← 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

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(6), Surat vs. Hiteshbhai Popatbhai Sakariya, Surat

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 108/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.107 To 109/Srt/2025 Assessment Years:(2010-11 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) The Ito, Vs. Hiteshbhai Popatbhai Sakariya, Ward – 1(2)(6), 17, Hetal Nagar Society, Rander Road, Surat Near Navyug College, Surat - 395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akvps5306G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Himashu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.115/Srt/2025 Assessment Year:(2007-08) The Ito, Vs. Navinbhai Himatlal Shah, Ward – 1(3)(1), 7/Swashray Society, Diwali Baug, Surat Athwalines, Surat - 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afsps3575H (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.1/Srt/2025 [Arising In Ita No.115/Srt/2025] Assessment Year:(2007-08) Navinbhai Himatlal Shah, Vs. The Ito, 7/Swashray Society, Diwali Baug, Ward – 1(3)(1), Athwalines, Surat - 395001 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afsps3575H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mitul R. Mehta, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025

Section 271(1)(c)

Rs.1,16,996/- us 69C of the Act. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The AO has disallowed 25% of total non- genuine purchases of Rs.4,67,985/- from the concerns of Rajendra Jain Group, who were ... submitted that the case of revenue right from the beginning is that the assessee has shown bogus purchases and thus, furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The stand of revenue is upheld by the ITAT in restricting the addition to the extent of 6%. Therefore, the penalty

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(6), Surat vs. Hiteshbhai Popatbhai Sakariya, Surat

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 107/SRT/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.107 To 109/Srt/2025 Assessment Years:(2010-11 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) The Ito, Vs. Hiteshbhai Popatbhai Sakariya, Ward – 1(2)(6), 17, Hetal Nagar Society, Rander Road, Surat Near Navyug College, Surat - 395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akvps5306G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Himashu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.115/Srt/2025 Assessment Year:(2007-08) The Ito, Vs. Navinbhai Himatlal Shah, Ward – 1(3)(1), 7/Swashray Society, Diwali Baug, Surat Athwalines, Surat - 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afsps3575H (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.1/Srt/2025 [Arising In Ita No.115/Srt/2025] Assessment Year:(2007-08) Navinbhai Himatlal Shah, Vs. The Ito, 7/Swashray Society, Diwali Baug, Ward – 1(3)(1), Athwalines, Surat - 395001 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afsps3575H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mitul R. Mehta, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025

Section 271(1)(c)

Rs.1,16,996/- us 69C of the Act. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The AO has disallowed 25% of total non- genuine purchases of Rs.4,67,985/- from the concerns of Rajendra Jain Group, who were ... submitted that the case of revenue right from the beginning is that the assessee has shown bogus purchases and thus, furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The stand of revenue is upheld by the ITAT in restricting the addition to the extent of 6%. Therefore, the penalty

Sanjaybhai Damjibhai Golakiya, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-3(3)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal of the appellant is allowed

ITA 951/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.951/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Sanjaybhai Damjibhai Golakiya, Vs. The Assessment Unit, D-74, Vithalnagar Society, Hirabaug, Income-Tax Department, Varachha Road, Surat - 395006 Jurisdictional Ao: The Ito, Ward – 3(3)(1), Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Alopg2048R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025

Section 250Section 253(1)Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)

bogus purchases. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act ITA No.951/SRT/2024/AY.2013-14 Sanjay Damjibhai Golakiya for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The AO has disallowed the entire purchases from M/s Sun Diam, one of the concerns of Rajendra Jain Group, who were found to have ... impugned party. The CIT(A) restricted addition to 5% of total purchases only on estimation basis. Hence, there is not case of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The AO did not accept such explanation and proceeded to levy the penalty because the CIT(A) had partly confirmed the addition made

Pradeep Garg, Ajmer vs. ITO 2(1) Ajmer, Ajmer

ITA 397/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40A(3)Section 64(1)(iv)

proceedings on the technical ground that in the assessment order, AO had not specified whether the penalty proceedings were being initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or the penalty proceedings were initiated for concealment of particulars of income. He has taken the plea that penalty cannot be initiated ... result, there was no clarity whether the notice was for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. He has filed copies of those notices. For his contention, assessee has relied on judgments of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court

