← 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

DCIT Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai vs. Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2704/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

receipt as against assessed by AO as revenue receipt. According to AO, the assessee has concealed the particulars of income and also furnished inaccurate particulars of income. 3. The facts and circumstances in both the years are exactly identical, the grounds raised by assessee in both the years are also ... context and also considering the facts in totality, it is a fit case for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of Income. Also it is pertinent to note that penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is a civil liability and it is a remedy for loss

DCIT Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai vs. Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2703/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

receipt as against assessed by AO as revenue receipt. According to AO, the assessee has concealed the particulars of income and also furnished inaccurate particulars of income. 3. The facts and circumstances in both the years are exactly identical, the grounds raised by assessee in both the years are also ... context and also considering the facts in totality, it is a fit case for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of Income. Also it is pertinent to note that penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is a civil liability and it is a remedy for loss

Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2605/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

receipt as against assessed by AO as revenue receipt. According to AO, the assessee has concealed the particulars of income and also furnished inaccurate particulars of income. 3. The facts and circumstances in both the years are exactly identical, the grounds raised by assessee in both the years are also ... context and also considering the facts in totality, it is a fit case for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of Income. Also it is pertinent to note that penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is a civil liability and it is a remedy for loss

Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2604/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

receipt as against assessed by AO as revenue receipt. According to AO, the assessee has concealed the particulars of income and also furnished inaccurate particulars of income. 3. The facts and circumstances in both the years are exactly identical, the grounds raised by assessee in both the years are also ... context and also considering the facts in totality, it is a fit case for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of Income. Also it is pertinent to note that penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is a civil liability and it is a remedy for loss

Geetha Mehra, Chennai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 44, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 4039/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 & Assessment Year: 2007-08 Ms. Geetha Mehra, Acit (3)(1)(1), C/O Synergy Art Foundation Ltd., Room No. 607, Aayakar Vs. 6/19 Ii Floor, Grants Building Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Arthur Bunder Road, Colaba, Road, Mumbai-400 005. Mumbai-400020. (Formerly Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 44) Pan No. Aagpm 9039 H Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Ajay Ghone, Ar : Revenue By Mr. Kailash Kanojia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25/08/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Ajay Ghone, AR
Section 13Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

account of houschold expenses u/s Penalty proceedings w/s 27 Penalty proceedings w/s 271(1)(c)is initiated for furnishing inaccurate initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. particulars of income.” 9.1 The Assessing Officer has noted that the assessee failed to The Assessing Officer has noted that the assessee failed

Geetha Mehra, Chennai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 44, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 4038/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 & Assessment Year: 2007-08 Ms. Geetha Mehra, Acit (3)(1)(1), C/O Synergy Art Foundation Ltd., Room No. 607, Aayakar Vs. 6/19 Ii Floor, Grants Building Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Arthur Bunder Road, Colaba, Road, Mumbai-400 005. Mumbai-400020. (Formerly Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 44) Pan No. Aagpm 9039 H Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Ajay Ghone, Ar : Revenue By Mr. Kailash Kanojia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25/08/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Ajay Ghone, AR
Section 13Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

account of houschold expenses u/s Penalty proceedings w/s 27 Penalty proceedings w/s 271(1)(c)is initiated for furnishing inaccurate initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. particulars of income.” 9.1 The Assessing Officer has noted that the assessee failed to The Assessing Officer has noted that the assessee failed

Geetha Mehra, Chennai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 44, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 4037/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 & Assessment Year: 2007-08 Ms. Geetha Mehra, Acit (3)(1)(1), C/O Synergy Art Foundation Ltd., Room No. 607, Aayakar Vs. 6/19 Ii Floor, Grants Building Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Arthur Bunder Road, Colaba, Road, Mumbai-400 005. Mumbai-400020. (Formerly Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 44) Pan No. Aagpm 9039 H Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Ajay Ghone, Ar : Revenue By Mr. Kailash Kanojia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25/08/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Ajay Ghone, AR
Section 13Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

account of houschold expenses u/s Penalty proceedings w/s 27 Penalty proceedings w/s 271(1)(c)is initiated for furnishing inaccurate initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. particulars of income.” 9.1 The Assessing Officer has noted that the assessee failed to The Assessing Officer has noted that the assessee failed

