← All Phrases

“concealment of income”

PenaltySection 271(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)2,901 judgments

The decision most relied on for concealment of income is CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), cited in 2,590 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on concealment of income

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory
359 ITR 565 · 2013 · High Court
2,590
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.

CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.
322 ITR 158 · 2010 · Supreme Court
2,228
citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income is not automatically leviable if the assessee has made a full disclosure of all particulars and the addition or disallowance arises from a difference of opinion.

CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows
73 Taxmann.com 248 · 2016 · Supreme Court
953
citing judgments

A notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether penalty proceedings are for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Such lack of specificity vitiates the penalty proceedings.

Ashok Pai v. CIT
292 ITR 11 · 2007 · Supreme Court
812
citing judgments

“Concealment of particulars of income” and “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” are two distinct offences under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. A penalty cannot be levied under one limb if the show cause notice or basis for penalty specifies the other, as this constitutes a complete variance in the reasons for assuming jurisdiction.

CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows
73 Taxmann.com 241 · 2016 · High Court
791
citing judgments

A penalty notice under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty is for concealment of income or for furnishing incorrect particulars of income.

Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT
434 ITR 1 · 2021 · High Court
672
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify the exact charge by not striking off the irrelevant limb (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income). Such an omnibus or vague notice renders the penalty proceedings bad in law, and any penalty imposed on its basis is liable to be quashed.

Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT
291 ITR 519 · 2007 · Supreme Court
565
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if the Assessing Officer fails to strike out the inapplicable limb (concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars) from the standard proforma, indicating non-application of mind. The initial burden of proving concealment or inaccurate particulars rests on the Revenue.

CIT v. Kaushalya
216 ITR 660 · 1995 · High Court
511
citing judgments

A penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is not invalidated by the Assessing Officer's failure to strike off irrelevant portions in the show cause notice, provided the assessee understood the exact charge and suffered no prejudice, indicating an application of mind by the AO.

Judgments citing concealment of income

Heidelberg Cement India Limited, Gurugram vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 2(1), Gurugram

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2287/DEL/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Kamal Arya, Advocate
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Tribunal. 3. Before us the ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that it is not a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income by the assessee, but the claim was made by the assessee relying on various case laws on the subject. The Ld. Counsel submits that

Heidelberg Cement India Limited, Gurugram vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Gurugram

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2286/DEL/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Kamal Arya, Advocate
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Tribunal. 3. Before us the ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that it is not a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income by the assessee, but the claim was made by the assessee relying on various case laws on the subject. The Ld. Counsel submits that

Heidelberg Cement India Limited, Gurugram vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Gurugram

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2285/DEL/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Kamal Arya, Advocate
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Tribunal. 3. Before us the ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that it is not a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income by the assessee, but the claim was made by the assessee relying on various case laws on the subject. The Ld. Counsel submits that

Nisha Rungta, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 290/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.) &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

reference nos. 611 to 614 of 1986 Dated August 19, 1998. Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Penalty - For concealment of income Assessment years 1972-73 to 1975-76 Pursuant to search at premises of assessee, a doctor, and in view of statement of his accountant ... January 17, 2014: Section 271(1)(c), read with section 143, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For concealment of income (Addition to income) - Assessment year 1996-97 - Assessee filed his return by declaring that income of HUF was included in his return - It was observed that only

Braganza and Fulari Ventures Private Limited, Mapusa vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2(1), Panaji

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 28/PAN/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji06 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.28/Pan/2022 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Braganza & Fulari Ventures Vs. Acit, Private Limited, Circle-2(1), 303-304, 3Rd Floor, Panaji B&F Habitat Building, Canca Parra Bypass, Ximer Bardez, Mapusa, Goa – 403507 Pan : Aaecb3628E Appellant Respondent

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

u/s.271(1)(c), subject to the fulfilment of requisite conditions of the section. One cannot say that disallowance of expenses has resulted into `concealment of income for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income’. The third category created by the ld. CIT(A) does not find its presence in any part

