“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 Circle-16(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Asianet News Networks Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 6277/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Section 115JSection 271Section 271(1)(c)

Under clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of section 271 of the Act, penalty for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is determined based on the "amount of tax sought to be evaded" which has been defined inter-alia, as the difference between

ACIT Circle-16 (1), Mumbai vs. M/S Asianet News Network Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 6062/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kantassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Ms. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha, D.R

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

have been initiated by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Declining the contentions raised by the assessee AO proceeded to levy penalty of Rs.8654135/- at the rate of 100% of the tax sought ... section 115JB of the Act. It is also not in dispute that qua addition of Rs.1.75 crore AO initiated penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and for addition of Rs.4.8 crores penalty proceedings have been initiated for concealing particulars of income and for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income

Mrs Chhaya Himmat Jagda, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-32(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 968/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 968/Mum/2022 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ito Ward 32(1)(2) Mrs. Chhaya Himmat C-11, Pratyakshkar Jagda 602-Manas Moti Bhavan, Bandra Kurla बनाम/ Building No. 1 (6Th Floor), Complex, Bandra(East), Mumbai-400 051 Devidas Lane, Near Vs. Lawrence School, Borivali (West), Mumbai-400 092 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaepj7836R (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri M. Subramanian, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Praveen Shekhar, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 04.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 24.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 21.04.2022, Passed By National Faceless

For Appellant: Shri M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Shekhar

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

from Kolkata investigation directorate. The penalty has been levied by the AO holding it to be concealment of income as well as furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 4. Ld. CIT(A) has too confirmed the penalty. 5. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that here in this case ... though in his assessment order made addition of Rs. 17,17,275/- and stated that penalty proceedings is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. However, while issuing notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271, he has not specified the charge under which limb, he intends to impose the penalty. Even

Dlh Kamla Developers, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC- 3(4), Mumbai

ITA 1373/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1373 & 1374/Mum/2019 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dcit Cen. Cir. -3(4), Dlh Kamla Developers 19Th Floor, Air India Ground Floor, Shanti बनाम/ Vimal, P. M. Road, Vile Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Parle East, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 057 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aahfd0790K (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri T. Shankar, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 22.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 22.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 24.12.2018, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-51, Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3)/153A For Ay 2013-14 & Section 143(3) For Ay 2014-15. 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar, Ld. DR

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is hereby initiated for 9 I.T.A. No. 1373 & 1374/Mum/2019 DLH Kamla Developers furnishing inaccurate particulars of income thereby leading to concealment of income. 10. Further it is stated that the assessee must have incurred some commission expense on the said accommodation ... hereby disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated/for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income leading to concealment of income. 10 I.T.A. No. 1373 & 1374/Mum/2019 DLH Kamla Developers 9. Ld. CIT(A) has noted in para

Nitin Parkash, Thane vs. DCIT Cir 3, Thane

ITA 1540/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 817/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2011-12) आअसं. 1540/मुं/2018 ("न.व. 2011-12) Mr. Nitin Parkash , 221/222, Swasstik Plaza, Pokhran Road No.2, Subhash Nagar, Thane (W) – 400 601 Pan: Aaspp-1411-G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle- 3, Thane. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : S/Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Akash Kumar ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Tharian Oommen& Shri B.K.Bagchi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 27/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.817/Mum/2015 Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Thane [In Short ‘The Cit(A)] Dated 01/01/2015 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. This Appeal Is In The Second Round Before The Tribunal. Earlier This Appeal Of The Assessee Was Decided By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 19/03/2018. Thereafter, The Assessee Filed Miscellaneous Application, Vide Ma No.271/Mum/2018 Seeking

For Appellant: S/Shri Rajiv Khandelwal and Akash KumarFor Respondent: Shri Tharian Oommen& Shri B.K.Bagchi

Section 2(14)Section 48

order the Assessing Officer has recorded satisfaction for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on the charge of ‘furnishing inaccurate particulars of income’. However, while levying penalty vide order dated 31/03/2016, the Assessing Officer has time and again mentioned both the limbs/charge of section

Nitin Parkash, Thane vs. DCIT Cir 3, Thane

ITA 817/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: S/Shri Rajiv Khandelwal and Akash KumarFor Respondent: Shri Tharian Oommen& Shri B.K.Bagchi

