← 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

Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 3449/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

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

compete fee and the Assessing Officer was conscious of assessee’s claim. 7. That being the case, the assessee cannot be accused of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. It is relevant to observe, penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act under identical facts and circumstances in assessee

Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 3448/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

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

compete fee and the Assessing Officer was conscious of assessee’s claim. 7. That being the case, the assessee cannot be accused of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. It is relevant to observe, penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act under identical facts and circumstances in assessee

ACIT Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. G Trade and Capital Venture Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, application

ITA 3211/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 3033 To 3038/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-2020 Asstt. Cit Central Circle-2(1), M/S Gm Modular Pvt. Ltd., Old Cgo Building, 804, 8Th 8/9 Bokadia Industrial Vs. Floor, M.K. Road, Estate Waliv, Sativali Road, Mumbai-400020. Vasai East Vasai Palghar-401 208. Pan No. Aabcg 3313 Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asstt. Cit Central Circle-2(1), M/S G Trade & Capital Old Cgo Building, 804, 8Th Venture Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Floor, M.K. Road, 6 G Laxmi Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400020. New Linking Road, Andheri (West) Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aadcg 7583 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Naresh Jain a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central-Circle-2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Gm Modular Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, application

ITA 3038/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 3033 To 3038/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-2020 Asstt. Cit Central Circle-2(1), M/S Gm Modular Pvt. Ltd., Old Cgo Building, 804, 8Th 8/9 Bokadia Industrial Vs. Floor, M.K. Road, Estate Waliv, Sativali Road, Mumbai-400020. Vasai East Vasai Palghar-401 208. Pan No. Aabcg 3313 Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asstt. Cit Central Circle-2(1), M/S G Trade & Capital Old Cgo Building, 804, 8Th Venture Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Floor, M.K. Road, 6 G Laxmi Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400020. New Linking Road, Andheri (West) Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aadcg 7583 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Naresh Jain a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central-Circle-2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Gm Modular Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, application

ITA 3037/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 3033 To 3038/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-2020 Asstt. Cit Central Circle-2(1), M/S Gm Modular Pvt. Ltd., Old Cgo Building, 804, 8Th 8/9 Bokadia Industrial Vs. Floor, M.K. Road, Estate Waliv, Sativali Road, Mumbai-400020. Vasai East Vasai Palghar-401 208. Pan No. Aabcg 3313 Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asstt. Cit Central Circle-2(1), M/S G Trade & Capital Old Cgo Building, 804, 8Th Venture Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Floor, M.K. Road, 6 G Laxmi Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400020. New Linking Road, Andheri (West) Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aadcg 7583 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Naresh Jain a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central-Circle-2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Gm Modular Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, application

ITA 3036/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 3033 To 3038/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-2020 Asstt. Cit Central Circle-2(1), M/S Gm Modular Pvt. Ltd., Old Cgo Building, 804, 8Th 8/9 Bokadia Industrial Vs. Floor, M.K. Road, Estate Waliv, Sativali Road, Mumbai-400020. Vasai East Vasai Palghar-401 208. Pan No. Aabcg 3313 Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asstt. Cit Central Circle-2(1), M/S G Trade & Capital Old Cgo Building, 804, 8Th Venture Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Floor, M.K. Road, 6 G Laxmi Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400020. New Linking Road, Andheri (West) Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aadcg 7583 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Naresh Jain a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central-Circle-2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Gm Modular Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, application

ITA 3035/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 3033 To 3038/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-2020 Asstt. Cit Central Circle-2(1), M/S Gm Modular Pvt. Ltd., Old Cgo Building, 804, 8Th 8/9 Bokadia Industrial Vs. Floor, M.K. Road, Estate Waliv, Sativali Road, Mumbai-400020. Vasai East Vasai Palghar-401 208. Pan No. Aabcg 3313 Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asstt. Cit Central Circle-2(1), M/S G Trade & Capital Old Cgo Building, 804, 8Th Venture Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Floor, M.K. Road, 6 G Laxmi Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400020. New Linking Road, Andheri (West) Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aadcg 7583 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Naresh Jain a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central-Circle-2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Gm Modular Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, application

