← All Phrases

“furnishing inaccurate particulars”

PenaltySection 271(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)2,073 judgments

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

Leading authorities on furnishing inaccurate particulars

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 furnishing inaccurate particulars

Ashok Sumanlal Vakharia - HUF, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer 31.1.2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4313/MUM/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punamiya &For Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

much in the order made under section 143(3) of the Act penalty was initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income whereas in the order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act penalty is levied for concealment of income. (b) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed

Praveen Sitaram Agarwal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-24(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3454/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax 9 Praveen Sitaram Agarwal Act, 1961 is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. (Addition of 1,63,34,228/-) 10. The operators and entry providers has accepted in their statements under oath that they has undergone this massive ... total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income. (Addition of 4,90,026/-) 11. Aggrieved by the additions made, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income

Lata Prakash Maradia, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward - 42(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1945/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Lata Prakash Maradia Ito Ward – 42(1)(2) Flat No. 105, 1St Floor, Building N.2A, Kautilya Bhavan, Rna N.G Sunity Phase I Chs Ltd, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Thakur Village, Kandivali (E), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400101. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Apppm 9292 J Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Jigar Mehta
Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

penalty levied by the ld Assessing Officer(AO) u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: Lata Prakash Maradia 2 “1) The Ld. AO erred in the fact ... initiated penalty p s 254 of the Act and initiated penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for ct for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income inaccurate particulars of income. Subsequently, the ld AO ld AO issued show-cause notice for furnishing notice for furnishing explanation/reply for explanation/reply

Brijlaxmi Paper Products Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 854/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 854/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Brijlaxmi Paper Products Pvt. Limited,……..Appellant 686, Shrachi Tower, Anandapur Em Byepass, Kolkata-700107 [Pan:Aafcb2003G] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,….....Respondent Circle-5(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Sanjay Chatterjee, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Dheeraj, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: August 05, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: August 25, 2025 O R D E R

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

assessee as un-admitted. 4 Brijlaxmi Paper Products Pvt. Limited 8. Now the question before us is imposition of penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income was justified or not? No penalty can be levied for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealing particulars of income, which

Brijlaxmi Paper Products Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 853/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 853/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Brijlaxmi Paper Products Pvt. Limited,……..Appellant 686, Shrachi Tower, Anandapur Em Byepass, Kolkata-700107 [Pan:Aafcb2003G] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,….....Respondent Circle-5(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Sanjay Chatterjee, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Dheeraj, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: August 05, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: August 25, 2025 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 270A

appeal and, therefore, dismissed the appeal of the assessee as un-admitted. 8. Now the question before us is imposition of penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income was justified or not? No penalty can be levied for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealing particulars of income, which

Arun Dwivedi, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-9(2), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6123/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6123/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 बनाम Arun Dwivedi, Acit, B-12, Vivekanand Puri, Vs. Circle-9(2), Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. Delhi. Pan No.Aalpd4998F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

observe that the notice was issued mechanically stating that assessee has concealed 2 the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The AO failed to specify the exact limb for which the notice was issued. In other words, the AO did not specify the specific charge ... assessing officer himself was not sure whether he had proceeded on the basis that the assessee had concealed his income or he had furnished inaccurate particulars. 188. We may, in this context, respectfully observe that a contravention of a mandatory condition or requirement for a communication to be valid communication

Sanjeev Kumar, Bulandshahr vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 14, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 9328/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Accoutant Member A.Yr. : 2013-14 Sanjeev Kumar, Vs. Acit, Cc-14, New Delhi 77-78, Rama Royal Residency, Milk Mohsangarh, Siyana Road, Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh-203001 (Pan: Abbpk0132H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT(DR)
Section 139Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271A

decisions of various appellate authorities in this regard, I am satisfied that the assessee appellant has indeed concealed correct income particulars by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Accordingly, it is a fit case for imposition of penalty. I, therefore, impose a penalty @ 100% of the income sought to be concealed ... furnishing inaccurate particulars, such income so determined per the quantum appeal order dated 18.12.2017….” 6. Faced with the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we quote PCIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (2021) 432 ITR 84 (Del.) and PCIT vs. Gopal Kumar Goyal (2023) 153 taxmann.com 534 (Del.) to conclude