Geetha Mehra, Chennai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 44, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 4036/MUM/2016[2003-04]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 & Assessment Year: 2007-08 Ms. Geetha Mehra, Acit (3)(1)(1), C/O Synergy Art Foundation Ltd., Room No. 607, Aayakar Vs. 6/19 Ii Floor, Grants Building Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Arthur Bunder Road, Colaba, Road, Mumbai-400 005. Mumbai-400020. (Formerly Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 44) Pan No. Aagpm 9039 H Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Ajay Ghone, Ar : Revenue By Mr. Kailash Kanojia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25/08/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Ajay Ghone, AR
Section 13Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

account of houschold expenses u/s Penalty proceedings w/s 27 Penalty proceedings w/s 271(1)(c)is initiated for furnishing inaccurate initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. particulars of income.” 9.1 The Assessing Officer has noted that the assessee failed to The Assessing Officer has noted that the assessee failed

Geetha Mehra, Chennai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 44, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 4035/MUM/2016[2002-03]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 & Assessment Year: 2007-08 Ms. Geetha Mehra, Acit (3)(1)(1), C/O Synergy Art Foundation Ltd., Room No. 607, Aayakar Vs. 6/19 Ii Floor, Grants Building Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Arthur Bunder Road, Colaba, Road, Mumbai-400 005. Mumbai-400020. (Formerly Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 44) Pan No. Aagpm 9039 H Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Ajay Ghone, Ar : Revenue By Mr. Kailash Kanojia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25/08/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Ajay Ghone, AR
Section 13Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

account of houschold expenses u/s Penalty proceedings w/s 27 Penalty proceedings w/s 271(1)(c)is initiated for furnishing inaccurate initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. particulars of income.” 9.1 The Assessing Officer has noted that the assessee failed to The Assessing Officer has noted that the assessee failed

Sabara Impex Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 2(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3267/MUM/2013[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2022AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Nilu Jaggi, Sr.DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 80H

this was a fit case of levy of penalty under section 271(1) (c) concealing particulars of income by the assessee by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in the return filed. 16. Penalty order in the case of assessee was outcome of additions made during the assessment proceedings

I Maritime Consultancy Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO-15(2) (1), Mumbai

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 401/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri M Balaganesh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.401/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) I Maritime Ito-15(2) (1) Mumbai. Consultancy P. Ltd 11B 114, We Work 10Th Floor, Mumbai. Tower 1,Seawoods Grand 11B 114, We Work 10Th बिधम/ Central, Sector 40, Nerul, Floor, Tower 1, Seawoods Vs. Mumbai Maharashtra. Grand Central, Sector 40, 400706 Nerul, Mumbai 400706 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaac17284B (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri. Jayant Bhatt प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Manoj Sinha (Sr Ar) सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 17.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 14.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: 1. The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Date 04.02.2019 Passed By The Cit (Appeals), 24 Mumbai, In Relation To Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1) (C) For The Ay 2013-2014. The Assessee Has Challenged The Levy Of Penalty Of Rs. 4,50,000/-

For Appellant: Shri. Jayant BhattFor Respondent: Shri. Manoj Sinha (SR AR)
Section 250Section 271(1)

said amount. In the assessment order, AO has mentioned that penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) are separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 6. However, while issuing the show cause notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1) (c), The Assessing Officer has not specified the charge that under which ... failure to expressly indicate as to whether there was any concealment of particulars of income of the Assessee or failure to furnish inaccurate particulars of income or both, answer to the other two substantial questions would be rendered academic. 8 I.T.A. No. 401/Mum/2022 I Maritime Consultancy

Praxair India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 200/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2016-17
For Respondent: Shri T. Suryanarayana
Section 92C

facts and circumstance of the case by initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, rescind and modify the grounds herein above or produce further documents, facts and evidence before or at the time

M/S Jawed Habib Hair & Beauty Studio Pvt. Lt D., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-10(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2111/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

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

commission”, which the Assessing Officer has found not allowable expenditure, thus added the same to the total income of the assessee in furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Declining the contention raised by the assessee during penalty proceedings, Assessing Officer proceeded to hold that the assessee is guilty of furnishing inaccurate ... sole question arises for determination in this case is:- “as to whether the assessee has concealed particulars of income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of income during assessment proceedings?” 8. In the backdrop of the aforesaid undisputed facts, we are of the considered view that when assessee has duly furnished