ITA 3034/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 3033 To 3038/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-2020 Asstt. Cit Central Circle-2(1), M/S Gm Modular Pvt. Ltd., Old Cgo Building, 804, 8Th 8/9 Bokadia Industrial Vs. Floor, M.K. Road, Estate Waliv, Sativali Road, Mumbai-400020. Vasai East Vasai Palghar-401 208. Pan No. Aabcg 3313 Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asstt. Cit Central Circle-2(1), M/S G Trade & Capital Old Cgo Building, 804, 8Th Venture Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Floor, M.K. Road, 6 G Laxmi Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400020. New Linking Road, Andheri (West) Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aadcg 7583 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Naresh Jain a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central-Circle-2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Gm Modular Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, application

ITA 3033/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 3033 To 3038/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-2020 Asstt. Cit Central Circle-2(1), M/S Gm Modular Pvt. Ltd., Old Cgo Building, 804, 8Th 8/9 Bokadia Industrial Vs. Floor, M.K. Road, Estate Waliv, Sativali Road, Mumbai-400020. Vasai East Vasai Palghar-401 208. Pan No. Aabcg 3313 Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asstt. Cit Central Circle-2(1), M/S G Trade & Capital Old Cgo Building, 804, 8Th Venture Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Floor, M.K. Road, 6 G Laxmi Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400020. New Linking Road, Andheri (West) Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aadcg 7583 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Naresh Jain a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH

Sabharwal Food Industries Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-22(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6027/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2012-13 Sabharwal Food Industries Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, Circle-22(1), New Delhi A-309, Basement, New Subzi Mandi, 110001 Azadpur, Delhi 110033 Vs. Pan Aabcs 0763 L (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Rohit Tiwari, Adv. Ms. Tanya, Adv. Revenue For : Ms. Rajareswari R, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2023 Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Of Cit(A)-8, New Delhi Dated 24.04.2019 For Ay 2012-13. 2. First Of All, The Ld. Counsel Of Assessee Submitted The Assesse Does Not Want To Press Its Application Dated 26.12.2022 For Admission Of Additional Ground Hence, The Same Is Dismissed Has Not Pressed. The Ground Of Assessee Is As Follows:- 1. The Ld. Ao Has Erred In Levying Penalty As The Payment In Cash Was Made For Hospital Bills As The Hospitals Did Not Accept Payment Through Cheques.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, Adv
Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

hospital bills as the hospitals did not accept payment through cheques. 3. The ld. counsel of assessee submitted that the assessee has not furnished inaccurate particulars of income as the assessee has fully reported and disclosed all the particulars on the bonafide and reasonable believe. The ld. counsel submitted that ... extent of Rs. 5,33,025/-. In conclusion, the Assessing Officer noted that this is a fit case for imposition of penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars in respect of said amount. It is also pertinent to note that neither the Assessing Officer nor ld. CIT(A), in the quantum proceedings

Gtpl Rajwadi Network Pvt. Ltd., Bamroli vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir-1(1)(2), Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 95/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), DR. A. L. SAINI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr- DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

allowable as expenditure and accordingly the Assessing Officer added the same and initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. During the course of penalty proceeding, the assessee was provided several opportunities of being heard to counter the findings of the Assessing ... technical error impact fees was debited to professional fees account thus, error was committed through inadvertence and there was no intention to furnish inaccurate particulars of income. Hence, penalty is not penal in nature, the amount has been incurred during the course of doing business, hence, penalty should

Sagarkumar Ishwarbhai Bhavani, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-32(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 75/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.75/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Sagarkumar Ishwarbhai बिधम/ Ito, Ward-32(3)(3) Bhavani Room No. 105, C-Wing, Vs. 1St Floor, Kautilya D-103 D-103, Amozan Park Ii Devki Nagar Link Road, Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra Borivali-West-400103. (E), Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agupb5616P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rakesh Joshi (Amicus Curiae) Revenue By: Shri Anil Gupta सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 02/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/05/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 16.12.2022 For Ay. 2016-17. 2. Grounds Raised By Assessee Are As Under: - “1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Ao Erred In Wrongly Holding That Service Tax Is Liable To Be Included In The Turnover For The Purpose Of Tax Audit Which Is Against The Definition Of Turnover As Per Institute Of Chartered Accountants Of India Guidelines. Without Prejudice To The Above 2. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Ao Erred In Adding An Amount Of Rs.8,31,631/- By Adopting Arbitrary Rate Of Net Profit @ 15% While Computing Income As Per Normal Provisions Of The Act & Wrongly Holding That The Appellant Is Outside The Purview Of Section 44Ad & The Cit(A) Erred In Partly Confirming The Same.

