ld. Sr DR
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 221(1)Section 80I

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘DB’, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR HYBRID HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

Abdul Hakim Mohamed Yusuf, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Salem

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

ITA 977/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 977/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Abdul Hakim Mohamed Yusuf, Income Tax Officer, 75, Sathiyamoorthy Street, Vs. Ward 1(1), Salem – 636 015. Salem. [Pan:Bngpm-2255-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. T.S.Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. Kumar Chandan, Jcit.

For Appellant: Shri. T.S.Lakshmi Venkataraman, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. Kumar Chandan, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 221(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज" जॉज" के, उपा

Jayant Security and Finance Ltd, Indore vs. ACIT Central-2, Bhopal

Appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 91/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 147Section 156Section 220(6)Section 221(1)Section 246ASection 253

compliant the penalty proceedings u/s 221(1) of the Act were initiated against the assessee and following notices in terms of Section 221(1) came to be issued to the assessee the details of which are as under:- Sr.No. Notice u/s Date of Notices 1 220(1) 13.02.2022 2 221 ... upon him and it was up to the assessee to have made out a good case within the meaning of second proviso to Section 221(1) of the Act but the assessee has miserably failed to prove to the satisfaction of Ld. A.O that the default was for good

Jayant Security and Finance Ltd, Indore vs. ACIT Central-2, Bhopal

Appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 90/IND/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 147Section 156Section 220(6)Section 221(1)Section 246ASection 253

compliant the penalty proceedings u/s 221(1) of the Act were initiated against the assessee and following notices in terms of Section 221(1) came to be issued to the assessee the details of which are as under:- Sr.No. Notice u/s Date of Notices 1 220(1) 13.02.2022 2 221 ... upon him and it was up to the assessee to have made out a good case within the meaning of second proviso to Section 221(1) of the Act but the assessee has miserably failed to prove to the satisfaction of Ld. A.O that the default was for good

Jayant Security and Finance Ltd, Indore vs. ACIT Central-2, Bhopal

Appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 89/IND/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 147Section 156Section 220(6)Section 221(1)Section 246ASection 253

compliant the penalty proceedings u/s 221(1) of the Act were initiated against the assessee and following notices in terms of Section 221(1) came to be issued to the assessee the details of which are as under:- Sr.No. Notice u/s Date of Notices 1 220(1) 13.02.2022 2 221 ... upon him and it was up to the assessee to have made out a good case within the meaning of second proviso to Section 221(1) of the Act but the assessee has miserably failed to prove to the satisfaction of Ld. A.O that the default was for good

Jayant Security and Finance Ltd, Indore vs. ACIT Central-2, Bhopal

ITA 88/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 147Section 156Section 220(6)Section 221(1)Section 246ASection 253

compliant the penalty proceedings u/s 221(1) of the Act were initiated against the assessee and following notices in terms of Section 221(1) came to be issued to the assessee the details of which are as under:- Sr.No. Notice u/s Date of Notices 1 220(1) 13.02.2022 2 221 ... upon him and it was up to the assessee to have made out a good case within the meaning of second proviso to Section 221(1) of the Act but the assessee has miserably failed to prove to the satisfaction of Ld. A.O that the default was for good

Jayant Security and Finance Ltd, Indore vs. ACIT Central-2, Bhopal

ITA 86/IND/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 147Section 156Section 220Section 220(6)Section 221(1)Section 246ASection 253

compliant the penalty proceedings u/s 221(1) of the Act were initiated against the assessee and following notices in terms of Section 221(1) came to be issued to the assessee the details of which are as under:- | Sr.No. | Notice u/s | Date of Notices | |---|---|---| | 1 | 220(1) | 13.02.2022 | | 2 | 221

ITO, TDS, Ranchi vs. M/S. Chhinamastika Cement & Ispat Pvt. Ltd., Ramgarh

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 18/RAN/2022[16-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi27 May 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 133Section 133A

date on which the amount is paid. This shows that the concept of continuing default is in-built in the section. Similarly, in section 221(1) there is in terms a reference to a continuing default and the section empowers the Assessing Officer to levy penalty from time to time

ITO, TDS, Ranchi vs. M/S. Chinnamastika Cement & Ispat Ltd., Ramgarh

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 17/RAN/2022[15-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi27 May 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 133Section 133A

date on which the amount is paid. This shows that the concept of continuing default is in-built in the section. Similarly, in section 221(1) there is in terms a reference to a continuing default and the section empowers the Assessing Officer to levy penalty from time to time

