← All Phrases

“Section 28(1)(c)”

Section References (mined)Section 28Section 28(1)(c)14 judgments

SRIMAD VIRAT POTHULURI VEERABRAHMENDRA SWAMULAVARI MUTTAM,KADAPA vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2287/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17
For Appellant: \nShri Ravindra Chenji, Advocate

which has escaped assessment. Having considered the\nscope and object of the said provisions, the Full Bench held that\npenalty under section 28(1)(c) of the old Act /corresponding to\nsection 271(1)(c) of the new Act can be levied during the course of\nproceedings under section

SRIMAD VIRAT POTTULURI VEERA BRAHMENDRA SWAMULA VARI MATTAM,CUDDAPAH vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD, TIRUPATHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1164/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1164/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Vs. Income Tax Officer Brahmendra Swamula Vari Exemption Ward, Mattam, Kadapa. Tirupati. Pan: Aagts2599Q (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.2287/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Vs. Income Tax Officer, Brahmendra Swamula Vari Exemption Ward, Chittoor, Mattam, Kadapa. Tirupati. Pan: Aagts2599Q (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri Ravindra Chenji, Advocate (Through Hybrid Mode) राज" व "वारा/Revenue By:: Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr.Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement: 13/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Brahmendra Swamula Vari Mattam (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra Chenji, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr.AR

which has escaped assessment. Having considered the scope and object of the said provisions, the Full Bench held that penalty under section 28(1)(c) of the old Act /corresponding to section 271(1)(c) of the new Act can be levied during the course of proceedings under section

VIJAYAWADA TOLLWAY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is\nOrder pronounced in the Open Court on 6th February, 2026

ITA 1468/HYD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Feb 2026AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

which has escaped assessment.\nHaving considered the scope and object of the said provisions,\nthe Full Bench held that penalty under section 28(1)(c) of the\nold Act [corresponding to section 271(1)(c) of the new Act] can\nbe levied during the course of proceedings under section

SHRI ANTRIKSH GUPTA,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-35(4), DELHI

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

ITA 2421/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 271ASection 271B

said in such a case that there has been a concealment of the particulars of income or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars and Section 28(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 would not be applicable. The Madras High Court has held as follows: When we come to Section ... deliberate furnishing of inaccurate 'particulars' of income. In the setting in which this sub-section finds place it is impossible to construe Section 28(1)(c) except as relating to a case where a return has been filed but from which return particulars of income have been omitted

SHRI ANTRIKSH GUPTA,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-35(4), DELHI

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

ITA 2420/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 271ASection 271B

said in such a case that there has been a concealment of the particulars of income or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars and Section 28(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 would not be applicable. The Madras High Court has held as follows: When we come to Section ... deliberate furnishing of inaccurate 'particulars' of income. In the setting in which this sub-section finds place it is impossible to construe Section 28(1)(c) except as relating to a case where a return has been filed but from which return particulars of income have been omitted

BRIGHT SINGH CHELLADURAI,NAGERCOIL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, TIRUNELVELI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1428/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1428/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 V. Bright Singh Chelladurai, The Income Tax Officer, No.5, Nanthanial Street, Ward-1, Nagercoil, Tirunelveli. Kanyakumari-629 001. [Pan: Atvpb 0028 K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Raghav Rajeev MenonFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 144Section 148Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

said in such a case that there has been a concealment of the particulars of income or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars and Section 28(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 would not be applicable. The Madras High Court has held as follows: When we come to Section ... deliberate furnishing of inaccurate 'particulars' of income. In the setting in which this sub-section finds place it is impossible to construe Section 28(1)(c) except as relating to a case where a return has been filed but from which return particulars of income have been omitted

CHANDRAVADAN DESAI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-7(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

ITA 674/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 674/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Chandravadan Desai Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2), Sb Tower, 3Rd Floor Vs Kolkata 37, Shakespeare Sarani Circus Avenue S.O. Kolkata - 700017 [Pan : Aabdh5812Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akkal Dudhewala, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (In Short ‘Ld. First Appellate Authority’) Dt. 09/05/2023 Which Is Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’), Dt. 30/12/2016 Relevant To Assessment Year 2014-15 Framed By Acit, Circle-32, Kolkata. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Lower Authorities Inspite Of Being Aware That Chandravadan Desai Huf Had Been Partitioned & Had Ceased To Exist Upon Its Partition On The 26Th Day Of March 2014 & The Impugned Penalty Order Passed By The Ao In The Name Of Chandravadan Desai Huf, A Non-Existent Person Was Invalid & Therefore The Order Deserves To Be Cancelled.