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi (Amicus Curiae)For Respondent: Shri Anil Gupta
Section 234ASection 274Section 28Section 30Section 44A

Rs.8,31,631/is hereby made in the business income of the assessee. Penalty proceeding u/s.274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) is initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income. Penalty is also initiated u/s.274 r.w.s. 271B for not audited books of accounts.” 5. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred

Arun I. Keswani, Mumbai vs. ACIT-21(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 727/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Pavan Kumar Gadale () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 are initiated separately for concealment of income / furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A) where similar submissions were made by the assessee. The CIT(A) rejected the submissions

I.G.International Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT- Central Circle- 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 123/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.123/मुं/2023 ("न.व. 2015-16) I.G. International Pvt. Ltd. 802, 8Th Floor, Akshar Bluechip Building, Thane Belapur Road, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai – 400 705. Pan: Aacci-2508-Q ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Acit – Central Circle – 1(3), 9Th Floor, Pratishtha Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : S/ Shri Ashok Mehta & Dipesh Vora ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri V.S.Mahajan, Sr. A.R सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 20/04/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: S/ Shri Ashok Mehta &For Respondent: Shri V.S.Mahajan, Sr. A.R
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 35D

show that the Assessing Officer has recorded satisfaction for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground of “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income”. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, wherein both the limbs of section ... invoked i.e. “ concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income”. Both the limbs are mentioned with conjunction ‘or’. This clearly indicate that , there was an ambiguity in the mind of Assessing Officer while issuing notice as to under which limb notice has to be issued. The Assessing Officer

Jt.CIT(OSD)(I/C) Circle.27(1), Mumbai vs. Late Gordhandas S. Goradia L/H Mahesh G. Goradia, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection

ITA 107/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Jt. Cit(Osd)(I/C) Late Gordhandas S. Goradia Room No. 408, 4Th Floor, Tower No.6, L/H Mahesh G. Goradia Vashi Railway Station Complex, Vs. 149-156-21 Garodia Shopping Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 73 Centre, Garodia Nagar, Ghatkopar, Mumbai-400 077 Pan/Gir No. Aacpg 2914 R (Revenue) : (Assessee)

For Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

limbs specified u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, i.e., whether the penalty is levied for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. The ld. AR relied on the various decisions in support of the contention of the assessee. 8. The learned Departmental Representative

Mr. Prahlad G Prajapati, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 783/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2011-12
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ujjwal Chavhan
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Thereafter vide penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s 274 of the Act the A.O has levied penalty of Rs.1,91,593/- for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 6. Heard the ld. D.R and perused the material on record

Measage Gurdas Agro Private Limited, Bathinda vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle- 1, Bathinda

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the appeals

ITA 517/ASR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

loss occurred in speculative business to reduce its tax incidence. Therefore, penalty proceedings u/ s 271(l)(c) are initiated simultaneously for furnishing inaccurate particulars of the income.” I.T.A. Nos.506/Asr/2019 8 & Others 7. The ld. DR vehemently argued and mentioned that the transaction related to “high sea sale” is speculative

Shri Gurdas Garg, Bathinda vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle- 1, Bathinda

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the appeals

ITA 516/ASR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

loss occurred in speculative business to reduce its tax incidence. Therefore, penalty proceedings u/ s 271(l)(c) are initiated simultaneously for furnishing inaccurate particulars of the income.” I.T.A. Nos.506/Asr/2019 8 & Others 7. The ld. DR vehemently argued and mentioned that the transaction related to “high sea sale” is speculative

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bathinda vs. Measage Gurdas Agro Private Limited, Bathinda

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the appeals

ITA 510/ASR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

loss occurred in speculative business to reduce its tax incidence. Therefore, penalty proceedings u/ s 271(l)(c) are initiated simultaneously for furnishing inaccurate particulars of the income.” I.T.A. Nos.506/Asr/2019 8 & Others 7. The ld. DR vehemently argued and mentioned that the transaction related to “high sea sale” is speculative

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle- 1, Bathinda vs. Shri Gurdas Garg, Bathinda

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the appeals

ITA 508/ASR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

loss occurred in speculative business to reduce its tax incidence. Therefore, penalty proceedings u/ s 271(l)(c) are initiated simultaneously for furnishing inaccurate particulars of the income.” I.T.A. Nos.506/Asr/2019 8 & Others 7. The ld. DR vehemently argued and mentioned that the transaction related to “high sea sale” is speculative