M/S Abhman Distributor Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 1410/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

proposed in the show cause notice issued. Along with penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) are being initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 3.1 The credits in the bank statement are mentioned at para 4.5 and the list furnished by the assessee is mentioned at para

M/S Steel Strips Infrastructures Ltd., Chandigarh vs. ACIT, CC-II, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 732/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 732 /Chd/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/s Steel Strips Ltd. बनाम The Asst. CIT Central Circle-II Chandigarh SCO 49-50, Sector 26, Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AACCS5077J प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent अपीलार्थी/Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A, Ms. Muska Garg, C.A राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Shri Ved Parkash Kalia, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of Hea

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Ms. Muska Garg, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ved Parkash Kalia, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)(i)Section 37(1)

made an addition of Rs. 27,00,000/- to the returned income and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 6. Against the order of the Ld. AO the assessee went in appeal before the Ld CIT(A) who has since sustained

Pankajkumar Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rakjot vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Rajkot

ITA 81/RJT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.76 To 80/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2012-13 & आयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No. 81/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya 3Rd Floor, Parth, Diwanpara | बनाम Main Road, Rajkot-3600 001 Vs. Pan: Aampl 3903 F Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2 Rajkot, 2Nd Floor, Amruta Estate, M.G. Rad, Rajkot-360 001 (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/04/2025 Order Per Bench, Captioned Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2008-09 To 2012-13 & Ay 2014-15, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (“Ld.Cit(A)” For Short) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act" For Short), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Orders, Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) & 271Aab(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, राजकोटन्यायपीठ, राजकोट । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJКОТ BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT

Pankajkumar Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rajkot vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Rajkot

ITA 80/RJT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.76 To 80/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2012-13 & आयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No. 81/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya 3Rd Floor, Parth, Diwanpara Main Road, Rajkot-3600 001 Pan: Aampl 3903 F (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2 Rajkot, 2Nd Floor, Amruta Estate, M.G. Rad, Rajkot-360 001 (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/03/2025 : 30/04/2025 Order Per Bench, Captioned Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2008-09 To 2012-13 & Ay 2014-15, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (“Ld.Cit(A)” For Short) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act" For Short), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Orders, Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) & 271Aab(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

addition is invalid and void-ab-initio. 8. Furthermore, it is not the case where I have wilfully concealed the income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income but only issue that contention put forth during the assessment proceedings and before the appellate authorities was not believed to be satisfactory. However ... such disagreement does not vouch for the fact that I have concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income and therefore, proposal to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of alleged concealment of income is strongly objected. 6 ITA No.76 to 81/RJT/2022

Pankajkumar Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rajkot vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 79/RJT/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

such addition is invalid and void-ab-initio. 8. Furthermore, it is not the case where | have wilfully concealed the income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income but only issue that contention put forth during the assessment proceedings and before the appellate authorities was not believed to be satisfactory. However ... such disagreement does not vouch for the fact that | have concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income and therefore, proposal to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of alleged concealment of income is strongly objected. ITA No.76 to 81/RIT/2022

Pankajkumar Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rakjot vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Rajkot

ITA 78/RJT/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2010-11
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

addition is invalid and void-ab-initio. 8. Furthermore, it is not the case where I have wilfully concealed the income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income but only issue that contention put forth during the assessment proceedings and before the appellate authorities was not believed to be satisfactory. However ... such disagreement does not vouch for the fact that I have concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income and therefore, proposal to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of alleged concealment of income is strongly objected. 6 ==End of OCR for page

Pankajkumar Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rajkot vs. The Actit, Central Circle-2, Rajkot

ITA 77/RJT/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.76 To 80/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2012-13 & आयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No. 81/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya 3Rd Floor, Parth, Diwanpara Main Road, Rajkot-3600 001 Pan: Aampl 3903 F (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/04/2025 Order Per Bench, Captioned Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2008-09 To 2012-13 & Ay 2014-15, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (“Ld.Cit(A)” For Short) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act" For Short), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Orders, Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) & 271Aab(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

addition is invalid and void-ab-initio. 8. Furthermore, it is not the case where I have wilfully concealed the income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income but only issue that contention put forth during the assessment proceedings and before the appellate authorities was not believed to be satisfactory. However ... such disagreement does not vouch for the fact that I have concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income and therefore, proposal to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of alleged concealment of income is strongly objected. 6 ==End of OCR for page

Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rajkot vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Rajkot

ITA 76/RJT/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

addition is invalid and void-ab-initio. 8. Furthermore, it is not the case where I have wilfully concealed the income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income but only issue that contention put forth during the assessment proceedings and before the appellate authorities was not believed to be satisfactory. However ... such disagreement does not vouch for the fact that I have concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income and therefore, proposal to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of alleged concealment of income is strongly objected. 6 9. In connection with the above

Virmabhai Ajabaji Patel, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 544/MUM/2025[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2009-2010

Bench: Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanvirmabhai Ajabbaji Patel Vs. Ito – 19(3)(5) Room No. 201, Matru 156, Room No. 6, Mistry Mandir Bldg, Tardeo Bldg, 2Nd Kumbharwala Road, Mumbai. (Vijesh Metal) – 400004. Pan/Gir No. Agkpp3389B (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250bSection 271(1)(c)

Mumbai assessee has not been able to show the genuineness of the purchases and hence he has to be held responsible for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and as such penalty imposed is justified. 8. What is concealment of income or inaccurate particulars of such income as contemplated by Section ... would fall within the mischief of Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act making it a case of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee. Moreover, the facts and circumstances of the present case are squarely covered by the judgment of the Coordinate Bench referred

Anatek Services Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 14(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 368/MUM/2025[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Section 133Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

with the statutory requirement of conveying to the assessee, whether the penalty was initiated for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. For this, the ld. AR relied on the Full Bench decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mohammad ... doubt without striking the irrelevant limb as to whether the penalty was for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This issue is no longer res integra, where the full bench of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mohammad Farhan Shaikh (supra

Anatek Services Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 14(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 367/MUM/2025[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Section 133Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

with the statutory requirement of conveying to the assessee, whether the penalty was initiated for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. For this, the ld. AR relied on the Full Bench decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mohammad ... doubt without striking the irrelevant limb as to whether the penalty was for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This issue is no longer res integra, where the full bench of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mohammad Farhan Shaikh (supra

Anatek Services Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -14(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 366/MUM/2025[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. Haridas BhatFor Respondent: Shri. Ram Krishn Kedia (SR. DR.)
Section 133Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Anatek Services Pvt. Ltd. to the assessee, whether the penalty was initiated for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. For this, the ld. AR relied on the Full Bench decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mohammad Farhan Shaikh ... doubt without striking the irrelevant limb as to whether the penalty was for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This issue is no longer res integra, where the full bench of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mohammad Farhan Shaikh (supra

Asst.Commissioner of Income-Tax - Circle 41-1-1, Mumbai vs. Satya Kim Yashpal, Mumbai

ITA 5503/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

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

Section 250

investment u/s 69 of the Act. (Add:Rs. 96,80,005/-) Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are initiated for concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) are initiated for non- compliance as statement of HSBC bank account was not furnished in response

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax- 41 1 1, Mumbai vs. Satya Kim Yashpal, Mumbai

ITA 5502/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2008-09
Section 250

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. (Add:Rs.96,80,005/-) Penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) are initiated for concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 36. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) are initiated for non- compliance as statement of HSBC bank account was not furnished in response

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - 41(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Satya Kim Yashpal, Mumbai

ITA 5309/MUM/2024[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 1997-98

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

Section 250

investment u/s 69 of the Act. (Add:Rs. 96,80,005/-) Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are initiated for concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) are initiated for non- compliance as statement of HSBC bank account was not furnished in response

DCIT 41.1.1, Kautilya Bhawan, Mumb vs. Satya Kim Yashpal, Mumbai

ITA 5138/MUM/2024[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2001-02
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule; Shri Bhangepatil
Section 250

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. (Add:Rs.96,80,005/-) Penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) are initiated for concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) are initiated for non- compliance as statement of HSBC bank account was not furnished in response to notice