“furnishing inaccurate particulars”

Mayar India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 16(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2010-11

charge under which the penalty was proposed to be levied by the Assessing Officer – whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. 9. In the case of CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory, 359 ITR 565 (Kar),vide paragraph ... High Court has held as follows :- “60. Clause (c) deals with two specific offences, that is to say, concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. No doubt, the facts of some cases may attract both the offences and in some cases there may be overlapping

Shyam Sunder Jindal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2007-08

sustained by the Learned CIT(A). The Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act of ₹ 12,687/- for furnishing inaccurate particulars of the income, in relation to the addition sustained. But we find that Tribunal in ITA No. 5449/Del/2016

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Future First Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

hereby disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee. Since. 1 am satisfied that assessee has concealed the income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of its income, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1 )(c) is initiated separately.” 13. Before ld. CIT(A) the assessee had submitted as under

ACIT, Central Circle- 17, New Delhi vs. Spectrum Coal & Power Ltd., New Delhi

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

Appeal) has erred in law and on the facts in deleting the penalty of Rs.57,~posed by the AO on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars by the assessee company of its income when it is not covered by the Instruction No.5/2015 which was applicable ... claiming a depreciation to the tune of Rs.1,61,10,501/- on the ground that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income to the extent of Rs.1,61,10,501/-. Declining the contentions raised by the assessee, AO levied penalty to the tune of Rs.57

Avee Medi Surgicals Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 6, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2012-13

High Court has held as follows :- “60. Clause (c) deals with two specific offences, that is to say, concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. No doubt, the facts of some cases may attract both the offences and in some cases there may be overlapping

DCIT, Circle- 10(1), New Delhi vs. Gee Ispat Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava(Through Video Conferencing) Ita Nos. 4753 & 4754/Del/2017 (For Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08) Dcit Vs. M/S. Gee Ispat Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 10(1) Su-217, Pitampura New Delhi New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccg 0954 G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By --None-- Revenue By Ms. Sunita Singh, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 08/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/07/2021 Order Per Bench: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 28.02.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-25, Delhi Relating To Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2007-08. 2. Before Us, At The Outset, Learned Dr Submitted That The Issue Involved In Both The Appeals Are Identical Except For The Year

ignoring the notice u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 specifically mentioning that it appears that the assesse have concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income in terms of explanation 1,2,3,4&5 and just relying on the para 3 of the order wherein ... mentioned that the assesse has concealed his income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which could be a merely a typo error or a statement unintended to water down the actual notice at all and thus ignoring the root notice and relying on a general statement of English in granting

Mayar India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 6(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2009-10

High Court has held as follows :- “60. Clause (c) deals with two specific offences, that is to say, concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. No doubt, the facts of some cases may attract both the offences and in some cases there may be overlapping

Orient Fashion Exports India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-19(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2013-14

High Court has held as follows :- “60. Clause (c) deals with two specific offences, that is to say, concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. No doubt, the facts of some cases may attract both the offences and in some cases there may be overlapping

Garg Exports (India), New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-35(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2012-13

charges for which penalty has been initiated. There is no mention, whether the penalty has been initiated for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In the notice dated 03/03/2015 for initiating penalty proceeding also the relevant part as to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars

ACIT, Circle-26(1), New Delhi vs. Vavasi Telegance P.Ltd, New Delhi

Bench: Hon’Ble N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

Revenue, the sole question arises for determination in this case is :- “as to whether the assessee has concealed particulars of income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of income during assessment proceedings?” 8. Ld CIT (A) deleted the penalty levied by the AO under section ... covered by it, there has to be concealment of the particulars of the income of the assessee. Secondly, the assessee must have furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. The meaning of the word “particulars” used in section 271(1)(c) would embrace the detail of the claim made. Where

Sehgal Packaging Pvt.Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-23(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambledr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 6705/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Sehgal Packaging Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, A-44, Naraina Indl. Area, Ward-23(1), New Delhi-110028 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcs3735J Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. R. K. Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.06.2021

below para 5, the Assessing Officer has also mentioned “that penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income is also initiated separately.” 5. We also find that the para no. 3 of the penalty order reads ... under: “3. The penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was also initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealing income thereof. Accordingly, a notice u/s 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was issued to the assessee’s company

