“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

The ITO, (Exemptions), Ward-2, Ahmedabad vs. The Gujarat Institute of Housing & Estate Developers, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Department is allowed

ITA 1022/AHD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Waghe Prasad Rao, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate

Section 11Section 12ASection 25Section 271(1)(c)

added to the income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act also initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5. The assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A), who vide order dated 20.03.2014 upheld the order of the Assessing Officer in respect of quantum additions ... even then income earned by the assessee from non-members should have been offered for taxation and therefore, since the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and has not offered tax on income earned from non-members, penalty to that extent is liable to be sustained in the hands

Vital Industries India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-III(2), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2332/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.G. Srikanth, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. Vinod D. Mudaliar, JCIT

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

notice the assessee about the exact fault on which the penalty is proposed to be levied i.e. whether the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income or have concealed the income. And therefore, according to Ld AR the ibid notice is invalid/bad in law. Therefore, according ... assessee guessing as to what is in the mind of the AO viz whether he proposes concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the contentions of the Ld.DR cannot be accepted and is held to be devoid of merits and therefore rejected. And since

Pareen Riaz Dosani, Bhanvad vs. The ITO Ward-1, Dwarka

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 101/RJT/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal & Shri Brijesh ParekhFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr.. DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 263Section 68

added to the total income. Penalty proceedings are initiated separately u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 8. Therefore, ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the gross profit estimated by the assessing officer in the original assessment proceedings

Sms Concast Ag, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-3(1)(2) International Taxation, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1444/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Deval, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80GSection 80HSection 80I

verification. The AO had initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) of the Act for concealment of the particulars of income and/ or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income vide notice dated 31-07-2017 and imposed the penalty of Rs. 36,26,752/- vide its order dated ... relevant columns have been marked, more particularly, when the case against the assessee is that they have concealed particulars of income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the contention raised by the assessee is liable to be rejected on facts. That apart, this issue can never be a question

K K Spun India Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-2 New Delhi, Jhandewalan Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2006/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 14tSection 250Section 271Section 69A

Rs.59,18,00,000/- (amount received from 636 investors of AMR customers) and further initiated up penalty U/s 271 (1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 5. Thereafter, the assessee has also taken additional grounds of appeal, wherein the assessee has challenged the proceedings initiated by issue of notice

K K Spun India Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Jhandewalan Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2005/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 14tSection 250Section 271Section 69A

ITO (It), Ward 2(1), Chennai vs. Rohitkumar Nemchand Piparia, Chennai

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1326/CHNY/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1326/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Income Tax Officer Shri Rohitkumar Nemchand Piparia बनाम International Taxation Ward-2(1), #34 (Old #77), Meddox Street, / Vs. Chennai. Choolai, Chennai-600 112. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Akzpp-0661-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri T. Banusekar & Ms.Samyuktha Banusekar (Advocates) - Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-10-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar & Ms.SamyukthaFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. DR

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

intention to conceal the particulars of income by not disclosing the Capital Gains earned during the relevant year as well as furnished inaccurate particulars of income in both the return of income filed. This default in the hands of the assessee clearly fits into the definition of s.271 ... account of his residential status, NRE account and the TDS made by the bank. The intention to conceal income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income was not established and therefore, the impugned penalty was deleted. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. Our findings and Adjudication

ITO, Ward-5(2)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Bgsctpl-Mskel(Jv), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

ITA 634/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra P. Sinha

For Appellant: Ms. Devina Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80I

Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The order passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by the Assessing Officer, was also confirmed by Ld. CIT(A). 4. The assessee ... assessee, there is no basis for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The order passed by ITAT dated 07.11.2024 has been produced before us for our records. It would be useful to reproduce the relevant