Ideal Energy Projects Limited, Nagpur vs. Central Circle 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3343/MUM/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailideal Energy Projects Limited., Plot No.1601, 5Th Floor, Gupta Tower, Science College Road, Civil Lines, Nagpur, Mumbai - 440001 ............... Appellant Pan : Aabci8643M V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 5(3), ……………… Respondent Room No.426, 4Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, C- Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai Assessee By : Shri Hitesh P. Shah (Virtually Appear) Revenue By : Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh P. Shah (Virtually appear)For Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

earned by the assessee. Thus, it is evident from the record that there was no allegation of concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, and instead, the entire addition itself is based on disagreement with the submissions of the assessee. We find that while examining ... held that mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. The relevant findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case cited supra, are reproduced as follows

Pannivizha Service Cooperative Bank Ltd 891, M G Road Pannivizha vs. ITO, Ward 2, Kollam

In the result, ITA No. 531/Coch/2025 (Assessment Year 2018-2019) and ITA No

ITA 532/COCH/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri K. Krishna Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neethu S, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, and any delay in finalization was due to reasons beyond its control. The appellant had no intention to furnish inaccurate particulars of income, as all disclosures were made in good faith based on a bona fide belief that the income was eligible for deduction under ... passed by the Learned CIT(A). Meanwhile, penalty proceedings were initiated against the Assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which culminated into passing of Penalty Order, dated 04/03/2025, whereby penalty of INR.48,515/- was levied on the Assessee. Appeal preferred

Pannivizha Service Cooperative Bank Ltd 891, M G Road, Pannivizha vs. ITO, Ward 2, Kollam

In the result, ITA No. 531/Coch/2025 (Assessment Year 2018-2019) and ITA No

ITA 531/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri K. Krishna Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neethu S, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, and any delay in finalization was due to reasons beyond its control. The appellant had no intention to furnish inaccurate particulars of income, as all disclosures were made in good faith based on a bona fide belief that the income was eligible for deduction under ... passed by the Learned CIT(A). Meanwhile, penalty proceedings were initiated against the Assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which culminated into passing of Penalty Order, dated 04/03/2025, whereby penalty of INR.48,515/- was levied on the Assessee. Appeal preferred

Pannivizha Service Cooperative Bank Ltd 891, M G Road Pannivizha vs. ITO, Ward 2, Kollam

In the result, ITA No. 531/Coch/2025 (Assessment Year 2018-2019) and ITA No

ITA 530/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri K. Krishna Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neethu S, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, and any delay in finalization was due to reasons beyond its control. The appellant had no intention to furnish inaccurate particulars of income, as all disclosures were made in good faith based on a bona fide belief that the income was eligible for deduction under ... passed by the Learned CIT(A). Meanwhile, penalty proceedings were initiated against the Assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which culminated into passing of Penalty Order, dated 04/03/2025, whereby penalty of INR.48,515/- was levied on the Assessee. Appeal preferred

Pannivizha Service Cooperative Bank Ltd 891, M G Road, Pannivizha vs. ITO, Ward 2, Kollam

In the result, ITA No. 531/Coch/2025 (Assessment Year 2018-2019) and ITA No

ITA 529/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri K. Krishna Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neethu S, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, and any delay in finalization was due to reasons beyond its control. The appellant had no intention to furnish inaccurate particulars of income, as all disclosures were made in good faith based on a bona fide belief that the income was eligible for deduction under ... passed by the Learned CIT(A). Meanwhile, penalty proceedings were initiated against the Assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which culminated into passing of Penalty Order, dated 04/03/2025, whereby penalty of INR.48,515/- was levied on the Assessee. Appeal preferred

Pannivizha Service Cooperative Bank Ltd 891, M G Road Pannivizha vs. ITO, Ward 2, Kollam

In the result, ITA No. 531/Coch/2025 (Assessment Year 2018-2019) and ITA No

ITA 528/COCH/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri K. Krishna Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neethu S, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, and any delay in finalization was due to reasons beyond its control. The appellant had no intention to furnish inaccurate particulars of income, as all disclosures were made in good faith based on a bona fide belief that the income was eligible for deduction under ... passed by the Learned CIT(A). Meanwhile, penalty proceedings were initiated against the Assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which culminated into passing of Penalty Order, dated 04/03/2025, whereby penalty of INR.48,515/- was levied on the Assessee. Appeal preferred

