← 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

Huhtamaki Food Services Packaging India P Ltd (Erstwhile Known As M/S. Valpack Solutions P Ltd), Thane vs. ACIT, Cir-7(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6064/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailhuhtamaki Foodservice Packaging India Pvt. Ltd. (Erstwhile Known As ‘M/S. Valpack Solutions Pvt. Ltd.), 54/B, Hissa No.3A, Jangid Commercial Point S No.54 B Hissa No.3A Jangid C, Vadpe B.O. ............... Appellant Dhamangaon, Thane – 421302 Pan : Aaecv1431D V/S Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle - 7(1)(1)., ……………… Respondent Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Aditya RamachandranFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

ought to have appreciated that it could not have been said that the appellant had furnished inaccurate particulars of income merely because the expenses claimed by it were disallowed on the ground that they were capital in nature.” 3. The first issue that arises for our consideration pertains ... addition of Rs.8,02,750/- to the total income of the assessee. The AO separately directed initiation of penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Accordingly, vide order dated 20.06.2018 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the AO levied penalty, inter alia, in respect of disallowance

Income Tax Officer 19.1.1, Piramal Chamber Lal Baug vs. A J Diam, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed in the above terms

ITA 3845/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhanito-19(1)(1), Mumbai A. J. Diam Room No. 501, Piramal Chamber, Vs. 304, 3Rd Floor, Deccan Vikas Chs Lalbaug, Mumbai-400 012. Ltd. 584/1/584, Vithalbhai Patel Road, Kothachiwadi, Mumbai- 400 004 Pan: Aaofa4830G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

notice issued for imposing penalty was not valid notice because it has mentioned both the limbs i.e. concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income despite the fact that AO has initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income only. 4. Aggrieved by the order ... vitiate the penalty proceedings. In the present case, we find that in assessment order the Assessing Officer had initiated penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income only. Since, both limbs i.e. “concealed particulars of income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income” are recorded in the notice, the notice

Meenaxi Gems Pvt Ltd, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-1(1)(4), Surat

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

ITA 613/SRT/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.612 & 613/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Hybrid Hearing) Meenaxi Gems Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, 5/1108-A, 1167/68-B, Santok Ward – 1(1)(4), Diamonds Office No.106, Gurjar Surat Faliya, Haripura, Surat - 395003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcm4645B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Ar Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/11/2025

Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Notice u/s.274 have been issued in general and mechanical manner, without striking- off the specific allegation of 'Concealment of income or Furnishing inaccurate particulars of income"; 2.0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the Penalty levied u/s.271 ... though the initiation of penalty in the assessment order had been made under dual charge of 'Concealment of income' and 'Furnishing inaccurate particulars of income': 3.0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the Penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of Rs.11

Meenaxi Gems Pvt Ltd, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-1(1)(4), Surat

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

ITA 612/SRT/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.612 & 613/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Hybrid Hearing) Meenaxi Gems Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, 5/1108-A, 1167/68-B, Santok Ward – 1(1)(4), Diamonds Office No.106, Gurjar Surat Faliya, Haripura, Surat - 395003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcm4645B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Ar Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/11/2025

Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Notice u/s.274 have been issued in general and mechanical manner, without striking- off the specific allegation of 'Concealment of income or Furnishing inaccurate particulars of income"; 2.0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the Penalty levied u/s.271 ... though the initiation of penalty in the assessment order had been made under dual charge of 'Concealment of income' and 'Furnishing inaccurate particulars of income': 3.0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the Penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of Rs.11

Kirti Milind Ranka, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed as

ITA 2176/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Milind Debaje, JCIT (virtual)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

finally, penalty order framed on 16/03/2022 levying penalty of Rs. 8,51,835/- on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income under the head ‘speculation loss’ to the extent of Rs. 33,40,036/-. 4. Aggrieved, assessee challenged the penalty order before the Ld.CIT(A), but Ld.CIT(A) without dealing ... consolidated figure has been shown under the head ‘speculation loss’. It is not a case of malafide intention of the assessee on furnishing inaccurate particulars of income to evade taxes. There is a complete absence of mens rea of evading taxes. Under these given facts and circumstances

