← 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

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

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 399/NAG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(viia)

issued notice dated 26/02/2016, under Chandrapur District Central Co–operative Bank section 274 r/w section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5. The assessee has submitted before the Assessing Officer during the penalty proceedings that the assessee made a bona fde claim ... above, the Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act of ` 39,07,11,248, for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee being aggrieved filed appeal before the first appellate authority. 7. The learned CIT(A) deleted the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandrapur Circle, Chandrapur vs. M/S Chandrapur District Central Co-Oprative Bank Limted, Chandrapur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 241/NAG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(viia)

issued notice dated 26/02/2016, under Chandrapur District Central Co–operative Bank section 274 r/w section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5. The assessee has submitted before the Assessing Officer during the penalty proceedings that the assessee made a bona fde claim ... above, the Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act of ` 39,07,11,248, for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee being aggrieved filed appeal before the first appellate authority. 7. The learned CIT(A) deleted the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer

Amit Khemka, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 43(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 636/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Kumar Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250Section 271BSection 68

tenable as the assessing officer in the Original Assessment order u/s 147 dated 26 -03-2015 had initiated the penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income whereas the Assessing Officer concluded the impugned Penalty Order U/S 271(1)(c) by imposing the penalty for concealment of income. 3. That ... fact that in the original assessment order u/s 147, the Ld. AO had initiated the penalty alleging the assessee to have furnished inaccurate particulars of income whereas in the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c), the penalty was imposed alleging the assessee to have concealed the income. The assessee

Amit Khemka, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 43(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 635/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Kumar Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250Section 271BSection 68

tenable as the assessing officer in the Original Assessment order u/s 147 dated 26 -03-2015 had initiated the penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income whereas the Assessing Officer concluded the impugned Penalty Order U/S 271(1)(c) by imposing the penalty for concealment of income. 3. That ... fact that in the original assessment order u/s 147, the Ld. AO had initiated the penalty alleging the assessee to have furnished inaccurate particulars of income whereas in the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c), the penalty was imposed alleging the assessee to have concealed the income. The assessee

Jamna Devi Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 7(2), Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 540/JPR/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

should apply mind and come to a conclusion that whether the penalty is being levied for concealment of particulars of income OR furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In the absence of which no penalty should be levied on the assessee as determination of such limb is sine ... under section 271(1)(c). 2. In the notice issued u/s 274, penalty was initiated for concealment of particulars of income OR furnishing inaccurate particulars of income [PB 216]. 3. The lower authorities failed to point out the specific default for which the assessee was being called upon to explain

Tushar Mahendra Parekh, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) Income Tax Department, Delhi

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

ITA 3216/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Bhavesh Prafulbhai Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule, (Addl. CIT) Sr. DR
Section 143Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 41

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH

Nirmal Narendrakumar Kotecha, Mumbai vs. Int. Tax, Ward-3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, in terms of paragraph 24 above, the appeal preferred by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4592/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal BhutaFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

sought to be levied for 6 Assessment Year: 2009-10 concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Further, on perusal of penalty order, dated 21/03/2017, passed by the Assessing Officer, we note that in paragraph 5 the Assessing Officer has stated the reason for levying ... been levied. Thus, there is no clarity whether the penalty proceedings were initiated for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 14. In view of the above, we find merit in the contention advance on behalf of the Appellant that penalty levied under Section

D R Coats Ink and Resins Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 12(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3188/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. D/R
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

that, the AO is not sure whether he is proceeding to levy penalty for concealment of the particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s SSA's Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 taxmann.com 248, has upheld the order

Swaminarayan Co.Op.Bank Ltd., Baroda vs. The ACIT, Circle-3(1), Baroda

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1411/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1411/Ahd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11 Swaminarayan Co-Op. Bank Ltd. The Acit बना 1, Ashok Chambers Circle-3(1) Opp. Pathak Gate Police Station Ahmedabad म/ Madanzampa Road V/S. Vadodara 390 001 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaaas 1932 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) …… "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashish Kanabar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashok Natha Bhalekar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 07/08/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 9/08/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Order Dated 08/07/2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Vadodara [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)” In Short] Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Dated 27/02/2019 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11. Swaminarayan Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Vs. Acit Asst. Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Kanabar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Natha Bhalekar, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 35A

r.w.s 271(1)(c) dated 19/03/2013, is not identifiable as to why the penalty is initiated, whether it is for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or for concealment of income as the AO has issued printed form of notice without striking off irrelevant portion of the notice. The amount ... quantum appeal, where it was held that merely making a claim that is not sustainable does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 6.3. The penalty proceedings are separate from the quantum proceedings. This principle has been upheld in various judicial pronouncements. It is also held that the findings

Caris Pure Processing Company Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corp Circle 1(1), Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1455/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1453, 1454 & 1455/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Caris Pure Processing Company The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, V. Income Tax, No.23-C, Kohinoor Complex, Corporate Ward -1(1), Vettuvankeni, Chennai. Injambakkam, East Coast Road, Chennai – 600 115. [Pan: Aafcc-2170-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. P.M. Kathir, Advocate : Smt. M.S. Deeptha, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओरसे/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. P.M. Kathir, Advocate
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

144B of the Act dated 30.03.2022. Further, the Assessing Officer initiated a penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessing Officer also initiated 271D of the Act proceedings separately for receiving cash loan more than Rs.20,000/-. Aggrieved by the order