Kalpana Kannangath Kutty, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissionr of Income Tax Circle-11(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4896/MUM/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri. Omkareshwar Chidara, Am Kalpana Kannangath Kutty Assistant Commissioner Of Income Flat No. 4506, 45Th Floor, Tower 4, Tax Circle – 112(1), Mumbai Vs. Crescent Bay, Jerbai Wadia Road, Aayakar Bhawan, M. K. Road, Parel, Mumbai – 400012. Mumbai – 400020. Pan/Gir No. Agipk4160H (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Rutuja Pawar (Virtually Present) A/W. Ms. Sneha More Respondent By : Ms. Sudha Ramachandran, Sr,. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2024 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2006-07. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Of The Appellant & In Law Ld. Nfac Has Erred In Upholding The Infructuous Penalty Of Rs. 5,89,279/- Wrongly Levied For A.Y. 2006-07. 2) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Of The Appellant & In Law Ld. Nfac Has Erred In Considering The Penalty Order Dated 29.03.2012 Passed By Ld. Ao Prior To Passing Of Assessment Order U/S. 143(3) Which Is Dated 19.12.2008. 2 Kalpana Kannangath Kutty

For Appellant: Ms. Rutuja Pawar (Virtually Present) a/w. Ms. Sneha MoreFor Respondent: Ms. Sudha Ramachandran, Sr,. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275Section 40

certain additions/disallowances. The ld. AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of particulars of income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, thereby levying the penalty amounting to Rs. 5,89,279/- for 3 Kalpana Kannangath Kutty income of Rs. 17,69,637/- which ... failed to record proper satisfaction as to which limb the penalty has been levied i.e., whether for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5 Kalpana Kannangath Kutty It is settled proposition of law that the ld. AO should be precise in stating the grounds for which

Karan Rajan Bahl, Mumbai vs. ITO -24(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4171/MUM/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhial & Smt. Renu Jauhrikaran Rajan Bahl V/S. Cit/Nfac, Mumbai बनाम 222, Kewal Industrial Maharashtra Estate, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Agppb9301E Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh KothariFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar

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

whether the penalty proceeding is P a g e | 2 A.Y. 2007-08 Karan Rajan Bahl initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or for concealing the particulars of income. 2) The learned CIT(A) erred in not deleting the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) as the penalty ... income, statement of income, etc. b) there is no finding in the assessment order that the appellant had concealed the particulars or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. c) the assessee has neither concealed any particulars of income nor furnished any inaccurate particulars of income relating to share transactions offered

Prakashbapu Patil Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd, Sangli vs. ACIT, Circle- Sangli, Sangli

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1328/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1325& 1328/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Prakashbapu Patil Gramin V The Acit, Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat S Circle-Sangli. Sanstha Ltd., Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd., Savali Miraj, Sangli – 416410. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaaap1616N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare – Ar Revenue By Shri Rajesh Gawali – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16; Dated 05.04.2024 & 10.04.2024 Respectively; Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Since The Issue Involved Is Common

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

without appreciating that the claim u/s 80P is a sustainable based on the legal precedent and did not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or substitute any ground of appeal.” Submission of ld.AR : 2. Ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) of the Assessee ... exclusion by section u/s 80P(4) of the Act. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income as explained in detail in Assessment Order u/s 147, r.ws. 144 read with section 1448 of the IT Act, 1961, dated 22/03/2022

Prakashbapu Patil Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd, Sangli vs. ACIT Circle Sangli, Sangli

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1325/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

Access Diamonds Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-7(1), Mumbai

ITA 601/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Access Diamonds The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Office No.15, Floor- Central Circle-7(1), Mezzanine, Aayakar Bhavan, Laxmidas Khimji Market, Vs. Mumbai 36/38, Kalbadevi Road, Vittalwadi, Mumbai – 400 002 Pan: Aahca0551C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. A.R

Section 271(1)(c)

written off, the Assessing Officer (AO) initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and thereby concealment of income. Declining the contentions raised by the assessee, the AO proceeded to levy the penalty to the tune of Rs.4 ... being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 7. The assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeal who has confirmed the penalty levied by the 5 M/s. Access Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. AO by dismissing the appeal

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Numgambakkam vs. Jsr Infra Developers Private Limited, Vellore