Pannivizha Service Cooperative Bank Ltd 891, Mg Road Pannivizha vs. ITO, Ward 2, Kollam

In the result, ITA No. 531/Coch/2025 (Assessment Year 2018-2019) and ITA No

ITA 527/COCH/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri K. Krishna Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neethu S, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, and any delay in finalization was due to reasons beyond its control. The appellant had no intention to furnish inaccurate particulars of income, as all disclosures were made in good faith based on a bona fide belief that the income was eligible for deduction under ... passed by the Learned CIT(A). Meanwhile, penalty proceedings were initiated against the Assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which culminated into passing of Penalty Order, dated 04/03/2025, whereby penalty of INR.48,515/- was levied on the Assessee. Appeal preferred

R V R Nagesh Legal Heir of Late Vengattarayalu Rajan, Kanchipuram vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corp Ward - 22(4), Tambaram

ITA 789/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.789/Chny/2025

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

under section 271(1)(c) did not specifically state as to whether assessee was guilty of concealing particulars of his income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Hence, the impugned penalty was invalid and same was to be set aside. The adjudication of Hon'ble Court was as under ... Section 271(1), held that the question would be whether the assessee had offered an explanation for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and the Explanation to Section 271(1) raises a presumption of concealment, when a difference is noticed by the Assessing Officer between

Khaitan and Partners, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-61(1), Delhi

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

ITA 1610/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275

initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act wherein he held that the assessee has committed default in respect of furnishing inaccurate particulars of Page 2 of 8 ITA No. 1610/DEL/2024 [A.Y. 2016-17] Khaitan & Partners Vs. ACIT income, and levied the minimum penalty ... proceedings before me for the Assessment Year 2016-17, it appears to me that you have concealed the particulars of income and furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. You are hereby requested to appear before me either personally or through a duly authorised representative at 01:39 PM on 28/01/2019

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Niranjan Koirala, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2253/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.2253/िद"ी/2010(िन.व. 2006-07) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-31(1), R. No. 1405, 14Th Floor, E-2 Block, Pratyakshkar Bhawan, Civic Centre, Jln Marg, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi बनाम Vs. Niranjan Koirala, 27, Akbar Road, New Delhi ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaupk-0483-B Assessee By : Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate Department By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 23.05.2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 19.08.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxx, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 18.02.2010, For Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. This Appeal Was Decided By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 20.07.2018. Thereafter, The Revenue Filed Miscellaneous Application Seeking Rectification In The Order Of Tribunal On The Ground That The Additional Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Vide Application Dated 13.08.2014 Remained To Be Decided. The Tribunal In Ma No. 732/Del/2018 Vide Order Dated 10.07.2023 Recalled The Order

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 54F

income of the assessee from 'long term capital gains'. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)© of the I.T.Act, 1961 are being initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 7. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee carried the issue in appeal before the CIT(A). The First Appellate Authority accepted

The DCIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Vishal Exports Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1647/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-2016 The Dcit, Cir.4(1)(2) Vishal Exports Overseas P.Ltd. Polytechnic Vs. 301, Sheetal Complex Ahmedabad. Mayur Colony Mithakali, Ahmedabad Pan : Aaacv 2354 D (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Vivek Chavda, Ar Assessee By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/08/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/08/2025

For Appellant: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

manufacturing loss and Rs. 4,88,00,000/- freight & port 4 charges). Penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted that

Rajeshbhai Bhagwandas Patel, Vadodara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5 (3) (2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, and the assessment order is quashed

ITA 985/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 50C

capital gains”. The AO also recorded satisfaction for concealment of income and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Additionally, penalty under section 271(1)(b) was initiated for non-compliance with notices under section 142(1). The total assessed income

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Limited, Vadodara

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1655/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish J Shah & Shri RushinFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT. DR
Section 250Section 50(2)

assessee is aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dismissing the assessee’s appeal against penalty levied by the AO for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income / concealing particulars of income in terms of the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We have gone through