The Purshottam Farmers Co.Op Cotton Ginning & Pressing Society Ltd., Surat vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(3), Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 501/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) The Purshottam Farmers Co. Op D.C.I.T., Cotton Ginning & Pressing Society Circle-2(3), Surat, Vs. Ltd., Aayakar Bhawan, Jahangirpura Gin, Jahangirpura, Majuragate, Surat, Rander, Surat, Gujarat-395009 Gujarat-395001. Pan No. Aaaat 3000 A Appellant/ Respondent Respondent/ Assessee

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 3Section 80P(2)(d)

taking a view that the assessee is not eligible for such deduction. The assessee has neither concealed any income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income rather the disallowance was made on the basis of change of opinion. Mere disallowance in every case would not ipso facto lead to levy ... details of its expenditure as well as income in its return which was not found to be inaccurate nor could be viewed as concealment of income on their part, it was on the authorities who accepted or not. Merely the assessee claimed expenditure which was not accepted to the revenue

Kraft Foods Group Brands Llc, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-3(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2495/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Us Raising Following Grounds In Its Appeal: -

Section 143(2)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 234BSection 270ASection 9(1)(vii)

offered Page No. | 5 Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC by the assessee in its return of income are matching. Hence there is no concealment of income. 8. On the other hand, Ld. DR submitted that assessee may have to get the certificate from Payee to substantiate its claim. He supported

Late Shri Amitabh A. Parekh (Through L/R. Julie A. Parekh), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, the penalty appeals of the assesse captioned as ITA

ITA 3592/MUM/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2946/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2947/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2948/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2949/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / A Ssessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2945/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Late Shri Amitabh A. बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-20 Parekh Mumbai-400020. Vs. (Through Mrs. Julie A. Parekh Legal Representative) 85, Navrang, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3590/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3591/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3592/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3589/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.597/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Late Shri Amitabh A. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(2) Old Cgo Building, 8Th Parekh Vs. (Through Mrs. Julie A. Floor, Mumbai-400020. Parekh Legal Representative) 85, Navrang, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. A.Ys. 2003-04 To 07-08 Amitabh A. Parekh स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaipp6897N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sankalp Sharma Revenue By: Shri Sushil K Poddar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri Sankalp SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Sushil K Poddar (DR)
Section 132Section 14ASection 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

specify for what fault/charge the penalty has been proposed against the assessee i.e. whether penalty was proposed for the lapse/fault of assessee for “concealment of income” or “furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income”. According to him, the AO having not specified the charge against the assessee for levy of penalty

Late Shri Amitabh A. Parekh( Through L/R. Julie A. Parekh), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, the penalty appeals of the assesse captioned as ITA

ITA 3591/MUM/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2946/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2947/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2948/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2949/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / A Ssessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2945/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Late Shri Amitabh A. बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-20 Parekh Mumbai-400020. Vs. (Through Mrs. Julie A. Parekh Legal Representative) 85, Navrang, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3590/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3591/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3592/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3589/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.597/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Late Shri Amitabh A. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(2) Old Cgo Building, 8Th Parekh Vs. (Through Mrs. Julie A. Floor, Mumbai-400020. Parekh Legal Representative) 85, Navrang, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. A.Ys. 2003-04 To 07-08 Amitabh A. Parekh स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaipp6897N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sankalp Sharma Revenue By: Shri Sushil K Poddar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri Sankalp SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Sushil K Poddar (DR)
Section 132Section 14ASection 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

specify for what fault/charge the penalty has been proposed against the assessee i.e. whether penalty was proposed for the lapse/fault of assessee for “concealment of income” or “furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income”. According to him, the AO having not specified the charge against the assessee for levy of penalty

Late Shri Amitabh A. Parekh( Through L/R. Julie A. Parekh), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, the penalty appeals of the assesse captioned as ITA