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, HON’BLE

UMA MANDAL ,JAIPUR (RAJASTHAN) vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR (RAJASTHAN)

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

ITA 281/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 280 & 281/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2010-11 Uma Mandal 754, Lodho Ka Maohalla M. D. Road, Ward No. 34, Jaipur cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2), Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: APSPM 2419 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : None jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a lquokbZ dh rkjh[

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 271ASection 271BSection 273BSection 44A

said in such a case that there has been a concealment of the particulars of income or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars and section 28(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 would not be applicable. The Madras High Court has held as follows : "When we come to section ... deliberate furnishing of inaccurate ‘particulars’ of income. In the setting in which this subsection finds place it is impossible to construe section 28(1)(c) except as relating to a case where a return has been filed but from which return particulars of income have been omitted or any particulars

UMA MANDAL,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

ITA 280/JPR/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Sept 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 280 & 281/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2010-11 Uma Mandal 754, Lodho Ka Maohalla M. D. Road, Ward No. 34, Jaipur cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2), Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: APSPM 2419 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : None jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a lquokbZ dh rkjh[

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 271ASection 271BSection 273BSection 44A

said in such a case that there has been a concealment of the particulars of income or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars and section 28(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 would not be applicable. The Madras High Court has held as follows : "When we come to section ... deliberate furnishing of inaccurate ‘particulars’ of income. In the setting in which this subsection finds place it is impossible to construe section 28(1)(c) except as relating to a case where a return has been filed but from which return particulars of income have been omitted or any particulars

BHAWANI SHANKAR GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

ITA 43/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

said in such a case that there has been a concealment of the particulars of income or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars and section 28(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 would not be applicable. The Madras High Court has held as follows : "When we come to section ... deliberate furnishing of inaccurate ‘particulars’ of income. In the setting in which this subsection finds place it is impossible to construe section 28(1)(c) except as relating to a case where a return has been filed but from which return particulars of income have been omitted or any particulars

RAKESH KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

ITA 330/JPR/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 217BSection 271B

said in such a case that there has been a concealment of the particulars of income or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars and section 28(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 would not be applicable. The Madras High Court has held as follows : 20 M/s Rakesh Kumar Agarwal ... When we come to section 28(1)(c ), it deals specifically with the concealment of ‘particulars’ of income or the deliberate furnishing of inaccurate ‘particulars’ of income. In the setting in which this subsection finds place it is impossible to construe section 28(1)(c) except as relating

LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD-4(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 278/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.

For Appellant: Ms Suhani Meharwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271B

said in such a case that there has been a concealment of the particulars of income or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars and section 28(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 would not be applicable. The Madras High Court has held as follows: "When we come to section ... deliberate furnishing of inaccurate ‘particulars’ of income. In the setting in which this subsection finds place it is impossible to construe section 28(1)(c) except as relating to a case where a return has been filed but from which return particulars of income have been omitted or any particulars

MR. MANOJ KUMAR GOUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD-4(3), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 247/JPR/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

said in such a case that there has been a concealment of the particulars of income or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars and section 28(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 would not be applicable. The Madras High Court has held as follows : "When we come to section ... deliberate furnishing of inaccurate ‘particulars’ of income. In the setting in which this subsection finds place it is impossible to construe section 28(1)(c) except as relating to a case where a return has been filed but from which return particulars of income have been omitted or any particulars

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S USHA INTERNATIONAL LTD.

ITA - 1696 / 2006HC Delhi05 Nov 2012
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 260ASection 27(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35C

consequence at all”, while considering the liability of the assessee under 2012:DHC:6725-DB ITA 1696/2006 Page 12 of 13 Section 28(1)(c) of the old Act (now Section 271(1) (c) of the 1961 Act). The Madras High Court proceeded to observe that it is not possible