← 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

Jayshree Ravi Sancheti, Mumbai vs. PCIT-20, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2269/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68Section 69C

brought to tax. This addition is liable for tax u/s 115BBE. Penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) is initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 6. The AO did not accept the submissions made by the assessee and proceeded to treat the LTCG claimed as exempt under section

DCIT-3(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Union of Bank of India, Mumbai

ITA 1819/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Shri Ms Padmavathy S, Am, Ι.Τ.Α. No.1440/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S Union Bank Of India, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan : Aaacu0564G Dcit, Circle-(Ltu) 2 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Vs. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1819/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Dcit-3(4) 29Th Floor, Centre-1, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Appellant) Vs. M/S Union Bank Of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan : Aaacu0564G : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1441/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Union Bank Of India, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan : Aaacu0564G Dcit, Circle-(Ltu) 1 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Vs. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Appellant) : Respondent) 2

For Appellant: Shri C. Naresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 144Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)

rural branches is added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (C) are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income" 11. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. The ld. AR brought to our attention that a similar issue in assessee

DCIT-3(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Union of Bank of India, Mumbai

ITA 1818/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Shri Ms Padmavathy S, Am, Ι.Τ.Α. No.1440/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S Union Bank Of India, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan : Aaacu0564G Dcit, Circle-(Ltu) 2 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Vs. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1819/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Dcit-3(4) 29Th Floor, Centre-1, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Vs. M/S Union Bank Of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan : Aaacu0564G Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1441/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Union Bank Of India, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan : Aaacu0564G Dcit, Circle-(Ltu) 1 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Vs. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Appellant) : Respondent) 2

For Appellant: Shri C. Naresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 144Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)

rural branches is added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (C) are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income" 11. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. The ld. AR brought to our attention that a similar issue in assessee

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir - (Ltu)-2, Mumbai

ITA 1441/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Shri Ms Padmavathy S, Am, Ι.Τ.Α. No.1440/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S Union Bank Of India, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan : Aaacu0564G Dcit, Circle-(Ltu) 2 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Vs. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1819/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Dcit-3(4) 29Th Floor, Centre-1, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Vs. M/S Union Bank Of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan : Aaacu0564G Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1441/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Union Bank Of India, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan : Aaacu0564G Dcit, Circle-(Ltu) 1 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Vs. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Appellant) : Respondent) 2

Section 115JSection 144Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)

rural branches is added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (C) are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income" 11. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. The ld. AR brought to our attention that a similar issue in assessee

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir - (Ltu)-2, Mumbai

ITA 1440/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Shri Ms Padmavathy S, Am, Ι.Τ.Α. No.1440/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S Union Bank Of India, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan : Aaacu0564G Dcit, Circle-(Ltu) 2 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Vs. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1819/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Dcit-3(4) 29Th Floor, Centre-1, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Vs. M/S Union Bank Of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan : Aaacu0564G Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1441/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Union Bank Of India, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan : Aaacu0564G Dcit, Circle-(Ltu) 1 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Vs. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Appellant) : Respondent) 2

For Appellant: Shri C. Naresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 144Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)

rural branches is added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (C) are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income" 11. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. The ld. AR brought to our attention that a similar issue in assessee

Echo Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1469/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 1469/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Echo Entertainment Private Limited,…..……Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite-213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan:Aadcc0535E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………….…Respondent Ward-1(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 09, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 26, 2024 O R D E R

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

assessment, ld. Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for alleged concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals) against the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer, where Rs.80 ... penalty under section 271(1)(c) 2 Echo Entertainment Private Limited was improper as the assessee neither concealed its income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income. It is argued that ld. Assessing Officer failed to specify the exact charge i.e. whether penalty was imposed for concealment of income

Kay Kay Synthetics, Mumbai vs. I.T.O. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, Not Known

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

ITA 3959/MUM/2024[ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2024

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalkay Kay Synthetics, Vs. I.T.O, Nfac, 201-202, Anna New Delhi. Apartments, 2Nd Floor, 14 Main Avenue, Santacruz (W), Mumbai-400054. Pan/Gir No. : Aaafk0934D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punmiya.Ar Respondent By : Shri B.B. Nagawe, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 25.09.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac) Delhi / Cit(A), Passed U/Sec 271(1)(C) & U/Sec 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya.ARFor Respondent: Shri B.B. Nagawe, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275

case in upholding levy of penalty of Rs. 1,40,050/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Kay Kay Synthetics, Mumbai 2. The Learned C.I.T (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case ... considering the action of the Assessing officer (A.O) in initiating penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, whereas the A.O vide notice issued u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act dated 14-03- 2016 has initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) for concealment of income as well

ITO-22(1)(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chamber vs. Gehrilal Rooplal Paliwal, Andheri East

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 3614/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 68

back to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T Act. 1961 are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income. 4. The AO also noticed that the assessee has deposited a sum of Rs. 30,98,500/- and called

Sir Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai Suburban vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1222/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am Sir Ratan Tata Trust Dy. Cit(Exemption) – 2(1) Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street, Mtnl Tele Bulding, Cumballa Hill, Vs. Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Peddar Road, Mumbai-400 026