ITA 3590/MUM/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2946/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2947/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2948/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2949/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / A Ssessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2945/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Late Shri Amitabh A. बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-20 Parekh Mumbai-400020. Vs. (Through Mrs. Julie A. Parekh Legal Representative) 85, Navrang, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3590/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3591/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3592/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3589/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.597/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Late Shri Amitabh A. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(2) Old Cgo Building, 8Th Parekh Vs. (Through Mrs. Julie A. Floor, Mumbai-400020. Parekh Legal Representative) 85, Navrang, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. A.Ys. 2003-04 To 07-08 Amitabh A. Parekh स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaipp6897N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sankalp Sharma Revenue By: Shri Sushil K Poddar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri Sankalp SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Sushil K Poddar (DR)
Section 132Section 14ASection 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

specify for what fault/charge the penalty has been proposed against the assessee i.e. whether penalty was proposed for the lapse/fault of assessee for “concealment of income” or “furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income”. According to him, the AO having not specified the charge against the assessee for levy of penalty

Late Shri Amitabh A. Parekh( Through L/R. Julie A. Parekh), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, the penalty appeals of the assesse captioned as ITA

ITA 3589/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2946/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2947/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2948/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2949/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / A Ssessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2945/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Late Shri Amitabh A. बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-20 Parekh Mumbai-400020. Vs. (Through Mrs. Julie A. Parekh Legal Representative) 85, Navrang, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3590/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3591/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3592/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3589/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.597/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Late Shri Amitabh A. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(2) Old Cgo Building, 8Th Parekh Vs. (Through Mrs. Julie A. Floor, Mumbai-400020. Parekh Legal Representative) 85, Navrang, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. A.Ys. 2003-04 To 07-08 Amitabh A. Parekh स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaipp6897N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sankalp Sharma Revenue By: Shri Sushil K Poddar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri Sankalp SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Sushil K Poddar (DR)
Section 132Section 14ASection 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

specify for what fault/charge the penalty has been proposed against the assessee i.e. whether penalty was proposed for the lapse/fault of assessee for “concealment of income” or “furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income”. According to him, the AO having not specified the charge against the assessee for levy of penalty

M/S Shree Rajmoti Inds., Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The A. C.I.T., Circle-2(1), Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 172/RJT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 10(34)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

were disclosed by the assessee as such it could not ACIT[2015-ITRV-ITAT- DEL-012] be said that the assessee has either concealed any income or furnished inaccurate particulars. 3 Madras High Court in case has held that mere addition of income or of CIT vs. JayarajTalkies surrender ... Bennett Coleman imposed when there was no desire on part of & Co. Ltd [2013 ITRV- assessee to hide or conceal the income but it was an inadvertent mistake on part of assessee HCMUM-030] and when there is only change of head of income no penalty could be imposed Supreme

Yoonus Kadavath Peedikayil, Kannur vs. ITO Ward 1 & Tps, Kannur

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 913/COCH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasyoonus Kadavath Peedikayil The Income Tax Officer M/S. Modern Enterprises Ward – 1 & Tps Kakkad Road Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Kannur 670005 Kannothumchal [Pan:Ccwpk6415P] Chovva P.O., Kannur 670006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 44A

part, so that irrespective of whether it is apparently a case of commission or omission, the two lead to the same default of concealment of income chargeable to tax. Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c), as apparent from its reading and, further, well settled, shifts the burden of proof ... therefore wrong on the part of the AO to state, at para 4 of the penalty order, that penalty proceedings for concealment of income were initiated by issue of notice u/s. 271(1)(c) on 20.11.2018. That is, the assessee is not aggrieved by the notice as issued

J.P Tobaco Products Pvt. Ltd., Damoh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle, Sagar

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

ITA 184/JAB/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Sept 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 115Section 271Section 271(1)(d)

Counsel for the assessee submitted that the AO in the penalty order has not recorded satisfaction whether the penalty has been levied for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of fringe benefit . He further submitted that Ld.CIT(A) had deleted the addition whereas Tribunal has upheld

J.P Tobaco Products Pvt. Ltd., Damoh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle, Sagar

