← 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

Nilima Agrawal, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 126/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.126/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Nilima Agrawal E-5, Sector-1, Devendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Afepa5240B ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.L Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

which the penalty is levied on the assessee. The said notice refers to both the limbs i.e. concealed the particulars of income or “furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The Ld. Counsel therefore submitted that since the inappropriate limb in the notice has not been strucked off, therefore, there ... notice issued to the Assessee did not clarify whether the penalty was proposed to be imposed on the grounds of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The necessary box containing the two options was not ticked. Thus, the Assessee had no clear notice about the case it was required to meet

Seoyon E-Hwa Summit Automotive India Private Limited, Kancheepuram vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Na

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2091/CHNY/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.Lalit Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Dr.I. Roopa, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 40A(3)Section 43A

Andhra Pradesh), it was held that – "Assessing Officer should record in assessment order his satisfaction that assessee had either concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income in his return before imposing penalty". 4. In the light of the facts discussed and judicial precedents cited supra, we find force ... wherein it was held that mere difference of opinion cannot tantamount to the assessee either concealing income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by observing as under: “9………. We must hasten to add here that in this case, there is no finding that any details supplied by the assessee

Kunvarji Bhachu Shah, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 31(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1190/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1190/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-13) Kunvarji Bhachu Shah V/S. Acit-31(2), Mumbai Flat 301, Shivaratan बिधम Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Building, Hardevibai Chs, Kurla Complex, Bandra Caves Road, Near Kulkarni East, Mumbai-400051 Hospital, Jogeshwari East S.O., Mumbai-400060 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacps2608A Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth SrivasthavFor Respondent: Shri Ajit Pal Singh
Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

assessee’s claim of agricultural income of Rs. 54,35,000/- had been partly disallowed, and it was held that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income which led to concealment of income to the tune of Rs. 18,12,000/-. 4. Aggrieved with the order ... basis and, therefore, there is no question of concealment of income P a g e | 3 A.Y. 2012-13 Kunvarji Bhachu Shah or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Moreover, the penalty notice issued by the Ld. AO was defective since he had not specified the limb under which the penalty

Superfine Hotels Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1502/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Apr 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri P.P. Meena, CIT
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 35A

also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income/concealed income. Accordingly, notice under section 274 r.w.s.271(1)(c) of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee on 15.12.2016. The assessee vide letter dated 27.05.2021 was requested ... explain why penalty should not be levied on the assessee for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income/concealed income. As no response was received, reminders were also issued to the assessee on 10.08.2021, 30.12.2021 and on 12.01.2022. Again a letter was sent through speed post dated 28.01.2022 which was served

Sundek India Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1706/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Sr DR
Section 2(24)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

that the Assessing Officer, vide para 5.11 of the order, initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c)/r.w.s. 274 of the Act for furnishing ‘inaccurate particulars’ of income. For the sake of ready reference, the relevant paragraph is reproduced hereunder:- “….. …… 5.11 Hence in view of the above provision ... income.” 4. We also find that a show-cause notice has been issued to the assessee on 12.02.2016 proposing levy of penalty for furnishing ‘inaccurate particulars’ of income. For the sake of ready reference, the relevant paragraph No.2 of the penalty order is reproduced hereunder:- “2. A show-cause notice

Shree Yadvesh Transport Co . Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 13(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 6877/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 32

Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer of levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income on excess depreciation of Rs. 28,04,248/- claimed oversight computed by considering as opening WDV as on 01.04.2014 instead of opening ... extent of Rs.28,04,248/- is inadmissible and is hereby disallowed. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 2.2 The assessment order was completed by determining the gross total income of Rs.8,02,195/- in the hands of the assessee. Against

Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav, Pune vs. DCIT, CC-2(1), Pune

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

ITA 2144/PUN/2024[AY 2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav Central Circle 2(1), Vs. Plot No.42-44, Green Park Society, Pune Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aanpj0592P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav Dcit, Plot No.42-44, Green Park Society, Vs. Central Circle 2(1), Pune Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aanpj0592P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Cit & Shri Arvind Desai, Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 23-01-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-04-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – CIT and Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 245C(1)Section 245DSection 245D(4)Section 245HSection 271(1)(c)

income of Rs.39,20,00,000/- with respect to Rs.3,15,000/- and the buffer income of Rs.5000000/-. Also the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income with respect to income from house property of amount of Rs.31,920/- and of Rs.42,000/- hence is liable for penalty ... case for imposing penalty under Explanation 1 of section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealing this income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income. This penalty may range from 100% to 300% of the tax sought to be evaded. To be fair to the assessee, the undersigned hereby levies

DCIT, CC-2(1), Pune vs. Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav, Pune