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

ITA 2253/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2253/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Jsr Infra Developers Private Income Tax, Limited, No. 4, 10A, East Central Circle 2(4), Cross Road, Gandhi Nagar, Chennai. Vellore 632 006, Tamil Nadu. [Pan:Aadcj4440P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.07.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-19, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Appellant-Revenue Raised 7 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration Is To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Justified In Cancelling The Penalty Imposed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80I

observation that while completing the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has not made any specific findings about the concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in the assessment order and consequently quashed the penalty by placing reliance on the decision of 6 I.T.A. No.2253/Chny/24 the Hon’ble High Court

Indian Chronicle Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal ofthe assessee is allowed

ITA 1275/AHD/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Dec 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1275/Ahd/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Indian Chronicle Ltd. बनाम/ Ito Gujarat Samacharbhavan, Ward4(3), Ahmedabad Vs. Khanpur,Ahmedabad - 380001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaci0793H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & अपीलाथ" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.R. Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondentby: Date Of Hearing 28/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 254(2)Section 271(1)(c)

profit, tax was computed on the book profit. The AO also initiated penalty proceeding u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in respect of computation of book profit. Thereafter, penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed vide order dated 20.05.2010 and penalty ... adjustment was accepted. He further submitted that the penalty proceeding was initiated by the AO for the reason that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. However, in the impugned penalty order, the AO had imposed the penalty on the count that the assessee had concealed particulars of income

Dakshinamoorthy Kumaresan, Thiruvarur vs. Income Tax Officer, Thiruvarur

ITA 2452/CHNY/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2024AY 2016-2017

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Before us, Id. Counsel argued that the Id. Assessing Officer had initiated penalty proceedings vide show cause notice dated 25.05.2023 for 'furnishing inaccurate particulars of income' whereas the penalty order of the Id. Assessing Officer dated 15.03.2024 stated that the penalty has been levied on account of 'concealment of income ... Sir/Madam Whereas in the course of proceedings before me for the Assessment year 2016-17, it appears to me that you have furnished inaccurate particulars of income”. Whereas in the assessment order u/s 147 of the Act dated 25.05.2023, the Id. Assessing Officer stated that penalty proceedings u/s.271

Bueno Insta Pizza Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4280/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2016-17 Bueno Insta Pizza Pvt. Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax Circle 78/9, 2Nd Floor, 6(1)(2) Krishna Vihar, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. R. A. Kidwal Road, Mumbai- 400020. Wadala, Mumbai- 400031. Pan: Aagcb3987J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Karna ThakerFor Respondent: Shri Anurag Tripathi, SR. A.R

Section 143(2)Section 37(1)

hereby disallowed and is capitalized. Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 1961, is hereby initiated for Fax furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” Aggrieved by order of the Ld.AO, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). 3. Before the Ld.CIT(A), various notices were issued

Malav Jashwantlal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1112/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 270A(1)Section 54F

circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in initiating the proceedings for levy of penalty u/s. 270A(1) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income when no such penalty is leviable. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds

Dhirajkumar Sohanlal Thukral, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 17(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3865/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran: A.Y : 2013-14 Dhirajkumar Sohanlal Thukral Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income 33/34, Garden View Apartment, Tax, Circle 17(1) Mumbai. Road No. 29, Sion (E), (Respondent) Mumbai 400 022. Pan : Aabpt5208Q (Appellant)

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal BhutaFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 54F

made to the total income under the head Income from Capital gain. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and for concealing the income. (Addition : Rs.2,53,56,690/-)” 7. The Assessing Officer also directed initiation of penalty proceedings alongwith interest

Gupta Engineers and Contractor, Uttar Pradesh vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh

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

ITA 2850/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.2844 और 2850/िद"ी/2023 (िन.व. 2014-15 & 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri P.S Kashyap, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 264Section 271(1)(c)

case of Aero Traders P. Ltd. (supra) has held that where profit was estimated after rejection of books, imposition of penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income was not justified. Similar view has been expressed in the case of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Company (supra) and in the case