For Appellant: Shri Aatul SuraiyaFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal
Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144B

directing the AO to drop the penalty proceedings-initiated u/s 271(1)X(C) of the Act in absence Trust furnishing inaccurate particulars of income considering it to be consequential not require specific finding. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Public Charitable Trust engaged

DCIT, Central Circle-3(1), Hyderabad vs. Varsity Education Management Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 208/HYD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 208/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Varsity Education Income Tax, Central Circle Management (P) Ltd 3(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aadcv6100E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate A.V. Raghuram राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B. Balakrishna, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 20/09/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocate A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, CIT(DR)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, levied by the Assessing Officer without appreciating the fact that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and hence penalty provisions u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, are attracted and the quantum addition was upheld by the Hon'ble ITAT ... issued and called upon the assessee to explain as to why penalty shall not be levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In response, the assessee submitted that it has not furnished inaccurate particulars of income and that all the facts relating to the issue has been disclosed

Aadhunik Infrastructure Development Private Limited, Jalgaon vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jalgaon

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

ITA 439/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

added to the Total Income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings are separately initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) / NFAC challenging the validity of re-assessment

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

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 398/NAG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Salonkhe
Section 271(1)(c)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

inquiry about facts any more. In this backdrop, the Tribunal has concluded that the disallowance cannot be held as an instance of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 8. Thus, from the facts as emerging on record, it is evident that the assessee, after furnishing all necessary particulars, had made ... attracted. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal was wholly justified in holding that there was nothing to indicate that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income warranting imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 10. In the light of the above discussion, it cannot be said

Chandu Vijayalakshmi, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 805/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.805/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Smt.Chandu Vijayalakshmi Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 11(1) Pan:Aflpc2369E Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: N O N E राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Aluru Venkata Rao, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 17/09/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: : Shri Aluru Venkata Rao, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

shall not be levied. In response, the assessee submitted that, she has neither concealed particulars of income, nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income and source for cash deposits is also explained out of known source of income. Therefore, provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 cannot ... levied minimum penalty of Rs.7,81,933/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the act for concealing particulars of income and also furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT (A). Before the learned CIT (A), the assessee challenged the penalty levied

Tata Consumer Products Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir.-4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

ITA 373/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sriram Sashdari, ARFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR
Section 250Section 43(6)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 928

added back in computation. Penalty proceeding u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is initi- ated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. [Addition: 1,44,77,042/-] Tata Consumer Products Ltd. {erstwhile Tata Global Beverages Ltd.} AYs: 2014-15 & 2015-16 6.1 The Ld. TPO had proposed

Tata Consumer Products Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir.-4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

ITA 372/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sriram Sashdari, ARFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR
Section 250Section 43(6)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 928

added back in computation. Penalty proceeding u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is initi- ated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. [Addition: 1,44,77,042/-] Tata Consumer Products Ltd. {erstwhile Tata Global Beverages Ltd.} AYs: 2014-15 & 2015-16 6.1 The Ld. TPO had proposed

Iincome Tax Officer -30(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Vilas Transport Company, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1272/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri G.J. Ninawe, Sr. DR
Section 40A(3)

w.e.f. 01.04.2008 and hence added to the total income of the assessee returned. Penalty proceeding u/s. 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income are hereby initiated separately.” 4. On further appeal, the CIT(A) deleted the disallowance made by the AO by placing reliance on the decision

ACIT Circle 54(1), New Delhi vs. Swadesh Kumar Mishra, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee i

ITA 6043/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144(1)Section 145(3)Section 24Section 40Section 40A(3)

failure to make TDS or disallowance for cash payment exceeding the limit prescribed u/s 40A(3) would not automatically amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income as the incurring of the said expenditure is not in dispute. (Principal CIT v Torque Pharmaceuticals

M/S Himachal Fashion Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana vs. ITO, W-6(3), Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 8/CHANDI/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Krinwant Sahay & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 8/Chd/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Danish Abdullah, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 27lSection 80Section 80ASection 80I

disallowance claimed by the assessee. Simultaneously, penalty proceedings under section 27l(l)(c) of I. T. Act, 1961 were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5. During the penalty proceedings, the Assessee submitted that since the return of income was a belated return, so this may be a reason

Ms Rajmal Lakhichand, Jalgaon vs. DCIT, Jalgaon

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

ITA 1206/PUN/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Sept 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1206/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ms. Rajmal Lakhichand, Vs. Dcit, Jalgaon. 169, Balaji Peth, Jalgaon- 425001. Pan : Aacfr8609L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak : Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.09.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “The Grounds Of Appeal Stated Below Are Without Prejudice To Each Other. 1) That The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.62,95,800 U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Said Penalty Be Cancelled. 2) Gross Profit Addition

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak
Section 142Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)(a)

appellant. 4.3 THAT the levy of penalty without specifying the charge as to whether it is for concealing income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and without striking out the inappropriate 3 words in the SCN u/s. 274 is bad in law and as such deserves to be cancelled ... wherein, it was held that a claim which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee. We find force in the argument of the assessee on this count and, accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty

DCIT Cir - 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 574/MUM/2007[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2024AY 2001-2002

Bench: Us, Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:-

Section 271(1)(c)Section 80

expenditure’ had been held to be a capital expenditure then it does not lead to levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the said penalty. Accordingly, the penalty