← 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

Unitech Acacia Projects P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-27(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2912/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalआअसं.2909/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2011-12) Unitech Hospitality Services Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-8460-H बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 आअसं.2912/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2013-14) Unitech Acacia Services Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-9453-H बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 आअसं.2913/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2013-14) Unitech Hi-Tech Developers Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-8064-B बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 (Ays 2011-12 & 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri D.C Garg, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 144CSection 271(1)(c)Section 274

144C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act would show that the penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for concealment of income. Whereas, the penalty has been levied by the AO vide order dated 26.04.2018 for furnishing inaccurate particulars. 8. The manner in which the Assessing ... Supreme Court of India in the case of T. Ashok Pai vs CIT, 161 Taxman 340 has held that the expression ‘concealment of income’ and ‘furnishing inaccurate particulars’ carry different connotations. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samson Perinchery, 392 ITR 4 has held

Unitech Hospitality Services Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-27(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2909/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalआअसं.2909/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2011-12) Unitech Hospitality Services Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-8460-H बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 आअसं.2912/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2013-14) Unitech Acacia Services Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-9453-H बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 आअसं.2913/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2013-14) Unitech Hi-Tech Developers Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-8064-B बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 (Ays 2011-12 & 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri D.C Garg, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 144CSection 271(1)(c)Section 274

144C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act would show that the penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for concealment of income. Whereas, the penalty has been levied by the AO vide order dated 26.04.2018 for furnishing inaccurate particulars. 8. The manner in which the Assessing ... Supreme Court of India in the case of T. Ashok Pai vs CIT, 161 Taxman 340 has held that the expression ‘concealment of income’ and ‘furnishing inaccurate particulars’ carry different connotations. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samson Perinchery, 392 ITR 4 has held

Madanlal Girdharilal Bugaliya, Ahmedabad vs. ITO Ward 1(2)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2024/AHD/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri B. P. Makwana, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri B. P. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

2024/Ahd/2024 relating to imposition of penalty in relation to the aforesaid transaction under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. ITA Nos. 2023&2024/Ahd/2024 Madanlal Girdharilal Bugaliya vs. ITO Asst.Year –2010-11 - 5– 10. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That

Madanlal Girdharilal Bugaliya, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(2)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2023/AHD/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri B. P. Makwana, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri B. P. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

2024/Ahd/2024 relating to imposition of penalty in relation to the aforesaid transaction under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. ITA Nos. 2023&2024/Ahd/2024 Madanlal Girdharilal Bugaliya vs. ITO Asst.Year –2010-11 - 5– 10. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That

Dipakkumar Jagdishchandra Maheta, Chhotaudepur vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), (Previously ITO, Ward-3(1)(3)), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1331/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Dipakkumar Jagdishchandra Maheta The Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) Holi Chakla Vs. Vadodara. Alipura Char Rasta Bodeli,Chhotaudepur Gujarat. Pan : Ahtpm 6296 N (Applicant) (Responent) : Shhri Jigar Adhyaru, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 15.05.2024, Confirming The Addition Made By The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 3(1)(3), Baroda [Hereinafter Referred To As “Assessing Officer Or Ao”] Under Section 68 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] In Respect Of The Opening Capital Balance As On 01.04.2014 Amounting To Rs.96,10,209/–, In The Case Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015–16. 2. Facts Of The Case

For Respondent: Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

same to tax under section 115BBE at the special rate. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) alleging concealment of income. 3. The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), inter alia, challenging the addition of Rs.96,10,209/– on the ground that the opening

Baidya Nath Dey, Burdwan vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Durgapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 337/KOL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ito, Ward 1(3), Durgapur, Baidya Nath Dey Aaykar Bhavan, Aykar Bithi, City Station More, P.O. Ukhra Centre, Durgapur, Vs. Burdwan-713363, West Bengal West Bengal-713216 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahppd0247E Assessee By : Shri Shuvo Chackrborty, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Shuvo Chackrborty, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act did not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Consequently, we are inclined to quash the penalty order passed

Oriental Relays LLP (Successor to Oriental Relays Pvt. Ltd.), Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 8(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1574/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jul 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Oriental Relays Llp Pan No. Aahfo5108L Acit, Circle 8(2), (Successor To Oriental Relays Aaykar Bhavan, P7, Pvt. Ltd Pan No. Aaaco3456H) Chowringhee Square, Vs. 2Nd Floor, S.B. Tower, 37 Kolkata-700069, West Bengal Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700017, West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Shreya Loyalka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act did not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income for which the penalty notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is invalid. Same issue

M/S.Redington Distributions Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Intltaxation Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 894/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 144CSection 148Section 271(1)(c)

assessment proceedings and it remained open for the assessee to show that the addition confirmed in MAP resolution was not due to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars and therefore, it was not liable to penalty. In our considered view, on the given facts before us, this decision ... also held that the onus lies on the assessee to establish that the addition finally decide by the MAP is not due to concealment of income or furnishing all inaccurate particulars. Therefore, this decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court will not come to the rescue of the Revenue

M/S.Redington Distributions Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Intltaxation Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 893/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 144CSection 148Section 271(1)(c)

assessment proceedings and it remained open for the assessee to show that the addition confirmed in MAP resolution was not due to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars and therefore, it was not liable to penalty. In our considered view, on the given facts before us, this decision ... also held that the onus lies on the assessee to establish that the addition finally decide by the MAP is not due to concealment of income or furnishing all inaccurate particulars. Therefore, this decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court will not come to the rescue of the Revenue

