← 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

M/S G M Builders, Mumbai vs. PCIT(Mumbai), Old-ACIT Circle-22(1), Piramal Chamber, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2192/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailm/S. G M Builders, 115, Veena Beena Shipping Center, Turner Road, Bandra West, Mumbai - 400050 Pan – Aaafg1872G ……………. Appellant

For Appellant: Share Hari RahejaFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi - Sr. DR
Section 1Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 270A

that "on examination of the records, it is found that the Assessing Officer had in the assessment order established that the Assessee had concealed his income by filing inaccurate particulars". There is no such finding in the order of 10 assessment. The Principal Commissioner seems to have distorted the order ... Commissioner is to that extent perverse. 15. In our view, in the absence of any finding of the Assessing Officer with regard to concealment of income or with regard to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, the Commissioner clearly erred in holding that omission to record satisfaction to initiate penalty

Jaipal Singh, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

Appeal of the assessee are disposed off

ITA 115/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sh. S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 153A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Gajanan Ferro Private Limited, Jamshedpur vs. DCIT Central Circle, Jamshedpur

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

ITA 140/RAN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 1ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

that the AO in the show cause notice for levying penalty did not specifically pointed out as to whether the penalty was w.r.t. concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particular of income. Accordingly, the show cause notice was claimed to be defective on which no penalty could be imposed ... defective in as much as the said notice did not specifically state as to whether it was for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. The assessee has placed reliance on various case laws in support of the contention that if certain show cause notice

Gajanan Ferro Private Limited, Jamshedpur vs. DCIT Central Circle, Jamshedpur

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

ITA 139/RAN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 1ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

that the AO in the show cause notice for levying penalty did not specifically pointed out as to whether the penalty was w.r.t. concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particular of income. Accordingly, the show cause notice was claimed to be defective on which no penalty could be imposed ... defective in as much as the said notice did not specifically state as to whether it was for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. The assessee has placed reliance on various case laws in support of the contention that if certain show cause notice

Alliance Dealers Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Jamshedpur

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

ITA 89/RAN/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

that the AO in the show cause notice for levying penalty did not specifically pointed out as to whether the penalty was w.r.t. concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particular of income. Accordingly, the show cause notice was claimed to be defective on which no penalty could be imposed ... defective in as much as the said notice did not specifically state as to whether it was for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. The assessee has placed reliance on various case laws in support of the contention that if certain show cause notice

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7 Pune, Pune vs. Kolte Patil Integrated Townships Limited, Pune

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

ITA 2023/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151

disallowed and added back to total income of assessee. Penalty proceeding under section 271[1][c] of the Income Tax Act 1961 for concealment of income is initiated separately. Disallowance of interest u/s 36 of the I.T. Act of Rs. 15,11,87,548/-” 6. Before

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 7 Pune, Pune vs. Kolte Patil Integrated Townships Limited, Pune

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

ITA 2011/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151

disallowed and added back to total income of assessee. Penalty proceeding under section 271[1][c] of the Income Tax Act 1961 for concealment of income is initiated separately. Disallowance of interest u/s 36 of the I.T. Act of Rs. 15,11,87,548/-” 6. Before

Raghuram Hume Pipes Private Limited, Guntur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 233/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shrik Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./ I.T.A.233/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2016-17) Raghuram Hume Pipes Private Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Guntur-522002. Income Tax, Pan: Aaccr6125N Circle-2(1), Guntur. (अपीलधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274(2)

erred in upholding the actions of the AO in levying the penalty U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act despite there being no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars the essential ingredients required to be established before levying such penalty. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have ... peace with the Department. He therefore submitted that since it is a voluntary admission of additional income, there is no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and hence, levy of penalty U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is unsustainable. On this issue

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Vadodara vs. Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Limited, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1289/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 271Section 271(1)(c)

with effect from 1-4-2001 2. Under clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of section 271 of the Act, penalty for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is determined based on the "amount of tax sought to be evaded" which has been defined inter-alia

