← 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

The Govt. Tele Communication Empoloyees Co-Op. Society Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-11(1), Chennai

ITA 2740/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56Section 57Section 80P

savings Bank Interest. 10 The Assessing officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) in the aforesaid order passed on 13/04/202 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. During the course of penalty proceedings, the appellant had submitted its response against the proposal to levy penalty under section

Milind Jagannath Bhole, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Thane

In the result, in terms of paragraph 6 above, the appeal preferred by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 243/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sumit MantriFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

order, dated 25/11/2024,passed by the CIT(A). In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has recorded satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. However, the penalty notice, dated 26/03/2013, does not inform the Assessee about the charge against the Assessee – whether penalty under Section ... sought to be levied for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of 2 Assessment Year 2010-11 income. The notice has been issued without deleting or striking off the inapplicable part. The Full Bench of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case Mohammed Farhan

Jermel'S Accademy, Siliguri vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(4), Siliguri

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the directions mentioned above

ITA 1652/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Mar 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(A)Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

assessee trust is assessed at Rs.3,98,75,551/-. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T Act are also initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in the return.” Page 3 of 13 I.T.A. No.: 1652/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Jermel's Accademy. 4. The total income

Sujan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 474/AHD/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Mar 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 132(1)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the impugned penalty on the ground that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and the Assessing Officer has made addition on the basis of analysis of data & incriminating document found during the course of search action ... inasmuch as in the quantum proceedings the penalty was initiated for concealment of particulars of income and the penalty was ultimately levied for ‘furnishing inaccurate particulars of income’. He therefore, relying upon the judgement of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of ITO Vs. Shri Rameshwar Ramnivas

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)

found to be satisfied and thereby the Assessing Officer levied a penalty of Rs.16 crore u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 4. Aggrieved against the penalty order, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who has deleted the addition after considering ... 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, as the difference between

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)

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 unlawful by the Honourable ITAT

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)

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 unlawful by the Honourable ITAT

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)

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 unlawful by the Honourable ITAT

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)

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 unlawful by the Honourable ITAT

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)

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 unlawful by the Honourable ITAT

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

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, the assessee being aggrieved

Nitin Gopinath Bhoir, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 17(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed in the above terms

ITA 5717/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 54F

order to be covered, 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. Present is not the case of concealment of the income. That is not the case of the Revenue either ... made or any detail supplied was found to be factually incorrect. Hence, at least, prima facie, the assessee cannot be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars. The words are plain and simple. In order to expose the assessee to the penalty unless the case is strictly covered by the provision

Sachin, Hisar vs. DCIT. Cental Cirtcle-7, Delhi

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are

ITA 2613/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shripawan Singhand Shribrajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2612/Del/2018 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 Cane Deveopment Council बनाम Income Tax Officer, Rohana Kalan, Ward 1(2), Vs. C/O Dinesh Mohan, Advocate, Muzaffarnagar, 2-Anand Vihar, Lane No.1, Uttar Pradesh. Circular Road, Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaalc0277F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 271(1)(c)

norms of State Government. The Ld AR of the assessee submitted that assessee has neither concealed the particulars of income nor furnished inaccurate particulars while filing return of income. The assessee made fulldisclosure of all the receipt in it return of income and the additions were made only ... also held that mere making a claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of assessee. Such claim made in the return cannot amount to inaccurate particulars. In our considered view, the ratio of decision in Reliance Petro Products

Tajshree Autowheels Private Limited, Nagpur vs. ACIT Circle-4, Nagpur

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

ITA 400/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur04 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Madhav VichoreFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

assessee under the head 'Income from Other Sources'. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 6 Tajshree Autowheels Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.400/Nag./2024 6. Consequent upon the assessment order so passed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee being

Income Tax Officer-1(2), Indore vs. Divine Infracreation and Trading Private Limited, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 272/IND/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 68Section 68(1)

appeal and therefore, it could not challenge the finding by the CIT(A), as the assessee being guilty of concealment of income and/or furnishing inaccurate particulars? 25. While considering the said question, the Gujarat High Court held that the Tribunal squarely lost sight of the fact that the assessee

Unni Krishnan Vadakkedath Sugathan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 4 (3)(1), Bandra

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 3604/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kirit MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 17Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 90Section 90A

account of ESOP requisite to the tune of Rs.20,44,855/- and recorded the satisfaction and simultaneously initiated the penalty proceeding for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealing the taxable income. Thereafter the AO issued a show cause notice of penalty proceedings ... dated 31.03.2019 ultimately levied the penalty of Rs.20,44,855/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by holding that the Assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and has committed a clear default within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Act read with explanation

Palloottigiri Society, Trivandrum vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay application is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 611/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri P.V. Chacko, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr. AR
Section 271(1)(c)

215/Coch/2024 & 4. The Ld.DR relied on the order of the lower authorities and submitted that the penalty has been rightly imposed for furnishing inaccurate particulars. 5. We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials available on record. 6. We have perused the order imposing penalty

Omkara Impex and Merchandise LLP, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-3(3)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 809/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.809/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Omkara Impex & The Acit Merchandise Llp बनाम / Circle-3(3)(2) 301, Primate V/S. Ahmedabad – 380 015 Judges Bungalows Road Bodakdev Ahmedabad - 380 054 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaefo 2861 K (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kushal Fofaria, Ar Revenue By : Shri Waghe Prasadrao, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 27/02/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14/03/2024, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)"], Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao"] Under Section 147 R.W.S.144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15.

For Appellant: Shri Kushal Fofaria, ARFor Respondent: Shri Waghe Prasadrao, Sr.DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

income, treating the amount as bogus purchases/accommodation entry. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. Before

M/S. Checkmate Facility & Electronic Solution Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Comm. of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 957/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Veerbadram Vislavath, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

levy of Penalty was vague capable of two views and not certain as to whether the Appellant has "Concealed his Income" or "Furnished inaccurate particulars of such income". In view of binding judgements of various High Courts in the case of CIT vs. Manu Engineering Works 122 ITR page ... Your Appellant submits that full disclosure was made by the Appellant and not accepting a claim or disallowing expenditure does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of Income and Penalty u/s. 271(l)(c ) cannot be levied. It is therefore submitted that relief claimed above be allowed and the order

Shri Dilip J Thakkar, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle -6(4), Mumbai

ITA 6700/MUM/2024[20007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025

Bench: SHRI. RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri.Dilip ThakkarFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal (CIT DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 274

whereby a penalty of INR.1,13,84,395/- was levied on the Assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income of INR.3,38,21,732/-. 5. The Assessee challenged the above penalty order in appeal before the CIT(A), inter alia, raising ... Appellant – whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is sought to be levied for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Similarly, in the Assessment Order, while initiating penalty proceedings, the Assessing Officer has stated that ‘Issued notice under Section