← All Phrases

“furnishing inaccurate particulars of income”

PenaltySection 271(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)1,616 judgments

The decision most relied on for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), cited in 2,590 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on furnishing inaccurate particulars of income

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 of income

Gopalkrishna Narla Rao, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 16(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 6488/MUM/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishgopalkrishna Narla Rao, Income Tax Officer, A/12/46 Sunder Nagar Kalina, Ward 16(2)(4), Vs. Santacruz East, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400098 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpr 1916R Appellant By : Shri M Subramnian Respondent By : Shri Swapnil Choudhari, Sr.- Dr (Appellant) (Respondent) Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 16 .03.2026

For Appellant: Shri M SubramnianFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari, Sr.- DR
Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

assessee furnished its reply requesting to drop the proceeding as there was no conscious attempt to furnish inaccurate particulars of income. However, rejecting the explanation of the assessee, the Assessing Officer proceeded to pass an order imposing penalty of Rs.6,17,612/- alleging furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Assessee ... assessee’s case not been selected for scrutiny, the additional income offered by the assessee would have escaped assessment. Therefore, assessee did furnish inaccurate particulars of income while filing the original return of income. 6. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. We have also applied

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Shillong vs. Meghalaya Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Lumjingshai, Shillong

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 308/GTY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shriduvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 139(4)Section 139(9)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 72Section 80Section 80I

against the order of Id. CIT (A) deleting the penalty of ₹1,00,78,595/- as imposed by the Id. AO for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in respect of carry forward of losses. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income

Shri Ajay Mayor, Ahmedabad vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1607/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

invoking provision/s 271(1)(c) of the Act ignoring submission of the appellant that there is neither concealment of income nor furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which leads to invocation of penalty. 2. Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that ld. AO failed to record proper satisfaction as to penalty ... concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and without proper satisfaction penalty order required to be quashed. It be so held now. 3. Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that amount received on dissolution of trust is capital receipt whereas it is treated as revenue in nature

Dazzler Confectionery Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(1)(1, Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal is allowed

ITA 8411/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Mr. Rahul Sarda, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, SR AR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 35D

respectively. The Assessing Officer, in the Assessment Order, also initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealing the income. 3. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued statutory notice dated 28.03.2016 u/s 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act for the following ... specified any particular limb and, in fact, used ‘OR’ in between the limbs, i.e. concealing the particulars of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, and thus, the penalty is unsustainable, specifically, in view of the judgment passed by the full Court of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case

ITO, Ward- 2(5), Dehradun vs. Uttrakhand Poorv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd., Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3023/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 158ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN “DB” BENCH: DEHRADUN BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Jagdishchandra Shantilal Chhatralia, Gujarat vs. Assesing Oficer, Rajkot

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

ITA 623/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 623/Rjt/2025

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

appeal and directed the CIT(A) to decide the case on its merits. 4. The penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is not justified, as there was no deliberate intention to conceal income. The appellant's explanation regarding the cash deposits being from prior ... Subsequently, a penalty of ₹2,87,850 was levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. We further note that the Ld. CIT(A) has issued several notices for hearing of the case, and the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided

Dawat E Islami Ap, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Exemption Ward 1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1575/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1575/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dawat E Islami Ap, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Exemption Ward-1(1), Pan: Aabtd5383Q Hyderabad. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) करदाताका""त"न"ध"व/ : Shri Ankit Chokshi, Ca (Hybrid Mode) Assessee Represented By राज"वका""त"न"ध"व/ : Shri Mathivanan S A, Sr. Ar Department Represented By सुनवाईसमा"तहोनेक""त"थ/ : 05/03/2026 Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख/ : 11/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Dawat E Islami Ap, (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 25/07/2025 For The A.Y.2015-16. Dawat E Islami Ap Vs. Ito

Section 12ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275

erred in confirming the same as the appellant has neither concealed the particulars of income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income. 6. In the facts and circumstances the penalty levied u/s 271(1) (C) is not according to the provisions of the Act therefore, the same may be deleted ... whether the penalty proceedings were initiated for Page 4 of 10 Dawat E Islami AP vs. ITO concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. We further find that an identical issue has been adjudicated by this Tribunal in para Nos. 8 to 11 of the order

Sumanto Paul, Delhi vs. The Assessing Officer, Income Tax Department

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

ITA 8755/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year: 2016-17 Sumanto Paul, Vs The Assessing Officer, 139, Kohat Enclave, Assessment Unit, Pitampur, Income Tax Department, Delhi – 110 034. New Delhi. Pan: Aajpp4082C

