“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

Smt. Smita Ashok Thakkar, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 4386/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Smt. Smita Ashok Thakkar Dcit, Central Circle 6(4) 1St Floor, Karimjee Building, Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Vs. Air India Building, Mumbai-400 001 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh P. ShahFor Respondent: Shri B. Laxmi Kanth

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69A

levied impugned penalty of Rs.5,28,234/- vide notice u/s. 274 r.w.s. u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 21.03.2014 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income. 4. The assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority, challenging the impugned penalty ... DCIT Act, without striking out the irrelevant limb as to whether the penalty was levied for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The ld. AR relied on various decision in support of his contention. 7. The learned Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short

Kothari Jewels Private Limied, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal, file filed by the assessee stands party allowed with no order as to cost

ITA 964/JPR/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary,JCIT-DR

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

required to issue notice under Section 274 clearly specifying whether the penalty is levied for CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 2. Before the ld. AO, during the set aside penalty proceedings, it was categorically submitted by the assessee company, that no notice specifying ... which the penalty was levied on the assessee company, whether the same was levied for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or for both. 7. It is a settled proposition that issue of notice under Section 274, specifying clearly the limb, is a sine

M/S. Vijay Jewellers, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax -19(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4204/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Hrithik Yadav / Shri DevangFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon SRDR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

when income of assessee was determined on estimation basis, then no penalty under section 271(1)(c) could be imposed for concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars. The quantification of the addition is admittedly only an estimate. Needless to mention that it is settled principle of law that penalty

M/S. Vijay Jewellers, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax -19(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4203/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Hrithik Yadav / Shri DevangFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon SRDR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

M/S. Shree Swaminarayan Enterprises, Thane vs. ITO- 2(4), Thane

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse is allowed

ITA 462/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Smt Renu Jauhrim/S. Shree Swaminarayan Ito Ward 2(4), Enterprises, Room No. 25, B Wing, बनाम/ Plot No.30, Jeevandeep, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park Vs. Opp: Shivdham Complex, Road No 162,Wagle Suryodaya Housing Society, Industrial Estate Ambernath (E) Thane (W)-421301 Thane-421501. Maharashtra. Maharashtra. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abofs3402K (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri.Niraj Seth.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Krishna kumar.Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

Whereas the AO was not satisfied with the explanations and information and observed that the assessee has concealed income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and levied penalty of Rs.9,28,086/- and passed the order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act 25.03.2022. 4. Aggrieved by the penalty ... course of any proceedings under the Act, is satisfied that any person (c) has concealed the particular of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. A glance at his provision would suggest that in order to be covered there has to be concealment of the particular

Co-Operative Cane Development Union Limited Maholi Ayyubi Chamber, Raniganj, Lakhimpur Kheri-262001, Lakhimpur Kheri vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Sitapur-New, Sitapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 164/LKW/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl CIT

Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80P

specify the charge that whether the assessee has concealed the particulars of Income or furnished inaccurate particulars of his income and in absence such charge the penalty notice is invalid and subsequent penalty proceedings are liable to be quashed. Without prejudice to above - on Merits (2) The Ld. C.I.T ... specified in the said notice as to whether the penalty was being initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. Aggrieved by the levy of penalty, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who, after observing that he had sustained the additions

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolhpaur vs. Rbl Bank Ltd, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 657/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

informed the AO, the return was revised on 16.03.2016, only after the receipt of notice u/s. 143(2) dated 08/09/2015. Therefore, the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Hence, the penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act initiated by the AO in the assessment order was valid ... authorities. 2. The present appeal relates to imposition of penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act for the A.Y.2014-15, for alleged furnishing “inaccurate particulars of income”, in relation to the certain additions made in the course of assessment. 3. The appeal against the quantum proceedings have been withdrawn

Shardul Singh, Jhunjhunu vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Jhunjhunu, Income Tax Officer Jhunjhunu

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the penalty levied is hereby dropped with no orders to cost

ITA 1061/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: passing the order u/s 271 (1) (c) 4 The AO imposed penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) without any ESTABLISHING Submission of A. Inaccurate facts/Statements B. without Establishing CONCEALMENT OF INCOME as all mentioned by him was fetched by Submission of the Assessee and without doing any Act to take correct decision to impose penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) 5. The AO not considered the Submitted Decisions of relavant courts furnished by the Assessee in his favour.” 2.1 The brief facts of the case are that asse

For Appellant: Shri Sumer Singh Shekhawat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary,JCIT-DR

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 80D

under section 143 (3) read with section 147 and penalty proceedings were initiated under section 271(1)© of the Income Tax Act for furnishing Inaccurate particulars and thereafter penalty amounting to Rs. 2,53,160/- being 200% was imposed on account of tax sought to be evaded. 3 Shri Shardul

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2892/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2016-17 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Small Industries Income Tax Circle- Development Bank Of 3(3)(1) India Room No. 609, Sme Development Centre, Aaykar Bhavan, C-11, G- Block, Vs. M. K. Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Churchgate, Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400020. Pan: Aabcs3480N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule- CIT D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income was also initiated. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before

Murtuza Kutabbuddin Khambati, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 14(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the appellant is allowed

ITA 2543/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty U/s. 271(l)(c) of Rs.10,12,461/- on the ground that the appellant had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. ii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned C.I.T.(A) erred in rejecting ... furnishing incorrect particular of income and hence will not automatically attract penalty. b) Non-acceptance of claim of appellant does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars and penalty is not leviable. Gieseke & Devrient India Pvt. Ltd. (TS 629-HC-2021 DEL). 5. In view of the above, penalty order confirmed

