“Section 271(1)(e)”

Section References (mined)Section 271Section 271(1)(e)13 judgments

BRIJ GOPAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4800/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 1Section 143Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(2)(a)

ACIT x) 241 ITR 124 (MP) affirmed in 251 ITR 9 (SC) CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal "It is well settled that under section 271(1)(e) the initial burden lies on the Revenue to establish that the assessee had concealed the income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of such

MAHESH KUMAR,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-68(6), DELHI

In the result, Ground no. 3 as raised by the assessee deserves to be allowed and the impugned addition cannot be sustained

ITA 2650/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang(), Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Mahesh Kumar, Vs Ito, 6/305/1A, Doonger Ward-68(6), Mohalla, Delhi-110032. Delhi. Pan-Aoopk6335A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca Respondent By Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”, DELHI BEFORE JUSTICE (RETD.) C.V. BHADANG, PRESIDENT (THIRD MEMBER), SHRI MAHAVIR

ACE ELECTROMAGNETICS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ITO,WD 9(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1865/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal Bhuta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr. DR

Section 145(3)Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271(1)(e)

deserved to be modified.” Additional Grounds 1. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the actions of Assessing Officer in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without striking off the irrelevant limb, i.e., whether the penalty levied is for concealment of particulars

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), DELHI, DELHI vs. ARTISTIC FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, Ground no. 3 as raised by the assessee deserves to be allowed and the impugned addition cannot be sustained

ITA 2650/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2025AY 2014-15

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”, DELHI BEFORE JUSTICE (RETD.) C.V. BHADANG, PRESIDENT (THIRD MEMBER), SHRI MAHAVIR

APTIVAA MIDDLE EAST FZE,DUBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1985/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Khirendra M. Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar- Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)Section 149(1)(b)Section 271(1)(e)Section 274Section 6(3)(ii)

case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 274 read with 271F of the Act and section 271(1)(e) of the Act for the subject year as the same is bad in law.” 2. The assessee is a non-resident company incorporated

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. RASHTROTTHANA PARISHAT, BENGALURU

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

ITA 1666/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017=18

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra CIT-D.RFor Respondent: Sri Prakash Shridhar Hegde, CA

Section 11Section 11(6)Section 250Section 270ASection 274

Shroff’s case (supra) has not considered the effect and relevance of section 276C of the Income-tax Act. Object behind enactment of section 271(1)(e) read with Explanations indicate that the said section has been enacted to provide for a remedy for loss of revenue. The penalty under

HATIM GLAZING & CLADDING PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 5(1)(1) ,MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 907/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shalin S. DivatiaFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 251(2)Section 269TSection 271ESection 40

Assessee challenging the Order, dated 09/02/2024 passed by the CIT(A) dismissing the appeal against the Penalty Order, dated 03/03/2022, passed under Section 271(1)(E) of the Act on the ground of non-prosecution. 12. We have, hereinabove, already restored the appeal against the quantum order before

HATIM GLAZING & CLADDING PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 5(1)(1). MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 906/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shalin S. DivatiaFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 251(2)Section 269TSection 271ESection 40

DCIT 14(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MICHAEL PAGE INTERNATIONAL RECRUITMENT PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 3090/MUM/2023[2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Ms. Hirali Desai, CA andFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

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

penalty proceedings for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income but ultimately levying penalty for concealment of income relying upon Explanation: Clause B to section 271(1)(e) of the Act. The Assessee prays that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act be deleted ... levied when there are two plausible views or opinions on the issue. The Assessee prays that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(e) of the Act be deleted. 5. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

SRK DEV BUILD PVT LTD.,INDORE vs. DCIT/ACIT 5(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

ITA 471/IND/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2016-17 Srk Dev Build Pvt. Ltd, Dcit/Acit-5(1) 18/2, Lasudia Mori, Indore बनाम/ A.B. Road, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaqcs3387P Assessee By Shri Pranay Goyal & S.N. Goyal, Cas Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.06.2024

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 32Section 32(1)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 40

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

MOTHERSON SUMI SYSTEMS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 2054/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 108(4)Section 10BSection 10B(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 271(1)(e)Section 92D

interest under section 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act. 5. That the Ld. AO erred in law in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(e) of the Act for concealment of particulars of income and for furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof.” 3. Briefly stated the assessee is a joint

TURNING POINT ESTATES P LTD ,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 354/IND/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniturning Point Estates Pvt. Ltd. Acit 5(1) 6Th Floor, Treasure Island, 11 Indore Vs Tukoganj Main Road . Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aacct 7457 R Assessee By Shri Manjeet Sachdeva & Avinash Gaur, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10.04.2023

Section 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY

R G PATIL & COMPANY,HAVERI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI

In the result, these 2 appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 352/BANG/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.V Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT (DR)

Section 271(1)(c)

firm. Thus, the assessee's argument now does not have any credence. 4.2 The assessee has argued that provisions of explanation 5A to section 271(1)(e) is notattracted in the case of the assessee. This argument of the assessee is not correct. The provisions of explanation