ACIT Circle 3 3 1, Mumbai vs. Ks Distribution and Sales Private Limited, Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1826/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Acit, Circle (3)(3)(1) Ks Distribution & Room No. 522 Sales Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan Vs. 101 Laxmi Plaza, Laxmi M.K. Road Ind. State, New Link Mumbai-400 020. Road, Andheri West Mumbai-400 053. Pan : Aaacg1667L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Henanshu JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Neeraj Agarwala
Section 10(38)Section 271Section 68

added back towards taxable income under section 68 of the Act. Penalty proceeding u/s 271(l)(c) is initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income with a view to concealment of income. 5. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. AO, an appeal was filed before Ld. CIT(A) who deleted

Alex Grinders Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the addition so made and sustained by the Ld

ITA 2334/MUM/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2013-14 Alex Grinders Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, Circle-4(1)(1), 32, Diamond Queen, Aayakar Bhavan, West Avenue, Santacruz, Vs. Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400054. New Marine Lines, Pan : Aaaca3664K Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Bharat Kumar For Revenue : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24-11-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld. Cit(A)‟], Dated 04-02-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Ground(S) Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

added to the total income. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income leading to concealment of income.” 4. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who has since sustained the said addition, holding that

Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bhilai vs. Ashish Gupta, Durg

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 624/RPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.624/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 69C

expenditure. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act are 6 ITO-2(1), Bhilai Vs. Ashish Gupta initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Subject to above total income is computed as under: Income as shown in the return Rs.23,01,210/- Add: Addition as discussed above

Empower India Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-1(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4904/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt.Renu Jauhri7 (A.Y.2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Mangla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra- CIT DR
Section 133ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

notice for penalty issued on 30.03.2014 is vague and does not specify the charge and both limbs i.e ‘concealment of income’ and ‘furnishing inaccurate particulars of income’ have been mentioned therein. In this regard, ld. AR has placed reliance on several decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme court as well ... penalty was initiated specifically for the disallowance of a bogus trading loss, which squarely falls under the limb of "furnishing inaccurate particulars of income." The appellant participated in the penalty proceedings, filed detailed submissions, and was never under any doubt as to the charge it had to meet: No prejudice

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-(1), Raipur vs. Ajay Golechaa, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 454/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.454/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: None (Petition filed)For Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer without appreciating that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income by claiming bogus exemption under section 10(38) of the Act on account of long-term capital gains arising from transactions in penny ... that the penalty was wrongly levied despite clear satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer in the penalty order that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income and concealed the particulars thereof. 3 DCIT-1(1), Raipur Vs. Ajay Golechaa 6. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

Hercules Automobiles International Private Limited, Thiruvananthapuram vs. AO Type-W, Aayakar Bhawan, Alleppey

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

ITA 776/COCH/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13 Hercules Automobiles International P. Ltd. .......... Appellant Tc No.16/1860, Dpi Road, Thycaud S.O. Chempakassery, Thiruvananthapuram 695014 [Pan: Aabcn2898M] Vs. Dcit, Circle - 1, Alappuzha ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Jose Zachariah, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Jose Zachariah, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act vide show cause notice dated 30.12.2019 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In response to the show cause notice, the appellant filed explanation and the same was rejected by the AO and proceeded with levy of penalty

Harmony Foundation, Mumbai vs. ITO Exem Ward 1(3), Mumbai

ITA 5725/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhat, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri A.M.K. Mahadevan, Ld. Sr
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.5725/M/2025 Assessment

DCIT, Chennai vs. Jagathrakshakan Srinisha, Chennai

ITA 1271/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1253, 1264 & 1271/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Central Circle -2(3), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. Jagathrakshakan Srinisha, 1St Main Road, Adyar, Besant Nagar, Chennai - 600 020. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Abfps-1422-E] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, Fca & Shri. Shrenik Chordia, Ca. राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri. C.N. Bipin, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2025 आदेश /Order Per S.R.Raghunatha, Am: The Present Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 06.02.2025 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19 (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld.Cit(A), Chennai, In Respect Of The Assessment Order Dated 01.03.2019 Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -2(3) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ao) For The Assessment Year 2017-18 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Assessment Year) U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act). :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Shri. C.N. Bipin, C.I.T
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 154Section 270A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री एबी टी वर्की, न्यायिक

DCIT, Chennai vs. Jagathrakshakan Srinisha, Chennai

ITA 1264/CHNY/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1253, 1264 & 1271/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Central Circle -2(3), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. Jagathrakshakan Srinisha, 1St Main Road, Adyar, Besant Nagar, Chennai - 600 020. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Abfps-1422-E] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, Fca & Shri. Shrenik Chordia, Ca. राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri. C.N. Bipin, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2025 आदेश /Order Per S.R.Raghunatha, Am: The Present Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 06.02.2025 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19 (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld.Cit(A), Chennai, In Respect Of The Assessment Order Dated 01.03.2019 Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -2(3) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ao) For The Assessment Year 2017-18 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Assessment Year) U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act). :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Shri. C.N. Bipin, C.I.T
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 154Section 270A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री एबी टी वर्की, न्यायिक