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Paramount Communication Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, ITA No.767/Del/2014 is partly allowed,

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2009-10]

deducted from the cost of assets and depreciation on this amount is disallowed. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars income. 10. So far as the disallowance u/s 14A is concerned, the learned CIT(A) also confirmed the addition made by the AO. 11. Aggrieved

Paramount Communications Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, ITA No.767/Del/2014 is partly allowed,

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2009-10]

deducted from the cost of assets and depreciation on this amount is disallowed. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars income. 10. So far as the disallowance u/s 14A is concerned, the learned CIT(A) also confirmed the addition made by the AO. 11. Aggrieved

M/S. Paramount Communictions Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, ITA No.767/Del/2014 is partly allowed,

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2009-10]

deducted from the cost of assets and depreciation on this amount is disallowed. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars income. 10. So far as the disallowance u/s 14A is concerned, the learned CIT(A) also confirmed the addition made by the AO. 11. Aggrieved

Sumitomo Corporation, New Delhi vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Sumitomo Corporation Vs Dcit (International Taxation) G-195, Circle-3(1)(2) Sarita Vihar New Delhi New Delhi Aabcs6011P (Appellant) (Respondent)

reasons mentioned in the order may be treated as satisfactory for initiating penalty proceedings under section 271 (1 )(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of particular of income with respect to the additions made. 6. That the Ld. AO has erred in not allowing

Green Valley Infracity Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. ITO, Ward- 1(4), Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi(Through Video Conferencing) Green Valley Infracity Pvt. Vs. Ito Ltd., C/O. Nitesh Singh, Ward-1(4), C-190, Sector-49, Noida Noida-201301 Pan : Aafcp 8389 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sunil Kumar Tyagi, C.A. Revenue By --None-- Date Of Hearing: 03/06/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/06/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

under which limb of section 271(1)(c) the same is warranted viz for alleged concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and therefore the impugned order so passed being in gross violation of specific provision of law is liable to be quashed as per settled

Sankei Giken India Pvt. Ltd., Rewari vs. JCIT, Rewari

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Sankei Giken India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Jcit, Plot No. 84-93, Sector-, Industrial Rewari Estate, Bawal, Rewari Pan: Aaics3604B (Appellant) (Respondent)

upholding penalty proceedings u/s 271 (l)(c) of the Act against the Appellant for concealing the particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 2. Brief facts of the case shows that the assessee is a company engaged in manufacturing of automobile components for two wheelers and four wheelers

Sh. Bhushan Lal Sawhney, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R Kumar

levy of the penalty for assessment years under appeals in which the A.O. has mentioned “have concealed the particulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income”. He has, therefore, submitted that A.O. was not sure as to for which limb of Section ... 432/Del./2017 & ITA.Nos.434 to 439/Del./2017 Late Shri Bhushan Lal Sawhney through his L.R./ Wife Smt. Sneh Lata Sawhney, New Delhi. furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. Therefore, the show cause notices are illegal and bad in law and liable to be quashed. He has submitted that issue

Sh. Bhushan Lal Sawhney, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R Kumar

levy of the penalty for assessment years under appeals in which the A.O. has mentioned “have concealed the particulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income”. He has, therefore, submitted that A.O. was not sure as to for which limb of Section ... 432/Del./2017 & ITA.Nos.434 to 439/Del./2017 Late Shri Bhushan Lal Sawhney through his L.R./ Wife Smt. Sneh Lata Sawhney, New Delhi. furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. Therefore, the show cause notices are illegal and bad in law and liable to be quashed. He has submitted that issue

Sh. Bhushan Lal Sawhney, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R Kumar

levy of the penalty for assessment years under appeals in which the A.O. has mentioned “have concealed the particulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income”. He has, therefore, submitted that A.O. was not sure as to for which limb of Section ... 432/Del./2017 & ITA.Nos.434 to 439/Del./2017 Late Shri Bhushan Lal Sawhney through his L.R./ Wife Smt. Sneh Lata Sawhney, New Delhi. furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. Therefore, the show cause notices are illegal and bad in law and liable to be quashed. He has submitted that issue