Section 2(14)Section 48

Mr. Real Team System Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 15 (3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1389/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1389/Mum/2019 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ito 15(3)(1) M/S Real Team Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Systems Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ 1101, Bldg. No. 6, Road, Churchgate, Seawood Estates, Nri Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Complex, Navi Mumbai- 400 706 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadcr0073Q (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Mahita Nayar, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 17.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 17.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 27.12.2018, Passed By Ld. Cit(A), Mumbai In Relation To Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) For Ay 2014-15. 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mahita Nayar, Ld

Section 271(1)(c)

depreciation. First of all, we have to see whether there was any inadvertent mistake or there was deliberate concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Here in this case, assessee has stated that there was an error in noting, the rate of depreciation from the Schedule and there ... simply 4 I.T.A. No. 1389/Mum/2019 M/s Real Team Systems Pvt. Ltd. accepted the explanation and has yet imposed penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In such scenario, the judgment and principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers

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

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6122/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Dcit Central Circle-8(3), 72-7, Kalpatatru Residency 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower B, Sion Koliwada Road, Vs. M.K. Road, Sion, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400022. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 27/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/08/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Rushabh Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

Income Tax Ac proceeding is initiated u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 6. As per ITS, the assessee received labour charges of Rs. 3,00,660/ 6. As per ITS, the assessee received labour charges ... Income T proceeding is initiated u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for ax Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 7.1 Regarding the ground No. the ground No. 7 also though the Assessing Officer Assessing Officer has not referred

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

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6121/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Mr. Rushabh Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

Hemal Maganlal Shah, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 285/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalhemal Maganlal Shah 84, 4Th Floor, Pankaj-B, Lbs Road, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400086. Pan: Amfps8271G ...... Appellant Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. H.M. Shah Respondent By : Sh. Prasoon Kabra Date Of Hearing : 17/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/08/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: Sh. H.M. ShahFor Respondent: Sh. Prasoon Kabra

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)Section 274Section 69C

terms of percentage to be disallowed. 7. The nature of disallowance in the instant case clearly establishes the concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Section 271(1) (c) read with Explanation-1 is clearly applied to this case. Simply because disallowance has been done on percentage basis ... relief in terms of penalty for concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income can be given to the assessee. 8. The assessee had relied on the following decisions in his favour of various High Courts and Co-ordinate Benches of ITAT as under: 1. Surat Fashions Ltd. vs. ACIT

M/S. Bappanalli Brothers, Sirsi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 251/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Bappanalli Brothers, Vs. Acit, C/15, Godown Ampc Yard, Circle — 1(1), New Market Yard, Hubballi. Sirsi — 581 402. Pan : Aaafb 9145 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Pranav Krishna, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 27.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.08.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 133(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

cheque/draft and add it back to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated accordingly for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income." 3. Provisions of Sec.40A(3) of the Act provides that if an assesses makes payment for any expenditure to any person otherwise than

DCIT Circle-15 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Sphynx Agro Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 6632/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 27i

Learned A.O. has failed mention the reason for which the penalty proceedings were initiated, whether the same was on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or on account of concealment of income and therefore the penalty Order be treated as non-est and quashed. 2. The Learned ... assessee, AO proceeded to levy the penalty to the tune of Rs.56,54,880/- @ 100% of tax sought to be evaded for furnishing inaccurate particular of income. 4. Assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeal who has deleted the penalty on merits

Hempel Singapoe Pte Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT (International Taxation)-2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1205/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Selvamini, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9

case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in initiating the penalty proceedings under section 270A of the IT Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 3. The only grievance of the assessee in the present appeal is against attribution of additional profits on an ad hoc basis

M/S Resources Realty P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Acti-Central Circle-11(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1830/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)

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

upholding penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that the assessee company has furnished inaccurate particulars of income by claiming interest expenditure of Rs.2,17,00,000/- under the head other sources and Foreign Exchange loss of Rs.3,40,001/- under