DCIT, Chennai vs. Jagathrakskan Srinisha, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

ITA 1253/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1253, 1264 & 1271/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Central Circle -2(3), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. Jagathrakshakan Srinisha, 1St Main Road, Adyar, Besant Nagar, Chennai - 600 020. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Abfps-1422-E] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, Fca & Shri. Shrenik Chordia, Ca. राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri. C.N. Bipin, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2025 आदेश /Order Per S.R.Raghunatha, Am: The Present Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 06.02.2025 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19 (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld.Cit(A), Chennai, In Respect Of The Assessment Order Dated 01.03.2019 Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -2(3) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ao) For The Assessment Year 2017-18 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Assessment Year) U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act). :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Shri. C.N. Bipin, C.I.T
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 154Section 270A

stated that she had initiated penalty proceedings 'u/s. 271(1)(c), 270A & 271AAC of I.T.Act 1961 for concealment of income and for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, penalty for under reporting and misreporting of income & penalty in respect of certain income' (emphasis supplied). Further, show-cause notices dated ... imposition of penalty u/s 270A, 271AAC and 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income and for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income were issued to the Respondent for the subject AY 2017-18. 5. In this regard, it is submitted that the Learned Assessing Officer had failed

Laxmiben Narayan Chaute, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(2)(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 357/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.357/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 (Hybrid Hearing) Laxmiben Narayan Chaute Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(2)(3), बनाम/ Plot No.2, Ambica Society 2, Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Vs. Udhna Magdalla Road, Surat- Gate, Surat-395 001 395 007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abfpc 0082 L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Manish J Shah, Ar राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Ms. Namita Patel, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 27/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

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

sale deed, vide order u/s 143(3) dated 30.01.2016. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were also separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Subsequently, the AO issued show cause notice and after hearing the assessee, levied minimum penalty of Rs.4,60,3143/-, being 100% of the tax sought

Abdul Jabbar Jaheer Husain, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-8(2), Chennai

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

ITA 2245/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2245/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Abdul Jabbar Jaheer The Income Tax Officer, Husain, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 8(2), No.17/73, Pillayar Koil Street, Chennai. Ayapakkam, Chennai – 600 077. Pan: Adopj 8688E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri V. Padmanaban, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit

For Appellant: Shri V. Padmanaban, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 54BSection 54F

held that in the instant case, the assessee’s explanation is not bonafide. It was concluded by the FAA that assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income by overstating the deduction claimed u/s.54F of the Act. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, assessee has filed the present appeal ... exemption / deduction and thereby the assessee satisfies under both limb u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act namely concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, it was contended that penalty imposed u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act may be confirmed. 8. We have heard rival submissions and perused

M/S Nandlal Keshardeo, Ranchi vs. ACIT, Central Circle (1), Ranchi

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

ITA 15/RAN/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi12 Nov 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

farce. Notice issued to the assessee reproduced (supra), does not show whether penalty proceedings were initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or for having undisclosed income within the meaning of Section 271AAB of the Act. Notice in our opinion war vague. Hon'ble Karnataka

DCIT-2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Yes Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue for AY 2011-12 to 2013-14 are dismissed

ITA 5413/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Swapnil Choudhary Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 35DSection 40

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) with respect to the claim of expense u/s. 35D on the ground that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Against the penalty order the assessee preferred further appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty by holding ... entitled to deduction u/s 35D of the I. T. Act 1961. Consequently, the A.O. held that the impugned claim amounted to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Accordingly, the A.O. levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I. T. Act 1961. The present appeal is against this penalty

DCIT-2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Yes Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue for AY 2011-12 to 2013-14 are dismissed

ITA 5412/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Swapnil Choudhary Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 35DSection 40

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) with respect to the claim of expense u/s. 35D on the ground that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Against the penalty order the assessee preferred further appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty by holding ... entitled to deduction u/s 35D of the I. T. Act 1961. Consequently, the A.O. held that the impugned claim amounted to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Accordingly, the A.O. levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I. T. Act 1961. The present appeal is against this penalty