M/S. Redington Distribution Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Intl Taxation Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 892/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 144CSection 148Section 271(1)(c)

assessment proceedings and it remained open for the assessee to show that the addition confirmed in MAP resolution was not due to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars and therefore, it was not liable to penalty. In our considered view, on the given facts before us, this decision ... also held that the onus lies on the assessee to establish that the addition finally decide by the MAP is not due to concealment of income or furnishing all inaccurate particulars. Therefore, this decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court will not come to the rescue of the Revenue

M/S. Redington Distribution Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Intl Taxation Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 891/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 144CSection 148Section 271(1)(c)

assessment proceedings and it remained open for the assessee to show that the addition confirmed in MAP resolution was not due to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars and therefore, it was not liable to penalty. In our considered view, on the given facts before us, this decision ... also held that the onus lies on the assessee to establish that the addition finally decide by the MAP is not due to concealment of income or furnishing all inaccurate particulars. Therefore, this decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court will not come to the rescue of the Revenue

M/S.Redington Distributors Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Intl Taxation Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 890/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 144CSection 148Section 271(1)(c)

assessment proceedings and it remained open for the assessee to show that the addition confirmed in MAP resolution was not due to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars and therefore, it was not liable to penalty. In our considered view, on the given facts before us, this decision ... also held that the onus lies on the assessee to establish that the addition finally decide by the MAP is not due to concealment of income or furnishing all inaccurate particulars. Therefore, this decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court will not come to the rescue of the Revenue

M/S.Redington Distribution Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Intl Taxation Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 889/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 144CSection 148Section 271(1)(c)

assessment proceedings and it remained open for the assessee to show that the addition confirmed in MAP resolution was not due to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars and therefore, it was not liable to penalty. In our considered view, on the given facts before us, this decision ... also held that the onus lies on the assessee to establish that the addition finally decide by the MAP is not due to concealment of income or furnishing all inaccurate particulars. Therefore, this decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court will not come to the rescue of the Revenue

Rajesh Singh, Hajipur vs. Addl/JCIT, Delhi

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

ITA 573/PAT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz)

taken income from other sources of Rs.2,00,000/- and added to the total income of the assessee and initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of income. 4.3. With regard to the addition on account of sale of milk and bio-products, old tree and wood, the assessee claimed 4 Rajesh

Ganapati Technology Services Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 6(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 485/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jul 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 485/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Ganapati Technology Services Pvt. Ltd.,…Appellant 6B, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Sarani, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Aadcg2354D] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-6(3), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Sanjeev Kadel, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Susanta Saha, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: May 21, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 28, 2025 O R D E R

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 271(1)(c)

Ganapati Technology Services Private Limited without any credible evidence. The Learned Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income whereas in fact there is no concealment on the part of the Appellant Company. The Appellant being aggrieved by this action of the Assessing

Bastuhara Sahayata Samiti, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 1(2)(Exemption), Kolkata

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

ITA 444/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 444/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Bastuhara Sahayata Samiti,……………….…Appellant 27/1B, Bidhan Sarani, Srimini Market, Kolkata-700006, West Bengal [Pan:Aaatb7422R] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-1(2), (Exemption), Kolkata, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsian, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: May 20, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 28, 2025 O R D E R

Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

apart an amount of Rs.35,00,000/- u/s.11(2) of the Act, which was an afterthought and a clear ploy for concealment of income, inasmuch as the donations claimed as corpus donation were not corpus in nature but general donations. (iii)That petition for condonation of delay in on-line ... immediate next financial year relevant to A.Y. 2017-18. Hence allegation of the Ld. A.O. that it was a clear ploy for concealment of income was unfounded and baseless; more so when the audited balance sheet, income & expenditure statement etc. for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18 were filed during

Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board, Dehradun vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

In the result, all three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5130/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 10(46)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Subsequently, AO levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) total amounting to Rs. 4,39,50,369/- on account of concealment of income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. It is also on record that the impugned addition made by the AO on account of disallowance of exemption ... view that the exemption u/s 10(46) amounting to Rs. 14,22,34,208/- was claimed deliberately and knowingly by the appellant for concealment of income by furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income. 5.4 The provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act stipulate that if the Assessing Officer

Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board, Dehradun vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

In the result, all three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5129/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 10(46)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Subsequently, AO levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) total amounting to Rs. 4,39,50,369/- on account of concealment of income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. It is also on record that the impugned addition made by the AO on account of disallowance of exemption ... view that the exemption u/s 10(46) amounting to Rs. 14,22,34,208/- was claimed deliberately and knowingly by the appellant for concealment of income by furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income. 5.4 The provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act stipulate that if the Assessing Officer

Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board, Dehradun vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

In the result, all three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5128/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 10(46)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Subsequently, AO levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) total amounting to Rs. 4,39,50,369/- on account of concealment of income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. It is also on record that the impugned addition made by the AO on account of disallowance of exemption ... view that the exemption u/s 10(46) amounting to Rs. 14,22,34,208/- was claimed deliberately and knowingly by the appellant for concealment of income by furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income. 5.4 The provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act stipulate that if the Assessing Officer

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Shriprop Properties Private Limited, Bangalore

ITA 1283/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Mrs. S. Ananthan, CA (virtually)For Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 40A(2)(b)Section 56(2)(x)

group case of Shri Ram Prasath Reddy on 27.11.2020 alleging that document found in the search process contained details of concealment of income by the assessee with respect to acquisition of immovable property from M/s Gateway Office Parks Pvt. Ltd. during the previous year 2017-18. Accordingly, the AO issued