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

ITA 1307/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav Central Circle 2(1), Vs. Plot No.42-44, Green Park Society, Pune Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aanpj0592P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav Dcit, Plot No.42-44, Green Park Society, Vs. Central Circle 2(1), Pune Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aanpj0592P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Cit & Shri Arvind Desai, Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 23-01-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-04-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – CIT and Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 245C(1)Section 245DSection 245D(4)Section 245HSection 271(1)(c)

income of Rs.39,20,00,000/- with respect to Rs.3,15,000/- and the buffer income of Rs.5000000/-. Also the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income with respect to income from house property of amount of Rs.31,920/- and of Rs.42,000/- hence is liable for penalty ... case for imposing penalty under Explanation 1 of section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealing this income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income. This penalty may range from 100% to 300% of the tax sought to be evaded. To be fair to the assessee, the undersigned hereby levies

Dr Rajender Prasad Memorial Educational Society, Saharanpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Meerut

ITA 518/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwals No. Appeal No. Appellant Respondent / Cross Order Appealed Against Objectors 1-4 1481-1483/Del/2023 Acit, Central Circle, Dr Rajender Prasad Cit(A)-4, Kanpur Order Ays: 2014-15 To Meerut Memorial Educational Dated 20.02.2023 2016-17 Society Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) 4-6 Co 49 -51/Del/2024 Dr Rajender Prasad Dcit, Cc, Meerut Cit(A)-4, Kanpur Order Ays: 2014-15 To Memorial Dated 20.02.2023 2016-17 Educational Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) 7 -11 Co 112-116/Del/2024 Dr Rajender Prasad Dcit, Cc, Meerut Ays: 2012-13 To Memorial 2016-17 Educational Dr Rajender Prasad 12- 514 - 518/Del/2024 Dr Rajender Prasad Dcit, Cc, Meerut Cit(A)-3, Noida Order 16 Ays : 2012-13 To Memorial Dated 19.12.2023 2016-17 Educational Society Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Assessee By : Shri Ankit Gupta, Adv Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/04/2025

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

without any modification or addition therein, the department’s endeavor herein that the same ought to be attract both concealment as well as furnishing inaccurate particulars of income u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, hardly deserves to be accepted as per (2017) 393 ITR 1 (Del) PCIT Vs. Neeraj

Dr Rajender Prasad Memorial Educational Society, Saharanpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Meerut

ITA 517/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwals No. Appeal No. Appellant Respondent / Cross Order Appealed Against Objectors 1-4 1481-1483/Del/2023 Acit, Central Circle, Dr Rajender Prasad Cit(A)-4, Kanpur Order Ays: 2014-15 To Meerut Memorial Educational Dated 20.02.2023 2016-17 Society Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) 4-6 Co 49 -51/Del/2024 Dr Rajender Prasad Dcit, Cc, Meerut Cit(A)-4, Kanpur Order Ays: 2014-15 To Memorial Dated 20.02.2023 2016-17 Educational Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) 7 -11 Co 112-116/Del/2024 Dr Rajender Prasad Dcit, Cc, Meerut Ays: 2012-13 To Memorial 2016-17 Educational Dr Rajender Prasad 12- 514 - 518/Del/2024 Dr Rajender Prasad Dcit, Cc, Meerut Cit(A)-3, Noida Order 16 Ays : 2012-13 To Memorial Dated 19.12.2023 2016-17 Educational Society Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Assessee By : Shri Ankit Gupta, Adv Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/04/2025

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

without any modification or addition therein, the department’s endeavor herein that the same ought to be attract both concealment as well as furnishing inaccurate particulars of income u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, hardly deserves to be accepted as per (2017) 393 ITR 1 (Del) PCIT Vs. Neeraj

Dr Rajender Prasad Memorial Educational Society, Saharanpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Meerut

ITA 516/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwals No. Appeal No. Appellant Respondent / Cross Order Appealed Against Objectors 1-4 1481-1483/Del/2023 Acit, Central Circle, Dr Rajender Prasad Cit(A)-4, Kanpur Order Ays: 2014-15 To Meerut Memorial Educational Dated 20.02.2023 2016-17 Society Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) 4-6 Co 49 -51/Del/2024 Dr Rajender Prasad Dcit, Cc, Meerut Cit(A)-4, Kanpur Order Ays: 2014-15 To Memorial Dated 20.02.2023 2016-17 Educational Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) 7 -11 Co 112-116/Del/2024 Dr Rajender Prasad Dcit, Cc, Meerut Ays: 2012-13 To Memorial 2016-17 Educational Dr Rajender Prasad 12- 514 - 518/Del/2024 Dr Rajender Prasad Dcit, Cc, Meerut Cit(A)-3, Noida Order 16 Ays : 2012-13 To Memorial Dated 19.12.2023 2016-17 Educational Society Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Assessee By : Shri Ankit Gupta, Adv Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/04/2025

