← 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

ACIT, Chandrapur Circle, Chandrapur vs. Chandrapur Distt. Central Co-Op Bank Ltd, Chandrapur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 399/NAG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(viia)

issued notice dated 26/02/2016, under Chandrapur District Central Co–operative Bank section 274 r/w section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5. The assessee has submitted before the Assessing Officer during the penalty proceedings that the assessee made a bona fde claim ... excess of its eligibility i.e. in excess of the amount of provision for bad doubtful debts provided in its books and, has thus furnished inaccurate particulars of its income. In view of the above and considering the fact that the assesse is not permitted to claim deduction in excess

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandrapur Circle, Chandrapur vs. M/S Chandrapur District Central Co-Oprative Bank Limted, Chandrapur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 241/NAG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(viia)

issued notice dated 26/02/2016, under Chandrapur District Central Co–operative Bank section 274 r/w section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5. The assessee has submitted before the Assessing Officer during the penalty proceedings that the assessee made a bona fde claim ... excess of its eligibility i.e. in excess of the amount of provision for bad doubtful debts provided in its books and, has thus furnished inaccurate particulars of its income. In view of the above and considering the fact that the assesse is not permitted to claim deduction in excess

Amit Khemka, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 43(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 636/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Kumar Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250Section 271BSection 68

tenable as the assessing officer in the Original Assessment order u/s 147 dated 26 -03-2015 had initiated the penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income whereas the Assessing Officer concluded the impugned Penalty Order U/S 271(1)(c) by imposing the penalty for concealment of income. 3. That ... considering the fact that in the original assessment order u/s 147, the Ld. AO had initiated the penalty alleging the assessee to have furnished inaccurate particulars of income whereas in the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c), the penalty was imposed alleging the assessee to have concealed the income

Amit Khemka, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 43(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 635/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Kumar Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250Section 271BSection 68

tenable as the assessing officer in the Original Assessment order u/s 147 dated 26 -03-2015 had initiated the penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income whereas the Assessing Officer concluded the impugned Penalty Order U/S 271(1)(c) by imposing the penalty for concealment of income. 3. That ... considering the fact that in the original assessment order u/s 147, the Ld. AO had initiated the penalty alleging the assessee to have furnished inaccurate particulars of income whereas in the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c), the penalty was imposed alleging the assessee to have concealed the income

Jamna Devi Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 7(2), Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 540/JPR/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

conclusion that the disputed amount represented income and that the assessee had consciously concealed the particulars of his income or had deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars. xvi. In the present case, following points have to be considered in correct perspective before the imposition of penalty. There is no adverse material ... penalty should apply mind and come to a conclusion that whether the penalty is being levied for concealment of particulars of income OR furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In the absence of which no penalty should be levied on the assessee as determination of such limb is sine

Tushar Mahendra Parekh, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) Income Tax Department, Delhi

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

ITA 3216/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Bhavesh Prafulbhai Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule, (Addl. CIT) Sr. DR
Section 143Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 41

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH

Nirmal Narendrakumar Kotecha, Mumbai vs. Int. Tax, Ward-3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, in terms of paragraph 24 above, the appeal preferred by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4592/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal BhutaFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

sought to be levied for 6 Assessment Year: 2009-10 concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Further, on perusal of penalty order, dated 21/03/2017, passed by the Assessing Officer, we note that in paragraph 5 the Assessing Officer has stated the reason for levying ... been levied. Thus, there is no clarity whether the penalty proceedings were initiated for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 14. In view of the above, we find merit in the contention advance on behalf of the Appellant that penalty levied under Section

Mohd. Imtiyaz Faqir Mohd Shaikh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office 23(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4020/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mohd. Imtiyaz Faqir Mohd Shaikh, Ito Ward 23(2)(3), 100, Blue Flame Apartment, 40 S V Room No. 115, 1St Floor, Road, Bandra (West), Vs. Matru Mandir, Tardeo, Mumbai-400050. Mumbai-400007. Pan No. Agpps 6863 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Jayant BhattFor Respondent: 08/08/2024
Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 69C

Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2014-15 in relation to penalty levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of the income. Mohd. Imtiyaz Faqir Mohd Shaikh Mohd. Imtiyaz Faqir Mohd Shaikh 2 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that

Mayur Nirmalkumar Jain, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-6(1)(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 676/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

unexplained cash credits to the assessee’s income. Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealing income. In addition to the above, the assessee had shown unsecured loans amounting to Rs. 21,38,214/- in the balance sheet. Notices under ... genuine and added to the total income under Section 68 of the Act. Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealing income. 6. In appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the additions with the following observations: “7.3 After considering findings

D R Coats Ink and Resins Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 12(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3188/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. D/R
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

shows that, the AO is not sure whether he is proceeding to levy penalty for concealment of the particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s SSA's Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 taxmann.com 248, has upheld the order

Swaminarayan Co.Op.Bank Ltd., Baroda vs. The ACIT, Circle-3(1), Baroda

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1411/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1411/Ahd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11 Swaminarayan Co-Op. Bank Ltd. The Acit बना 1, Ashok Chambers Circle-3(1) Opp. Pathak Gate Police Station Ahmedabad म/ Madanzampa Road V/S. Vadodara 390 001 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaaas 1932 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) …… "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashish Kanabar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashok Natha Bhalekar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 07/08/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 9/08/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Order Dated 08/07/2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Vadodara [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)” In Short] Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Dated 27/02/2019 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11. Swaminarayan Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Vs. Acit Asst. Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Kanabar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Natha Bhalekar, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 35A

income to the extent of Rs. 1,21,94,779/- The AO also initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(10(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income. 2.3. The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) against the order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act, who confirmed ... relevant A.Y. 2010-11 of Rs.1,21,94,779/- on the ground that the appellant has concealed the particulars of income of furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. During the year under consideration our client was engaged in carrying of the banking business and gas offered income from interest