ITO 27(2) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Padma Industries, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2366/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalito 27(2)(1) Vs. M/S Padma Industries Room No. 413, 4Th Floor, A/18, Muni Suvrat Tower No.6, Vashi Darshan, Navroji Lane, Railway Station Complex, (Cama Lane), Ghatkopar Vashi, Navi (W), Mumbai - 400086 Mumbai -400703 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaifp9236D Respondent .. Appellant

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi

Section 271(1)(c)

erred in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs.1,09,385/- for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income on account of ITA No. 2366/Mum/2021 A.Y.2009-10 2 ITO 27(2)(1) Vs. M/s Padma Industries bogus purchases, without appreciating the fact that ... deleted the penalty holding that addition made on estimated basis cannot be subjected to penalty for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The ld. CIT(A) has placed reliance on a number of pronouncements of Hon’ble High Courts’ and Tribunals. 4. Heard both the sides

Rudrapratap Tripathi, Mumbai vs. CIT (Appeals)-II, Thane

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the manner indicated above

ITA 1730/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1730/Mum/2020 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit Cir-3, Rudra Pratap Tripathi R. No. 2, B-Wing, 6Th Prop. M/S Indian Corporation, Floor, Ashar It Park, 502, Modi House, 5Th Floor बनाम/ Road No. 16, Wagle Indl. Opp. Rto Office Vs. Estate, Thane, Eastern Express Highway, Maharashtra, Thane West, Maharashtra Pin-400 604 Pin-400 602 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Actpt0115A (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. K. Garg, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 13.07.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 28.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Garg, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 24

back to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is also initiated separately on this amount for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 17. From the said particulars, it would be seen that, besides other parties, the one is Punjab National Bank. The difference between assessee

Red Hat India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5831/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5831/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5833/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5834/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit Cir-15(3)(1), M/S Red Hat India Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, A 201, Supreme Business Park, बनाम/ Mumbai-400 020 Supreme City, Hiranandani Vs. Gardens, Powai, Mumbai-400 076 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aabcr7097N (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6034/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6036/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6037/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S Red Hat India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit Cir-15(3)(1), R. No. 473, Aayakar A 201, Supreme Business बनाम/ Bhavan, New Marine Lines, Park, Supreme City, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai-400 076 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aabcr7097N (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain & Shri SiddeshFor Respondent: Ms. Bharati Singh, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 9(1)(vi)

assessee. Penalty proceedings are separately initiated u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s.274 of the Act for concealment of income and for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 15. Ld. CIT (A) too has confirmed the reasoning of the AO and independently referred to the ‘Reseller Agreement’ between assessee and Singapore entity. After

Nna Cre Properties LLP, Mumbai vs. ACIT 20(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1499/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1499/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) Nna Cre Properties Llp बिधम/ Acit-20(2) B-4101, B-Wing, One Room No.217, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Avighna Park, Mahadeo Piramal Chambers, Palav Marg, Curry Road, Lalbaug, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai-400012. 400012. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aakfn0759M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/07/2022 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 23.06.2021 For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Against The Penalty Confirmed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Assessee Are As Under: - “1. Learned Ao Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Issuing Notice U/S 274 R.W.S 271(1)(C) Without Application Of Mind, As The Same Is Issued Without Mentioning That Whether It Is Levied For Concealment Of The Particulars Of Income Or Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income. It Is Note Know To Appellate As To Under Which Ground The Penalty Is Proposed To Be Levied. Hon. Cit(A) Has Also Erred In Not Considering The Same. 2. Learned Ao Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Levying Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of Rs.1,29,503/- On Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs.4,19,102/-

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. AR)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275

mind, as the same is issued without mentioning that whether it is levied for concealment of the particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. It is note know to appellate as to under which ground the penalty is proposed to be levied. Hon. CIT(A) has also erred

Income Tax Officer-3(2)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Patodia Systex Limited, Mumbai

ITA 5641/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

income of the assessee for the previous year under consideration. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealing the particulars of income. The Assessing Officer computed total income under normal provisions of the Act at „Nil‟ even after making

Shri.J M Vrushabendraiah, Hospet vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 299/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Narayana K.R., D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250

part of the AO to record a satisfaction whether the proposed penalty is for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. ii. As per Section 148, there is no requirement that he has to record a finding specifically whether proceedings u/s 147 are initiated