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

ITA 183/JAB/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Sept 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 115Section 271Section 271(1)(d)

Counsel for the assessee submitted that the AO in the penalty order has not recorded satisfaction whether the penalty has been levied for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of fringe benefit . He further submitted that Ld.CIT(A) had deleted the addition whereas Tribunal has upheld

J.P Tobacco Product Pvt. Ltd., Damoh vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Sagar

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

ITA 155/JAB/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Sept 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. J.P.Tobacco Products Vs Acit, Pvt. Ltd., Patharia Phatak, Circle-Sagar. Damoh (M.P.). (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj7141G Assessee By Shri G.N.Purohit, Sr.Adv. & Shri Abhijeet Shrivastava, Adv. Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2023

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

well as income in is return, which details, in themselves we not found to be inaccurate nor could be viewed as the concealment of income on its parts. It was up to the authorities to accept its claim in the return or not. Merely because the assessee had claimed ... Tribunal, in these circumstances, was of the view that the confirmation of disallowance by the Tribunal did not mean that the assessee had concealed the income or had filed inaccurate particulars thereof. Noticing that the assessee had given an explanation vide its letter dated March 22, 2006 giving reasons

Meena Ramkrishna Chavan, Vashi vs. ACIT-28(2), Vashi

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 1828/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Kirit Sheth, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

particulars of income OR furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and thereafter vide penalty order dated 27-09-2016 worked out the concealment of income to the tune of Rs. 11,71,831/- (i.e. Rs. 5,19,451 + Rs. 6,52,380/-) and ultimately levied the penalty for concealment ... circumstances of the case and observe that the AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act not only for concealment of income but also for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and accordingly issued the notice dated 26-03-2015 under section 274 r.w.s

Ravindra Walia, Mumbai vs. Asstt Commissioner of Income Tax-11(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1100/MUM/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

deposits amounting to Rs.90,59,009/- and also an additional penalty was levied for the difference of Rs.59,009/- on the ground of concealment of income. The ld. AR contended that the assessee has neither concealed the income nor has filed inaccurate particulars. The ld. AR for the assessee argued ... removed certain entries pertaining to cash from his computer during the year under consideration. The ld. CIT(A) held that there was concealment of income and as a consequence was by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income of the assessee and, hence, the ld. A.O. had rightly mentioned that

Ravindra Walia, Mumbai vs. Asstt Commissioner of Income Tax -16(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1099/MUM/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

deposits amounting to Rs.90,59,009/- and also an additional penalty was levied for the difference of Rs.59,009/- on the ground of concealment of income. The ld. AR contended that the assessee has neither concealed the income nor has filed inaccurate particulars. The ld. AR for the assessee argued ... removed certain entries pertaining to cash from his computer during the year under consideration. The ld. CIT(A) held that there was concealment of income and as a consequence was by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income of the assessee and, hence, the ld. A.O. had rightly mentioned that

Schindler India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7493/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Ms. Padmavathy.Sआअसं.7492 /मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2004-05) आअसं.7493 /मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2005-06) M/S. Schindler India P. Ltd. E-401, Delphi, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai – 400 076. Pan: Aaecs-1548-J ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range – 8(3), Aaykar Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms.Sakshi Dande Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Kumar सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/09/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Mumbai [In Short ‘ The Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Years 2004-05 & 2005-06, Respectively Confirming Penalty Levied U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [ In Short ‘The Act’]. Both The Impugned Orders Are Of Even Date I.E. 10/09/2014. Since, The Facts

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar &For Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar
Section 271(1)(c)

assessee is, that no particulars were withheld by the assessee while making adjustment. It is not a case of furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. If, the adjustment made by the assessee to arrive at adjusted operating margin are not acceptable to the TPO, it cannot be a case ... well as income in its return, which details, in themselves, were not found to be inaccurate nor could be viewed as the concealment of income on its part. It was up to the authorities to accept its claim in the return or not. Merely because the assessee had claimed