M/S. Sumit Exports, Mumbai vs. The ACIT 19(3), Mumbai

ITA 645/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Sumit Export V. Acit – 19(3) Dw-5030, 5Th Floor Matru Mandir, Tardev Road D.Tower, Bharat Diamond Bourse Mumbai – 400 007 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E), Mumbai -400051 Pan: Aacfs3599Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Rahul Sarda Department Represented By : Shri Manoj Sinha

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(14)Section 2(47)

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961: The Learned AO at the time of passing the assessment order levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Our client hereby request you to drop the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) based on the following judgments pronounced by the ITAT

M/S. Silverline Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO - 3(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1738/MUM/2020[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S Silverline Industries Vs. Ito – 3(3)(2) Ltd.,Unit No. 121, Sdf Iv Mumbai – 400021. Seepz Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400096. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs7365M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Suresh Periasamy.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 17.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Mumbai Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Levy Of Penalty U/Sec 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Periasamy.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

explanations and observed that the asseessee has failed to substantiate the genuineness of the claim and the penalty is levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of particulars of income and passed the order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 28.06.2018 5. Aggrieved by the penalty

S.Gopi, Dharmapuri vs. ACIT Central Circle, Salem

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

ITA 468/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 468/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri. S. Gopi, Acit, Prop: S.S. Jewellery, V. Central Circle, 38/118, Duraisamy Naidu Street, Salem. Dharmapuri – 636 701. [Pan:Acdpg-9303-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.10.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 132ASection 153ASection 271ASection 69A

there is a provision for levy of penalty for two situations i.e., concealment of particulars of income and also furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, whereas, u/s. 271AAB of the Act, in a case where search has been initiated u/s. 132 of the Act on or after 01.07.2012, the assessee shall

Raju Tirathdas Ramchandani, Mum vs. Income Tax Officer-22(3)(1), Mum

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2252/MUM/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhraju Tirathdas Vs. Income Tax Officer - Ramchandani, 603, 22(3)(1), Piramal Premodyan Co-Op Chamber, Lal Baugh Housing Society, 12Th Parel, Road, Ram Krishna Maharashtra - 400012 Mission, Khar (W) Mumbai – 400 052 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aebpr3611P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shashi Bekal Respondent By : Mahita Nair Date Of Hearing 31.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Am: The Solitary Ground Of Appeal Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Nfac In Confirming The Levy Of Penalty Of Rs.4,49,922/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. 2. Fact In Brief Is That Assessment U/S 144 R.W.S 147 Of The Act Was Finalized On 04.03.2013. During The Course Assessment A.O Noticed That Assessee Has Made Total Investment Of Rs.14,00,000/- During The Year In All Templaton India Treasury Management Account Regular Plan – Weekly Dividend Plan Scheme. The A.O Stated That During The Course Of

For Appellant: Shashi BekalFor Respondent: Mahita Nair
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

back to the total income of the assessee. The A.O has also initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Thereafter, vide penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 11.03.2016 the A.O stated that neither assessee attended during the course

Ashok Jasraj Jain, HUF, Mumbai vs. ACIT-19(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5609/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ashok Jasraj Jain, Huf, Acit-19(1), 45/12, Rajkotwala Bldg., 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir Bldg., 1St Carpenter Street, C.P. Tank, Vs. Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400 004. Mumbai-400 007. Pan No. Aaahj 0191 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Mehul Shah, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Sinha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Mehul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Sinha, DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 148

unexplained expenditure. Penalty proceeding u/s. 271(1)(c) are unexplained expenditure. Penalty proceeding u/s. 271(1)(c) are separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income leading to evasion of tax. leading to evasion

Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Mumbai vs. JCIT, Central Range-8, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is having ITA No

ITA 6124/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Dcit-Cc 8(3), 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Jcit, Central Range-8, 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit- Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Rushabh Mehta, AR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 50Section 68Section 69C

initiated u/s 271(1)(c) tax Act. Penalty proceedings is initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” tax Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” tax Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 13.2 The para no. 11 of the assessment ... assessee. Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income assessee. Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” ” 13.3. The para No. 8 of the assessment order, 13.3. The para

Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Range-8 (3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is having ITA No

ITA 6123/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Dcit-Cc 8(3), 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Jcit, Central Range-8, 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit- Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Rushabh Mehta, AR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 50Section 68Section 69C

initiated u/s 271(1)(c) tax Act. Penalty proceedings is initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” tax Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” tax Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 13.2 The para no. 11 of the assessment ... assessee. Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income assessee. Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” ” 13.3. The para No. 8 of the assessment order, 13.3. The para