Prakashchand Jain, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Chennai

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 66/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 60, 61, 64 & 66/Chny/2024 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Years: 2013-14 , 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Prakashchand Jain, The Dy. Commissioner Of 39 & 40 Bakers Street, Vs. Income Tax, Choolai, Chennai – 600 112. Central Circle-2(3), Chennai. [Pan: Ahhpp 1690D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 273B

appeals filled for A.Y 2013-14 to A.Y. 2016- 17 has raised the grounds of appeal in confirming the penalty for concealment of income u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The assessee is a Doctor employed in Apollo Hospital, Chennai and also doing practice as OP consultation ... concealment of particulars of income during course of assessment proceeding. The A.O has levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income after assessment order was confirmed by Ld CIT(A). Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal ITA Nos. 60, 61, 64 & 66/Chny/2024 :- 3 -: before

Prakashchand Jain, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Chennai

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 64/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 60, 61, 64 & 66/Chny/2024 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Years: 2013-14 , 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Prakashchand Jain, The Dy. Commissioner Of 39 & 40 Bakers Street, Vs. Income Tax, Choolai, Chennai – 600 112. Central Circle-2(3), Chennai. [Pan: Ahhpp 1690D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 273B

appeals filled for A.Y 2013-14 to A.Y. 2016- 17 has raised the grounds of appeal in confirming the penalty for concealment of income u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The assessee is a Doctor employed in Apollo Hospital, Chennai and also doing practice as OP consultation ... concealment of particulars of income during course of assessment proceeding. The A.O has levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income after assessment order was confirmed by Ld CIT(A). Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal ITA Nos. 60, 61, 64 & 66/Chny/2024 :- 3 -: before

Prakashchand Jain, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Chennai

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 61/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 60, 61, 64 & 66/Chny/2024 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Years: 2013-14 , 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Prakashchand Jain, The Dy. Commissioner Of 39 & 40 Bakers Street, Vs. Income Tax, Choolai, Chennai – 600 112. Central Circle-2(3), Chennai. [Pan: Ahhpp 1690D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 273B

appeals filled for A.Y 2013-14 to A.Y. 2016- 17 has raised the grounds of appeal in confirming the penalty for concealment of income u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The assessee is a Doctor employed in Apollo Hospital, Chennai and also doing practice as OP consultation ... concealment of particulars of income during course of assessment proceeding. The A.O has levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income after assessment order was confirmed by Ld CIT(A). Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal ITA Nos. 60, 61, 64 & 66/Chny/2024 :- 3 -: before

Prakash Chand Jain, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Chennai

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 60/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 60, 61, 64 & 66/Chny/2024 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Years: 2013-14 , 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Prakashchand Jain, The Dy. Commissioner Of 39 & 40 Bakers Street, Vs. Income Tax, Choolai, Chennai – 600 112. Central Circle-2(3), Chennai. [Pan: Ahhpp 1690D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 273B

appeals filled for A.Y 2013-14 to A.Y. 2016- 17 has raised the grounds of appeal in confirming the penalty for concealment of income u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The assessee is a Doctor employed in Apollo Hospital, Chennai and also doing practice as OP consultation ... concealment of particulars of income during course of assessment proceeding. The A.O has levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income after assessment order was confirmed by Ld CIT(A). Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal ITA Nos. 60, 61, 64 & 66/Chny/2024 :- 3 -: before

S Ramesh, Trunelveli vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3173/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3169/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Pothiraj, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acxpp-8538-R Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3170/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Mahesh, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6890-K Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3171/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Murugesh Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6963-D Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3172/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Ashok Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Mr. Y.Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 132Section 153CSection 250Section 270ASection 56(2)(vii)

presumption. If the assessee has provided all relevant information and the difference arises due to the deemed value, this cannot be treated as concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. ITA Nos.3169 to 3173/CHNY/2024 8. Recent developments Moreover the addition u/s 153C read with section 56 (2) (b) was rendered ... ruled in the case CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court, 2010) that simply making an incorrect claim does not amount to concealment of income. This precedent is important in cases where additions are made due to deeming provisions like Section 50C/56, as it protects taxpayers from penalties