Vinod Kumar Mourya, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Circle

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

ITA 653/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 195Section 205Section 250

deducted at source for which form no.16 A have been produced by the assessee - deductee and consequently impugned demand notice issued under Section 221(1) of the Act cannot be sustained. Concerned respondent therefore, is required to be directed to give credit of tax deducted at source to the assessee

Vinod Kumar Mourya, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Cirecle

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

ITA 652/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 195Section 205Section 250

deducted at source for which form no.16 A have been produced by the assessee - deductee and consequently impugned demand notice issued under Section 221(1) of the Act cannot be sustained. Concerned respondent therefore, is required to be directed to give credit of tax deducted at source to the assessee

Up Government Employees Welfare, Lucknow vs. ACIT-2, Lucknow

ITA 745/LKW/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow14 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manu Chaurasia, CIT(DR)
Section 119(2)Section 124Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 226(3)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI NIKHIL CHOUDHARY

Roby Roopesh Poonattil, Kozhikode vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Kozhikode

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

ITA 245/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Roby Roopesh Poonattil .......... Appellant Poonathil House, North Beypore, Kozhikode 673015 [Pan: Akhpr5461P] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 1(3), Kozhikode

For Appellant: Shri P. Raghunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 221(1)Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM Assessment Year: 2017-18 Roby Roopesh

Amrrut Shavjjibhai Gada, Mumbai vs. Dycit, Circle-13(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3773/MUM/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhailamrrut Shavjjibhai Gada Sejal Glass House, Krishna Kunj Ground Floor, S.V. Road, Malad West, Mumbai 400064 ……………. Appellant Pan: Aadpg5298D V/S

For Appellant: Dr. Prayag JhaFor Respondent: Shri. Ram Krishna Kedia, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 221Section 221(1)Section 250

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], which in turn arose from the penalty order passed under section 221(1) of the Act, for the assessment year 2008-09. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: – 1 ... course of appeal proceedings.” 3. The solitary grievance of the assessee, in the present appeal, is against the levy of penalty under section 221(1) of the Act. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of dealing in glass and runs

Regus Business Centre Hyderabad Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1396/HYD/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1396/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11) Regus Business Centre Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Private Limited Ward – 3 ( 1 ) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aadcr2556C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate Sp Chidambaram राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/03/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocate SP ChidambaramFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 144Section 221(1)

ITA No 1396 of 2024 Regus Business Centre Hyderabad P Ltd आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE

Dhananjay Sanjiv Rawal, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward, 17(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 39/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Dhananjay Rawal, ARFor Respondent: 11.02.2025
Section 143(1)

deducted at source for which form no.16 A have been produced by the assessee - deductee and consequently impugned demand notice issued under Section 221(1) of the Act cannot be sustained. Concerned respondent therefore, is required to be directed to give credit of tax deducted at source to the assessee

Fairyland Hotels and Resorts Pvt.Ltd., Gwalior vs. ACIT, Gwalior

Appeal is allowed

ITA 101/AGR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra13 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 221Section 221(1)

National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)-NFAC”],Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1033180097(1) dated 31.05.2021, involving proceedings under section 221(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 3. It emerges during ... course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have levied section 221(1) penalty of Rs.8 lakhs in assessee’s case for non-payment of tax demand, thereby holding it to have failed to explain cogent reasons for non-payment thereof. 4. It is in this factual backdrop that

Geethika Enterprises, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(4), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1240/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1239 & 1240/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Geethika Enterprises Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 11(4) Pan:Aamfg5506F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate A Harish राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Aluru Venkata Rao, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 10/01/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocate A HarishFor Respondent: : Shri Aluru Venkata Rao, DR
Section 143(3)Section 221(1)Section 271(1)(c)

ITA Nos 1239 and 1240 of 2024 Geethika Enterprises आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX

Geethika Enterprises, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 11(4), Hyderabad

ITA 1239/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.1239 & 1240/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Advocate A Harish
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

ITA Nos 1239 and 1240 of 2024 Geethika Enterprises आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Devidayal Aluminium Industries (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

ITA 4610/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(47)Section 221(1)

directed against the CIT(A), Ghaziabad’s common order dated 29.06.2016 in case nos. 341 to 346/2015-16/GZB; respectively, in proceedings under section 221(1) of the Act. Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused. 2. The Revenue’s “lead” quantum appeal ITA No. 3850/Del/2016 for the first