“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, Cir-1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Mseb Holding Company Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue/Department are dismissed

ITA 2039/MUM/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Respondent/

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 24Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

Assessee for deduction of the above expenditures and also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 4. The said additions/disallowances on appeal stands affirmed by the Ld. Commissioner vide order dated 27.07.2011, against which the Assessee preferred 2nd appeal before

Janakkumar Mukundprasad Patel, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Bardoli, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 418/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.418/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Court Hearing) Janakkumar Mukundprasad Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Patel Bardoli Vs. 57 Omnagar, Tarsadi Kosamba (R.S) Surat-394120 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Auzpp 2106 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Ms. Chaitali Shah, Ca िनधा"रती की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 05/10/2023 सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2023 आदेश / Order Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short, “Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 18.04.2023, Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penalty Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Bardoli, Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’), Dated 02.06.2017. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1.On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Levying Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) When Assessing Office Had Not Specified In The Notice U/S 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) Whether The Penalty Was Leviable For Concealment Of Particulars Income Or For Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Thereof. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Office In Levying Penalty Of Rs.3,09,062/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 3. It Is Therefore Prayed That Penalty Levied By The Assessing Office & Confirmed By Cit(A) May Please Be Deleted.

Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

filed submission. For the details reasons as discussed above, Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee has knowing and deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of income and concealed particulars of income of Rs.5,45,000/-. Hence, the assessee has defaulted within the meaning of Explanation 1 to Section ... No.293 & 294/SRT/2013 dated 13.04.202. 7. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that Assessing Officer initiated penalty on account of concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income i.e., on both the limbs. During the penalty proceedings, the Assessing Officer has issued notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the ITA.418/SRT/2023 AY.14-15

Dy.DIT., (It)-3(1), Mumbai vs. Global Cricket Corporation Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 4990/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Dy. Cit(It) – 3(1) M/S. Global Cricket Corpn Pte Ltd. Scindia House, R. No. 132, 1St Floor, C/O. S. R. Batliboi & Co. Vs. 18Th Floor, Express Towers, N. M. Road, Mumbai- 38 Nariman Point, Mumbai-21 Pan/Gir No. Aabcg 7951 L (Revenue) : (Assessee) & Cross Objection No. 83/Mum/2012 (Arising Out Of Ita No.4990/Mum/2011) (Assessment Year: 2003-04) M/S. Global Cricket Corpn Pte Ltd. The Dy. Dit (It)-3(1) C/O. S R B C & Associates Mumbai- 400 038 14Th Floor, The Ruby, Vs. 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (W), Mumbai-400 028 Pan/Gir No. Aabcg 7951 L (Assessee) : (Revenue) : Shri P J Pardiwala/Aarati Sathe Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma : 16.10.2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10.2023

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)(vi)

struck off the irrelevant limb as to whether the penalty was levied for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The ld. AR 4 ITA Nos.171/Mum/2008, 4990/Mum/2011, 4182/Mum/2011 & CO No. 83/Mum/2012 M/s. Global Cricket Corpn Pte Ltd. relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court

The ADIT (It)-3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Global Cricket Corpn Pte. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 171/MUM/2008[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2023AY 2002-2003

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)(vi)

Mrs Rajani S.Iyer, Mumbai vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax 20(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal

ITA 2240/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Ita No. 2239 & 2240/Mum/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mrs. Rajani S Iyer, Acit-20(3), 14/222, Bhaskar Bhavan, Mumbai-400001 Vs. Sri Balachandra Road, Matunga, Mumbai-400019. Pan No. Aaopi 9178 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Haridas Bhat Revenue By : Mrs. Mahita Nair, Dr : Date Of Hearing 11/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/10/2023

For Appellant: Mr. Haridas BhatFor Respondent: Mrs. Mahita Nair, DR

Section 143(3)

concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case particulars of income. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case particulars

Mrs Rajani S. Iyer, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-20(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal

ITA 2239/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2010-2011

For Appellant: Mr. Haridas BhatFor Respondent: Mrs. Mahita Nair, DR

Section 143(3)

Vikas Sharma, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 256/RPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 256/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Vikas Sharma Quarter No.6-A, Ruabandha Sector, Bhilai, Dist. Durg (C.G.)-490 006 Pan : Ddcps1720P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Bhilai, Durg (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: S/shri Sakshi Gopal Aggarwal &For Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

notice issued u/s 274 of the Act the AO had used conjunction “or” to mention both limbs, i.e, concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and charge for levy of penalty was not explicitly clear from notice, then, the same 20 Vikas Sharma Vs. Income Tax Officer

J.P Tobaco Producta Pvt. Ltd vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - Sagar

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 188/JAB/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Oct 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Ita Nos. 187 & 188/Jab/2016 Assessment Years: 2002-03 & 2003-04 J.P. Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd., Acit Circle-Sagar. Pathariya Phatak, Damoh (M.P.) Vs. Pan No. Aaacj 7141 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. G.N. Purohit, Sr. Advocate & Mr. Abhijeet Shrivastava, Advocate Revenue By : Mr. Saad Kidwai, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 22/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2023

For Appellant: Mr. G.N. Purohit, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Mr. Saad Kidwai, CIT-DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

concealment of specified whether the penalty was initiated for concealment of specified whether the penalty was initiated for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. We find that income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. We find that income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. We find that

J.P Tobaco Producta Pvt. Ltd vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - Sagar

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 187/JAB/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Oct 2023AY 2002-03