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

without any modification or addition therein, the department’s endeavor herein that the same ought to be attract both concealment as well as furnishing inaccurate particulars of income u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, hardly deserves to be accepted as per (2017) 393 ITR 1 (Del) PCIT Vs. Neeraj

Dr Rajender Prasad Memorial Educational Society, Saharanpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Meerut

ITA 515/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwals No. Appeal No. Appellant Respondent / Cross Order Appealed Against Objectors 1-4 1481-1483/Del/2023 Acit, Central Circle, Dr Rajender Prasad Cit(A)-4, Kanpur Order Ays: 2014-15 To Meerut Memorial Educational Dated 20.02.2023 2016-17 Society Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) 4-6 Co 49 -51/Del/2024 Dr Rajender Prasad Dcit, Cc, Meerut Cit(A)-4, Kanpur Order Ays: 2014-15 To Memorial Dated 20.02.2023 2016-17 Educational Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) 7 -11 Co 112-116/Del/2024 Dr Rajender Prasad Dcit, Cc, Meerut Ays: 2012-13 To Memorial 2016-17 Educational Dr Rajender Prasad 12- 514 - 518/Del/2024 Dr Rajender Prasad Dcit, Cc, Meerut Cit(A)-3, Noida Order 16 Ays : 2012-13 To Memorial Dated 19.12.2023 2016-17 Educational Society Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Assessee By : Shri Ankit Gupta, Adv Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/04/2025

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

without any modification or addition therein, the department’s endeavor herein that the same ought to be attract both concealment as well as furnishing inaccurate particulars of income u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, hardly deserves to be accepted as per (2017) 393 ITR 1 (Del) PCIT Vs. Neeraj

Dr Rajender Prasad Memorial Educational Society, Saharanpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut

ITA 514/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwals No. Appeal No. Appellant Respondent / Cross Order Appealed Against Objectors 1-4 1481-1483/Del/2023 Acit, Central Circle, Dr Rajender Prasad Cit(A)-4, Kanpur Order Ays: 2014-15 To Meerut Memorial Educational Dated 20.02.2023 2016-17 Society Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) 4-6 Co 49 -51/Del/2024 Dr Rajender Prasad Dcit, Cc, Meerut Cit(A)-4, Kanpur Order Ays: 2014-15 To Memorial Dated 20.02.2023 2016-17 Educational Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) 7 -11 Co 112-116/Del/2024 Dr Rajender Prasad Dcit, Cc, Meerut Ays: 2012-13 To Memorial 2016-17 Educational Dr Rajender Prasad 12- 514 - 518/Del/2024 Dr Rajender Prasad Dcit, Cc, Meerut Cit(A)-3, Noida Order 16 Ays : 2012-13 To Memorial Dated 19.12.2023 2016-17 Educational Society Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Assessee By : Shri Ankit Gupta, Adv Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/04/2025

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

without any modification or addition therein, the department’s endeavor herein that the same ought to be attract both concealment as well as furnishing inaccurate particulars of income u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, hardly deserves to be accepted as per (2017) 393 ITR 1 (Del) PCIT Vs. Neeraj

ACIT, Central Circle, Meerut vs. Dr. Rajendra Prasad Memorial Educational Society, Saharanpur

ITA 1483/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwals No. Appeal No. Appellant Respondent / Cross Order Appealed Against Objectors 1-4 1481-1483/Del/2023 Acit, Central Circle, Dr Rajender Prasad Cit(A)-4, Kanpur Order Ays: 2014-15 To Meerut Memorial Educational Dated 20.02.2023 2016-17 Society Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) 4-6 Co 49 -51/Del/2024 Dr Rajender Prasad Dcit, Cc, Meerut Cit(A)-4, Kanpur Order Ays: 2014-15 To Memorial Dated 20.02.2023 2016-17 Educational Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) 7 -11 Co 112-116/Del/2024 Dr Rajender Prasad Dcit, Cc, Meerut Ays: 2012-13 To Memorial 2016-17 Educational Dr Rajender Prasad 12- 514 - 518/Del/2024 Dr Rajender Prasad Dcit, Cc, Meerut Cit(A)-3, Noida Order 16 Ays : 2012-13 To Memorial Dated 19.12.2023 2016-17 Educational Society Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Assessee By : Shri Ankit Gupta, Adv Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/04/2025

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

without any modification or addition therein, the department’s endeavor herein that the same ought to be attract both concealment as well as furnishing inaccurate particulars of income u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, hardly deserves to be accepted as per (2017) 393 ITR 1 (Del) PCIT Vs. Neeraj