Caris Pure Processing Company Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corp Ward 1(1), Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1454/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1453, 1454 & 1455/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Caris Pure Processing Company The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, V. Income Tax, No.23-C, Kohinoor Complex, Corporate Ward -1(1), Vettuvankeni, Chennai. Injambakkam, East Coast Road, Chennai – 600 115. [Pan: Aafcc-2170-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. P.M. Kathir, Advocate : Smt. M.S. Deeptha, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओरसे/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. P.M. Kathir, Advocate
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

144B of the Act dated 30.03.2022. Further, the Assessing Officer initiated a penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessing Officer also initiated 271D of the Act proceedings separately for receiving cash loan more than Rs.20,000/-. Aggrieved by the order

Caris Pure Processing Company Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corp Ward 1(1), Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1453/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1453, 1454 & 1455/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Caris Pure Processing Company The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, V. Income Tax, No.23-C, Kohinoor Complex, Corporate Ward -1(1), Vettuvankeni, Chennai. Injambakkam, East Coast Road, Chennai – 600 115. [Pan: Aafcc-2170-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. P.M. Kathir, Advocate : Smt. M.S. Deeptha, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओरसे/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. P.M. Kathir, Advocate
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

144B of the Act dated 30.03.2022. Further, the Assessing Officer initiated a penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessing Officer also initiated 271D of the Act proceedings separately for receiving cash loan more than Rs.20,000/-. Aggrieved by the order

Arulsundaram Nithya, Erode vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1112/CHNY/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1112/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. Smt.Arulsundaram Nithya, The Acit, 11, Poondurai Road, Circle-1, Ragupathinaickenpalayam, Erode. Erode-638 002. [Pan: Abspn 5094 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

must specifically state the grounds mentioned in sec.271(1)(c) i.e. whether it is for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The faults stated supra are distinct and by clubbing/joining the same, the assessee has alleged that she couldn’t defend properly the charge; and the action

DCIT, Central Circle - 7(1), Mumbai vs. Maneesh Pharmaceuticals Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 964/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Maneesh Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Tax, Vs. 29-33, Ancillary Industrial Central Circle – 7(1), Plots, Near M Ward, Mumbai Govandi, Mumbai – 400 043 (Pan : Aaacm3635Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Jaypraksh Bairagra, Ca Revenue : Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit, Dr

For Appellant: Shri Jaypraksh Bairagra, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT, DR
Section 10BSection 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

whereas the fact is that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was initiated in the original assessment order for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income on some issues and also for concealment of income on some other issues. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the ground that mere disallowance of claim of deduction cannot be considered as furnishing inaccurate particulars about income. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred that the amount

Intas Biopharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 865/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 865/Ahd/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Intas The Dy. Commissioner Of बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Biopharmaceuticals Ltd. Income Tax Vs. Plot 423/P/A, Sarkhej Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad Bavla Highway, Moraiya, Sanand, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 382213 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabci4722M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Bandish Soparkar & Shri Parin अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shah, Ars. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit. Dr & Shri Ashish Rajesh Revar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07/08/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 20.01.2016 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. Ita No. 865/Ahd/2016 [Intas Biopharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Dcit] A.Y. 2011-12 - 2 –

For Appellant: Shah, ARsFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT. DR
Section 143(3)Section 35Section 40

disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) is being initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” ITA No. 865/Ahd/2016 [Intas Biopharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. DCIT] A.Y. 2011-12 - 13 – The addition as made by the AO was confirmed

Jaipur Gem Crafts, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-5(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 327/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Godha, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 271(1)Section 271CSection 274

proceedings by issue of notice u/s 274 without striking the specific limb in the notice for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which is bad in law. 2 JAIPUR GEM CRAFTS VS ITO, WARD 5 (1), JAIPUR 2. That on the facts and circumstances

Cidco Employees Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Ward 28(1)(3), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal ITA NO

ITA 699/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 80PSection 80P(4)

deduction of Rs. 56,64,971/– u/s. 80P. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(C) of the Act were separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 2. (ii) Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(A), who confirmed assessment order, holding that the assessee

Cidco Employees Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Ward 28(1)(3), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal ITA NO

ITA 698/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 80PSection 80P(4)

deduction of Rs. 56,64,971/– u/s. 80P. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(C) of the Act were separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 2. (ii) Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(A), who confirmed assessment order, holding that the assessee

Cidco Employees Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Ward 28(1)(3), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal ITA NO

ITA 697/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 80PSection 80P(4)

deduction of Rs. 56,64,971/– u/s. 80P. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(C) of the Act were separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 2. (ii) Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(A), who confirmed assessment order, holding that the assessee

Shree Gunatit Jyot Mahila Trust, Anand vs. The ITO, Ward - Exemption, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 326/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 326/Ahd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17) िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Shree Gunatit Jyot Ito बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Mahila Trust Ward, Exemption Vs. Post Box No.23, Pappaji Vadodara Marg, Vallabh Vidhyanagar, Anand, Gujarat, 388120 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaats8722P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Parin Shah, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06/08/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 12.01.2024 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Charitable Trust Registered Under The Bombay Public Trust Act And

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr. DR
Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 271(1)(c)

allowing an opportunity to the assessee and penalty of Rs.78,31,400/- was imposed @ 100% of tax sought to be evaded for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. ITA No. 326/Ahd/2024 [Shree Gunatit Jyot Mahila Trust vs. ITO] A.Y. 2016-17 - 3 – 3. Aggrieved with the penalty order ... case of penalty. 4. Ld. NFAC ought to have considered fact that non acceptance of bona fide claim does not lead to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which leads to penalty. 5. The order passed by lower authorities is required to be quashed as same is without recording proper satisfaction