Ram Kishore Meena, Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kota vs. Mangalam Cement Ltd, Morak, Kota

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 350/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Parwal ( C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)a fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

appeal the appellant has challenge the penalty imposed by AO of Rs.1,26,58,910/- u/s 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In the instant case the appellant had filed its return declaring total income of Rs. 94,26,39,610/- which was assessed ... additions made by the AO except on disallowance made out of certain expenses, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) was initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. After the order of CIT(A)/ ITAT, most of the additions were deleted except that disallowance

Jayshree Ravi Sancheti, Mumbai vs. PCIT-20, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2269/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68Section 69C

credit u/s 68 and brought to tax. This addition is liable for tax u/s 115BBE. Penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) is initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 6. The AO did not accept the submissions made by the assessee and proceeded to treat the LTCG claimed as exempt under

DCIT-3(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Union of Bank of India, Mumbai

ITA 1819/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Shri Ms Padmavathy S, Am, Ι.Τ.Α. No.1440/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S Union Bank Of India, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan : Aaacu0564G Dcit, Circle-(Ltu) 2 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Vs. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1819/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Dcit-3(4) 29Th Floor, Centre-1, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Appellant) Vs. M/S Union Bank Of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan : Aaacu0564G : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1441/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Union Bank Of India, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan : Aaacu0564G Dcit, Circle-(Ltu) 1 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Vs. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Appellant) : Respondent) 2

For Appellant: Shri C. Naresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 144Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)

written off of rural branches is added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (C) are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income" 11. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. The ld. AR brought to our attention that a similar issue

DCIT-3(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Union of Bank of India, Mumbai

ITA 1818/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Shri Ms Padmavathy S, Am, Ι.Τ.Α. No.1440/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S Union Bank Of India, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan : Aaacu0564G Dcit, Circle-(Ltu) 2 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Vs. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1819/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Dcit-3(4) 29Th Floor, Centre-1, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Vs. M/S Union Bank Of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan : Aaacu0564G Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1441/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Union Bank Of India, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan : Aaacu0564G Dcit, Circle-(Ltu) 1 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Vs. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Appellant) : Respondent) 2

For Appellant: Shri C. Naresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 144Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir - (Ltu)-2, Mumbai

ITA 1441/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Shri Ms Padmavathy S, Am, Ι.Τ.Α. No.1440/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S Union Bank Of India, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan : Aaacu0564G Dcit, Circle-(Ltu) 2 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Vs. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1819/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Dcit-3(4) 29Th Floor, Centre-1, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Vs. M/S Union Bank Of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan : Aaacu0564G Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1441/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Union Bank Of India, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan : Aaacu0564G Dcit, Circle-(Ltu) 1 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Vs. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Appellant) : Respondent) 2

Section 115JSection 144Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir - (Ltu)-2, Mumbai

ITA 1440/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Shri Ms Padmavathy S, Am, Ι.Τ.Α. No.1440/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S Union Bank Of India, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan : Aaacu0564G Dcit, Circle-(Ltu) 2 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Vs. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1819/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Dcit-3(4) 29Th Floor, Centre-1, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Vs. M/S Union Bank Of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan : Aaacu0564G Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1441/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Union Bank Of India, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan : Aaacu0564G Dcit, Circle-(Ltu) 1 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Vs. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Appellant) : Respondent) 2

For Appellant: Shri C. Naresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 144Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)

Echo Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1469/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 1469/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Echo Entertainment Private Limited,…..……Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite-213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan:Aadcc0535E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………….…Respondent Ward-1(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 09, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 26, 2024 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

this assessment, ld. Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for alleged concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals) against the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer, where Rs.80 ... initiation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) 2 Echo Entertainment Private Limited was improper as the assessee neither concealed its income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income. It is argued that ld. Assessing Officer failed to specify the exact charge i.e. whether penalty was imposed for concealment of income

Kay Kay Synthetics, Mumbai vs. I.T.O. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, Not Known

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

ITA 3959/MUM/2024[ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2024

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalkay Kay Synthetics, Vs. I.T.O, Nfac, 201-202, Anna New Delhi. Apartments, 2Nd Floor, 14 Main Avenue, Santacruz (W), Mumbai-400054. Pan/Gir No. : Aaafk0934D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punmiya.Ar Respondent By : Shri B.B. Nagawe, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 25.09.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac) Delhi / Cit(A), Passed U/Sec 271(1)(C) & U/Sec 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya.ARFor Respondent: Shri B.B. Nagawe, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275

case in upholding levy of penalty of Rs. 1,40,050/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Kay Kay Synthetics, Mumbai 2. The Learned C.I.T (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case ... considering the action of the Assessing officer (A.O) in initiating penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, whereas the A.O vide notice issued u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act dated 14-03- 2016 has initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) for concealment of income as well

ITO-22(1)(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chamber vs. Gehrilal Rooplal Paliwal, Andheri East

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 3614/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 68

added back to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T Act. 1961 are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income. 4. The AO also noticed that the assessee has deposited

Sir Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai Suburban vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1222/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am Sir Ratan Tata Trust Dy. Cit(Exemption) – 2(1) Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street, Mtnl Tele Bulding, Cumballa Hill, Vs. Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Peddar Road, Mumbai-400 026

For Appellant: Shri Aatul SuraiyaFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal

Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144B

erred in not directing the AO to drop the penalty proceedings-initiated u/s 271(1)X(C) of the Act in absence Trust furnishing inaccurate particulars of income considering it to be consequential not require specific finding. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Public