ACIT, Central Circle, Meerut vs. Dr.Rajendra Prasad Memorial Educational Society, Saharanpur

ITA 1482/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwals No. Appeal No. Appellant Respondent / Cross Order Appealed Against Objectors 1-4 1481-1483/Del/2023 Acit, Central Circle, Dr Rajender Prasad Cit(A)-4, Kanpur Order Ays: 2014-15 To Meerut Memorial Educational Dated 20.02.2023 2016-17 Society Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) 4-6 Co 49 -51/Del/2024 Dr Rajender Prasad Dcit, Cc, Meerut Cit(A)-4, Kanpur Order Ays: 2014-15 To Memorial Dated 20.02.2023 2016-17 Educational Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) 7 -11 Co 112-116/Del/2024 Dr Rajender Prasad Dcit, Cc, Meerut Ays: 2012-13 To Memorial 2016-17 Educational Dr Rajender Prasad 12- 514 - 518/Del/2024 Dr Rajender Prasad Dcit, Cc, Meerut Cit(A)-3, Noida Order 16 Ays : 2012-13 To Memorial Dated 19.12.2023 2016-17 Educational Society Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Assessee By : Shri Ankit Gupta, Adv Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/04/2025

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

without any modification or addition therein, the department’s endeavor herein that the same ought to be attract both concealment as well as furnishing inaccurate particulars of income u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, hardly deserves to be accepted as per (2017) 393 ITR 1 (Del) PCIT Vs. Neeraj

ACIT, Central Circle, Meerut vs. Dr. Rajendra Prasad Memorial Educational Society, Saharanpur

ITA 1481/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwals No. Appeal No. Appellant Respondent / Cross Order Appealed Against Objectors 1-4 1481-1483/Del/2023 Acit, Central Circle, Dr Rajender Prasad Cit(A)-4, Kanpur Order Ays: 2014-15 To Meerut Memorial Educational Dated 20.02.2023 2016-17 Society Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) 4-6 Co 49 -51/Del/2024 Dr Rajender Prasad Dcit, Cc, Meerut Cit(A)-4, Kanpur Order Ays: 2014-15 To Memorial Dated 20.02.2023 2016-17 Educational Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) 7 -11 Co 112-116/Del/2024 Dr Rajender Prasad Dcit, Cc, Meerut Ays: 2012-13 To Memorial 2016-17 Educational Dr Rajender Prasad 12- 514 - 518/Del/2024 Dr Rajender Prasad Dcit, Cc, Meerut Cit(A)-3, Noida Order 16 Ays : 2012-13 To Memorial Dated 19.12.2023 2016-17 Educational Society Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Assessee By : Shri Ankit Gupta, Adv Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/04/2025

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

without any modification or addition therein, the department’s endeavor herein that the same ought to be attract both concealment as well as furnishing inaccurate particulars of income u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, hardly deserves to be accepted as per (2017) 393 ITR 1 (Del) PCIT Vs. Neeraj

Power Security Corp. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-5(2), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1947/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1947/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Income Tax Officer, Power Security Corp Private V. Corporate Ward 5(2), Ltd., Chennai. New No.18, Old No.22, Lake Area, 1St Cross Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aagcp 2703C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, Advocate : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By Cit & Ms. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 147Section 148Section 270A

also submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has failed to observe that the AO has initiated penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars whereas the penalty u/s.270A of the Act was actually levied for under reporting of income, which is contradictory and suffers from non-application ... course of assessment proceedings i.e., in the Assessment Order dated 18/04/2023, has expressed his satisfaction that the Assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of Income u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. However, the satisfaction recorded by the AO for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) for furnishing of inaccurate particulars

Husna Begam, Yamuna Nagar, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Yamuna Nagar, Haryana

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

ITA 970/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Adj. Application (Rejected)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr .DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

sources under Section 69. The AO observed that this constituted concealment of income and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Additionally, due to persistent non-compliance with statutory notices, penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) were also initiated. Interest under Sections

Vara Infraprojects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), Signature Towers, Kondapur

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

ITA 1167/HYD/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Apr 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar ChakrapaniFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, SR-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 69A

imposition of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act is not justified, as estimation of income does not equate the concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Ld. AR also submitted that, this was the first year of operation for the assessee and in the very first year, dispute arose amongst

Vara Infraprojects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1166/HYD/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Apr 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar ChakrapaniFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, SR-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 69A

imposition of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act is not justified, as estimation of income does not equate the concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Ld. AR also submitted that, this was the first year of operation for the assessee and in the very first year, dispute arose amongst