For Appellant: Ms Shruti Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Nitin Kumar Jaiman, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

dated 10.01.2024 for the year under consideration though issued, no notice has been issued alleging either concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income made by the assessee which is mandatory failing which the entire proceedings is 2 vitiated and, thus, liable to be quashed as was the argument

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Dehradun, Subhash Road Dehradun vs. State Infrastructure and Industrial Development Corporation of Uttarakhand Ltd., I.T. Park, Sahastradhara Road, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 233/DDN/2025[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Dehradun10 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Dcit Vs State Infrastructure & Circle-1(1) Industrial Development Dehradun Corporation Of Uttarakhand- Uttarakhand Ltd., 29 Iie, Sahastradhara Road (It Park) Road, Haripuram, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Pan-Aahcs7324R Revenue Assessee Revenue By Shri Pramod Verma, Cit Dr Assessee By Shri Sahil Kala, Ca Date Of Hearing 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Revenue Against The Order Dated 22.09.2025 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 19.12.2016 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Heard Both The Parties At Length. The Claim Of The Assessee Was That It Had Suo-Motto Withdrew The Inadvertent Amount Of Deduction Claimed U/S 80Ia Of The Act However, The Ao Has Levied The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act By Ao Which Was Confirmed By Ld. Cit(A). 3. Ld. Cit (A) By Observing That Under Identical Circumstances, Penalty Levied For Ay 2011-12 Was Deleted By His Predecessor. Since The Ld. Cit(A) Has Followed The Order For Ay 2011-12 Wherein Penalty Levied Under Identical Circumstances, Was Deleted Which Facts Has Not Been Controverted By The Revenue. The Relevant Observation Of Ld. Cit(A) While Deleting The Penalty Are Reproduced As Under:-

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40ASection 801ASection 80I

amount Rs. 1,95,90,100/- was levied in this case. In this case AO has levied penalty for furnishing Inaccurate particulars of income u/s 271(1)(c) regarding excess claim of Rs.5,74,49,588/- u/s 80IA and Rs. 1,85,000/- as expenses disallowed

Amish Pravinchandra Vyas, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the question is answered in the negative, i

ITA 1924/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act and dismissed the assessee appeal.

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68Section 69

dated 17-08-2020 imposing penalty of Rs.6,20,524/- for the alleged default of “concealment of income”, not for “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income”. 3. Aggrieved against the penalty order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed the levy of penalty ... Income Tax, Central Circle 2(1), Ahmedabad Imposing penalty of Rs. 6,20,524/- for the alleged default of concealment of Income / furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in utter disregard to the fact that the order so passed by the learned AO is bad in law, contrary to the provisions

Achala Punja, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Non Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2630/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 194Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

Mere making of a claim, even if it is found not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income — CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd (322 ITR 158, SC). 4. The appellant also seeks to rely on the following decisions that squarely support

Ramesh Kanhayalal Lodha, Godiji Building, Kika Street, Masjid Bunder Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 23(3)(6), Piramal Chambers Dr. Ss Rao Marg Parel Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal is allowed

ITA 8294/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms. Shivali Mhatre, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, SR DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

Assessing Officer, in the Assessment Order, also recorded the satisfaction and initiated penalty proceeding for considering the particulars of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and ultimately, vide penalty order dated 19.03.2018, levied a penalty of Rs.15,265/- without specifying any limb/charge ... Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order used “/” in between the 3 Ramesh Kanhayalal Lodha limbs i.e. concealing the particulars of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 6. Thus, on the aforesaid analyzation, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and affirmed by the Ld. Commissioner by dismissing the Appeal

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2 1 1, Vadodara vs. Unimed Technologies Limited, Panchmahal

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 279/AHD/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 43A

interest capitalization. Based on these additions, the assessed income was enhanced and penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. In the quantum appeal the Commissioner of Income Taх (Appeals), vide order dated 08.02.2024, granted substantial relief by deleting multiple additions and restricting ... However, the Ld AO levied penalty u/s. 271[1][c] of Rs.1,61,42,867/- vide order dated 29.03.20 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 4. Aggrieved against the Penalty order, assessee company filed appeal before Ld CIT[A] who deleted the penalty by observing as follows

Bhairav Tube (India), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 5494/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