Caris Pure Processing Company Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corp Circle 1(1), Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1455/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1453, 1454 & 1455/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Caris Pure Processing Company The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, V. Income Tax, No.23-C, Kohinoor Complex, Corporate Ward -1(1), Vettuvankeni, Chennai. Injambakkam, East Coast Road, Chennai – 600 115. [Pan: Aafcc-2170-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. P.M. Kathir, Advocate : Smt. M.S. Deeptha, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओरसे/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. P.M. Kathir, Advocate
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 30.03.2022. Further, the Assessing Officer initiated a penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessing Officer also initiated 271D of the Act proceedings separately for receiving cash loan more than Rs.20,000/-. Aggrieved

Caris Pure Processing Company Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corp Ward 1(1), Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1454/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1453, 1454 & 1455/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Caris Pure Processing Company The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, V. Income Tax, No.23-C, Kohinoor Complex, Corporate Ward -1(1), Vettuvankeni, Chennai. Injambakkam, East Coast Road, Chennai – 600 115. [Pan: Aafcc-2170-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. P.M. Kathir, Advocate : Smt. M.S. Deeptha, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओरसे/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. P.M. Kathir, Advocate
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 30.03.2022. Further, the Assessing Officer initiated a penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessing Officer also initiated 271D of the Act proceedings separately for receiving cash loan more than Rs.20,000/-. Aggrieved

Caris Pure Processing Company Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corp Ward 1(1), Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1453/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1453, 1454 & 1455/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Caris Pure Processing Company The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, V. Income Tax, No.23-C, Kohinoor Complex, Corporate Ward -1(1), Vettuvankeni, Chennai. Injambakkam, East Coast Road, Chennai – 600 115. [Pan: Aafcc-2170-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. P.M. Kathir, Advocate : Smt. M.S. Deeptha, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओरसे/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. P.M. Kathir, Advocate
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 30.03.2022. Further, the Assessing Officer initiated a penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessing Officer also initiated 271D of the Act proceedings separately for receiving cash loan more than Rs.20,000/-. Aggrieved

Arulsundaram Nithya, Erode vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1112/CHNY/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1112/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. Smt.Arulsundaram Nithya, The Acit, 11, Poondurai Road, Circle-1, Ragupathinaickenpalayam, Erode. Erode-638 002. [Pan: Abspn 5094 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

which is extracted below: s.271(1)……. (a) ………. (b) ……… (c) has concealed the particulars of his income or 2[***] furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, 3. According to the Ld.AR, the word “or” has been used by the Parliament which is disjunctive and therefore, the AO couldn’t have used ... join both the faults together and allege that assessee to have “concealed the particulars of his income” and having furnished “inaccurate particulars of such income”. Such an impugned Smt.Arulsundaram Nithya :: 3 :: action of the AO, according to the Ld.AR, tantamounts to arbitrary exercise of power and against the principles

DCIT, Central Circle - 7(1), Mumbai vs. Maneesh Pharmaceuticals Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 964/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Maneesh Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Tax, Vs. 29-33, Ancillary Industrial Central Circle – 7(1), Plots, Near M Ward, Mumbai Govandi, Mumbai – 400 043 (Pan : Aaacm3635Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Jaypraksh Bairagra, Ca Revenue : Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit, Dr

For Appellant: Shri Jaypraksh Bairagra, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT, DR
Section 10BSection 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Pharmaceuticals., AY 2010-11 whereas the fact is that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was initiated in the original assessment order for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income on some issues and also for concealment of income on some other issues. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances ... erred in deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the ground that mere disallowance of claim of deduction cannot be considered as furnishing inaccurate particulars about income. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred that the amount

Intas Biopharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 865/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 865/Ahd/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Intas The Dy. Commissioner Of बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Biopharmaceuticals Ltd. Income Tax Vs. Plot 423/P/A, Sarkhej Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad Bavla Highway, Moraiya, Sanand, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 382213 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabci4722M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Bandish Soparkar & Shri Parin अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shah, Ars. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit. Dr & Shri Ashish Rajesh Revar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07/08/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 20.01.2016 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. Ita No. 865/Ahd/2016 [Intas Biopharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Dcit] A.Y. 2011-12 - 2 –

For Appellant: Shah, ARsFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT. DR
Section 143(3)Section 35Section 40

disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) is being initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” ITA No. 865/Ahd/2016 [Intas Biopharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. DCIT] A.Y. 2011-12 - 13 – The addition as made by the AO was confirmed

Jaipur Gem Crafts, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-5(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 327/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Godha, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 271(1)Section 271CSection 274

proceedings by issue of notice u/s 274 without striking the specific limb in the notice for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which is bad in law. 2 JAIPUR GEM CRAFTS VS ITO, WARD 5 (1), JAIPUR 2. That on the facts and circumstances

Cidco Employees Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Ward 28(1)(3), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal ITA NO

ITA 699/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 80PSection 80P(4)

claim for deduction of Rs. 56,64,971/– u/s. 80P. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(C) of the Act were separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 2. (ii) Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(A), who confirmed assessment order, holding that

Cidco Employees Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Ward 28(1)(3), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal ITA NO

ITA 698/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 80PSection 80P(4)

claim for deduction of Rs. 56,64,971/– u/s. 80P. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(C) of the Act were separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 2. (ii) Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(A), who confirmed assessment order, holding that