For Appellant: Mr. G.N. Purohit, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Mr. Saad Kidwai, CIT-DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Yogendraraj U. Singhvi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(8), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 459/SRT/2023[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Surat19 Oct 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.459/Srt/2023 (Ay 2007-08) (Hearing In Hybrid Mode) Yogendra Raj U Singhvi, Income Tax Officer-2(3)(8) Cts, 95/4/B-3-4/590, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Vs Village Dindoshi, Surat-395001 Oberoi Garden City, Flat No. 3902, Floor C-Wing, Meter Exquisite, Mumbai. Pan : Anjps 9745 G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

issued by assessing officer in a mechanical manner, without recording the satisfaction, if the notice was foe concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Thus, in absence of specific charge, the action of the assessing officer is vitiated and the order passed on the basis of such

Smt. Krishna, Alwar vs. ITO, Ward-Bhiwadi, Alwar

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

ITA 435/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (FCA.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a

Section 151(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

account of unexplained investment in agricultural land. On the addition so made, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) was initiated for concealing & furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 2. The AO passed the penalty order on 21.06.2018 stating that assessee has not filed any explanation or detail and thus she committed ... default by concealing/ (furnishing) inaccurate particulars of income. Accordingly he imposed penalty of Rs.2,10,426/- being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the levy of penalty on the ground that assessee failed to furnish any reply during the appellate proceedings. Submission

Smt. Krishna, Alwar vs. ITO, Ward-Bhiwadi, Alwar

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

ITA 434/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (FCA.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a

Section 151(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

Shri Santosh Bhalchandra Powle, Mumbai vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax-22(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2267/MUM/2023[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalshri Santosh Vs. Acit-22(3), Bhalchandra Powle, Aayakar Bhavan, 8Th National House, 3Rd M.K.Road, Floor,27 Raghunath Mumbai-400020. Dadaji Street,Fort, Mumbai-400001. Pan/Gir No. : Aajpp1107A Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ms.Aishwarya Vanikar.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Virbhandra Mahjan.Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 254(2)

income of the assessee being the same are nature of expenses. The penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 6.3 As per direction of Hon'ble ITAT, the disallowance of Rs. 36,625/- being 10% of Rs. 3,66,247/- on account

Jaisingh H Solanki, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2211/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2211/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Jaisingh H. Solanki बिधम/ Ito-19(2)(1) 25-C Sonarika Apt, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Vs. Nanubhai Desai Road, Road, Mumbai-400004. Chandawadi, Mumbai- 400004. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Acaps6502R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Ujjawal Kumar Chavan (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/09/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 24.02.2023 For Ay. 2010-11 Confirming The Action Of The Ao Levying Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. None Appeared For Assessee But Has Filed Written Submission. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is Delay Of 52 Days & The Assessee Has Filed A Sworn Affidavit Dated 12.09.2022. After Going Through The Contents Of The Affidavit, We Are Of The Opinion That There Was Reasonable Cause For Belated Filing Of The Appeal. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Hear The Penalty Appeal On Its Own Merit.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ujjawal Kumar Chavan (Sr

Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

penalty to the tune of Rs.5,27,640/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for fault of “concealing of income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income”. And the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO. And assessee is aggrieved by the action

Manoj Mittal, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-8, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2412/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2412/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Manoj Mittal, Dcit H-1, Phase-1, Ashok Vihar, Vs. Central Circle-8, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. Aaipm7274J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 254Section 271(1)(c)

made on account of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act by alleging I.T.A.No.2412/Del/2023 that appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. It is pertinent to note that the appellant is holding 25% share capital of M/s Mittal Construction & Real Estate Company Private Limited. The said ... justify his action of imposing penalty of Rs.1,46,319/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income has arbitrarily invoked provisions of Explanation - 1 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and alleged that the explanation offered by the appellant

Sanjay Singh, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-33(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 128/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

quashed. 3. (1) On the facts and circumstances of the case the Id.AO has erred in imposing penalty on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income on account of shifting the business loss from trading in agriculture derivatives to speculative loss and Id. CIT(A) has erred in confirming

Rosoboronservice (India) Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground number 2 – 6 [ except 4, of the appeal are restored to the file of the learned AO/TPO to benchmark the international transaction afresh by selecting first the A

ITA 7255/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Deputy Commissioner Of Rosoboronservice (India) Limited Income Tax-15(3)(1) R-700, Ttc Industrial Estate, Room No. 473, Aayakar P.O. Ghansoli, Midc Rabale, Vs. Navi Mumbai- 400701 Bhawan, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcr0040B Assessee By : Mr. Gaurav Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2023

For Appellant: Mr. Gaurav Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92(3)Section 92C

A.Y.2014-15 M/s Rosoboronservice (India) Ltd 7.1. The learned AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income thereby concealing income. 8. Addition on account of AIR Mismatch 8.1 The learned AO erred in making addition

Heidelberg Cement India Limited, Gurugram vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 2(1), Gurugram

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2287/DEL/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Kamal Arya, Advocate

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

when required by the AO and the NFAC. Therefore, the NFAC erred in holding that it is a case of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, whereas the case is fully covered by the Explantion1 to Section 271(1) of the Act. Hence on this ground alone the Impugned Order ought ... provided all information as and when required during the course of assessment proceedings. Therefore, the allegation that the Appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of income is baseless, hence on this ground alone the Impugned Order ought to be set aside. The Ld. Counsel submits that NFAC grossly erred in upholding

Heidelberg Cement India Limited, Gurugram vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Gurugram

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2286/DEL/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Kamal Arya, Advocate

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Heidelberg Cement India Limited, Gurugram vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Gurugram

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2285/DEL/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Kamal Arya, Advocate

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)