Section 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(a)

income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Hence, in absence of such clear position of concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, penalty proceedings could not have been initiated. We, thus in terms of aforesaid decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court which is squarely

Kapil Khandelwal, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-I, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh

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

ITA 335/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 Kapil Khandelwal, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of 56, Moar Kothi, Gangapur, Bareilly Income Tax, Circle-I, Bareilly Pan: Aiypk4908M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Penalty Levied Upon The Assessee Under Section 271(1)(C) By The Ld. Ao On 17.03.2022 & Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. Because Requisite Satisfaction For Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) If The Income Tax Act 1961 Was Not Recorded In The Regular Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2017 Passed A/S 100%, Therefore, Penalty Proceedings Got Wholly Vitiated & Consequently, The Id. "Cit(A)" Ought To Have Quashed The Penalty Order Dated 17.03.2022, Being Illegal, Bad-In-Law & Without Jurisdiction 2. Because The Show Cause Notice For Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Did Not Specify Under Which Limb Penalty Was Sought To Be Imposed I.E.. Whether On Account Of Concealment Of Income Or For Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income & Consequently, The Penalty Order Dated 17.03.2022 Passed By Faceless Assessing Officer Deserved To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

specify under which limb penalty was sought to be imposed i.e.. whether on account of concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and consequently, the penalty order dated 17.03.2022 passed by Faceless Assessing Officer deserved to be quashed. 3.1 BECAUSE, even on merits

Amber Corporation, Kalyan vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Kalyan, Thane

In the result the Assessee’s Appeal is allowed

ITA 8373/MUM/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri. Hitesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Surendra Mohan (SR. DR.)
Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

expenses disallowance. 3. The Assessing Officer in the Assessment order also initiated the penalty proceeding for concealing the income by way of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, and thereafter issued a notice dated 13.03.2013 u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, for concealment of the particulars of income ... tune of Rs.1,15,875/- being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded on the addition of Rs.3,75,000/- for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Though the assessee challenged the said penalty levied, by filing First Appeal before

M/S.Allied Digital Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(3), Mumbai

In the result the Assessee‟s Appeal is allowed

ITA 8147/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Allied Digital Services Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Central 808, 8Th Floor, Mafatlal Centre, Circile 1(3), 905,9Th Floor, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai – 400021. Old Cgo Building, Pan – Aaaca5509K Pratishtha Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Ms. Vinita Shah, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.02.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 11.07.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short „The Act‟) For The A.Y. 20101-11. 2. In The Instant Case, The Ao Vide Assessment Order Dated 28.03.2013 Under Section 143 (3) R.W.S. 153(A) Of The Act Has Made The Additions Of Rs.5,35,91,882/- & Rs.1,25,66,049/- On Account Of Disallowances Under Section 69C Of The Act & Section 2 M/S. Allied Digital Services Limited

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita Shah, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. D.R
Section 143Section 2Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69C

Rs.18,21,588/- @ 100% being amount of tax evaded on the income of Rs.54,64,764/- for concealing particulars of income OR furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by considering the peculiar facts and circumstances that the Hon‟ble Tribunal ultimately, affirmed the addition of Rs.5 ... without specifying any specific charge/limb. The AO further vide penalty order, ultimately levied the penalty under consideration for concealment of income OR furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, which goes to show that the AO while levying penalty was also confused and/or unclear qua limb/charge of penalty levied. Thus, the decision

DCIT(It)-4(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Arun Madhavachari Rangachari, Mumbai

ITA 3814/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Gaurav KabraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR
Section 250Section 254Section 9(1)(vii)

ITA No.3814/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV

Chandrakant Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(6), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1468/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

made by the DCIT, Cirle-3(3), Ahmedabad for A.Y.2011-12. Penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act is hereby initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and thereby concealing particular of income by the assessee. (Addition of Rs.26,96,91,624/-) I.T.A No. 1468/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2011-12 3 Chandrakant ... considered as income from other sources and brought to tax. Penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act is hereby initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and thereby concealing particular of income by the assessee. (Addition of Rs.22,54,286/-) Addition on account of Share transactions The assessee

Health Biotech Limited, Chandigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 987/CHANDI/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: the disposal of the same.

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40

these additions, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) and levied penalty holding that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. 4. Against the order of the AO the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 5. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering ... claims made were not bona fide. The Ld. CIT(A) further observed that the Assessing Officer had clearly levied penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and that the penalty proceedings were validly initiated. 6. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred an appeal before