S Ashok, Tirunelvel vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3172/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3169/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Pothiraj, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acxpp-8538-R Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3170/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Mahesh, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6890-K Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3171/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Murugesh Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6963-D Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3172/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Ashok Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Mr. Y.Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 132Section 153CSection 250Section 270ASection 56(2)(vii)

presumption. If the assessee has provided all relevant information and the difference arises due to the deemed value, this cannot be treated as concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. ITA Nos.3169 to 3173/CHNY/2024 8. Recent developments Moreover the addition u/s 153C read with section 56 (2) (b) was rendered ... ruled in the case CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court, 2010) that simply making an incorrect claim does not amount to concealment of income. This precedent is important in cases where additions are made due to deeming provisions like Section 50C/56, as it protects taxpayers from penalties

S Murugesh, Tirunelveli vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3171/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3169/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Pothiraj, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acxpp-8538-R Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3170/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Mahesh, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6890-K Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3171/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Murugesh Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6963-D Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3172/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Ashok Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Mr. Y.Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 132Section 153CSection 250Section 270ASection 56(2)(vii)

presumption. If the assessee has provided all relevant information and the difference arises due to the deemed value, this cannot be treated as concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. ITA Nos.3169 to 3173/CHNY/2024 8. Recent developments Moreover the addition u/s 153C read with section 56 (2) (b) was rendered ... ruled in the case CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court, 2010) that simply making an incorrect claim does not amount to concealment of income. This precedent is important in cases where additions are made due to deeming provisions like Section 50C/56, as it protects taxpayers from penalties

S Magesh, Tirunelveli vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3170/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3169/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Pothiraj, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acxpp-8538-R Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3170/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Mahesh, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6890-K Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3171/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Murugesh Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6963-D Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3172/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Ashok Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Mr. Y.Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 132Section 153CSection 250Section 270ASection 56(2)(vii)

presumption. If the assessee has provided all relevant information and the difference arises due to the deemed value, this cannot be treated as concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. ITA Nos.3169 to 3173/CHNY/2024 8. Recent developments Moreover the addition u/s 153C read with section 56 (2) (b) was rendered ... ruled in the case CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court, 2010) that simply making an incorrect claim does not amount to concealment of income. This precedent is important in cases where additions are made due to deeming provisions like Section 50C/56, as it protects taxpayers from penalties

S. Pothyraj, Tiunelveli vs. DCIT, Central Circle01(3), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3169/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3169/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Pothiraj, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acxpp-8538-R Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3170/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Mahesh, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6890-K Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3171/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Murugesh Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6963-D Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3172/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Ashok Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Mr. Y.Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 132Section 153CSection 250Section 270ASection 56(2)(vii)

presumption. If the assessee has provided all relevant information and the difference arises due to the deemed value, this cannot be treated as concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. ITA Nos.3169 to 3173/CHNY/2024 8. Recent developments Moreover the addition u/s 153C read with section 56 (2) (b) was rendered ... ruled in the case CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court, 2010) that simply making an incorrect claim does not amount to concealment of income. This precedent is important in cases where additions are made due to deeming provisions like Section 50C/56, as it protects taxpayers from penalties

Kuber Khaini Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee in AY 2006-07 is allowed and

ITA 885/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

discernible, as to whether the penalty levied is for furnishing of any inaccurate particulars of income or for concealment of income, which renders the entire proceedings bad in law.” Ld. AR of the assessee brought to our notice brief facts of the case that on the basis of assessment completed ... assessee, AO ITA No.6053 /DEL/2016 ITA Nos.884 to 886/DEL/2022 CO No.18/Del/2017 CO Nos.186 to 188/Del/2022 reached at the conclusion that the assessee has concealed its income and thereby levied a penalty of Rs.14,81,29,583/- @ 100% of minimum penalty. He submitted that aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred

M/S. Gajanan Cotspin, Buldhana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Khamgaon

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 133/NAG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur05 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Ms. Shristi PandyFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

income-tax Act 1961. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 have been initiated separately for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of total income and in the light of addition made as above.” Consequent upon passing of assessment order by the Assessing Officer