← 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-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 5411/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

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

ACIT-15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Torane Ispat Udyog Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, ground No.1 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 4123/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt.Renu Jauhriacit-15(3)(1) Vs. M/S. Torane Ispat Udyog Room No. 480, Forth Floor, Private Limited Aayakar Bhawan, 49, Ground Floor, Cinewonder Mumbai-400020. Mall, Ghodbunder Road, Thane West, Mumbai-400607. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aacct9196K Appellant .. Respondent

Section 1Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292B

ignoring the fact that the penalty was levied by the Assessing Officer after recording his satisfaction and concluding that assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. 3 "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in holding that ... bogus purchases shown by the assessee from M/s. Mumbai Trading Company and penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) were also initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Subsequently, vide order dated 30.08.2016, penalty of Rs. 4,01,723/- computed P a g e | 4 ITA NO. 4123/mum/2025

Stepathlon Lifestyle Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -13(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5060/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Choksy, ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 43B

notice was issued without mentioning specifically as to whether penalty is sought to be levied for “concealing the particulars of income” or “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” thereby passing the Penalty Order u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s 274 of the Act which is invalid and illegal ... quantum proceedings before any appellate authorities. However, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Before him, it requested for not levying the penalty by stating that the error committed was inadvertent and there was no malafide intention

DCIT, Delhi vs. Ajayvision Education Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 4175/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 201Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

Assessing Officer after "disallowing" the amount, initiated proceedings for concealment. If at all, any amount disallowed, at the most invite penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. To that extent, the notice issued by the Assessing Officer suffers from insufficiency of charge proposed and leviable. The difference between 'concealment ... High Court of Orissa, ITA no. 211/Orissa/1995. It was held that the expression "concealed the particulars of income" and 'has furnished inaccurate particulars of income have not been defined either in Section 271(1)(c) or elsewhere in the Act. One thing is certain that these two circumstances

DCIT, Delhi vs. Ajayvision Education Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 4174/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 201Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

Assessing Officer after "disallowing" the amount, initiated proceedings for concealment. If at all, any amount disallowed, at the most invite penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. To that extent, the notice issued by the Assessing Officer suffers from insufficiency of charge proposed and leviable. The difference between 'concealment ... High Court of Orissa, ITA no. 211/Orissa/1995. It was held that the expression "concealed the particulars of income" and 'has furnished inaccurate particulars of income have not been defined either in Section 271(1)(c) or elsewhere in the Act. One thing is certain that these two circumstances

DCIT, Delhi vs. Ajayvision Education Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 4173/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 201Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

Assessing Officer after "disallowing" the amount, initiated proceedings for concealment. If at all, any amount disallowed, at the most invite penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. To that extent, the notice issued by the Assessing Officer suffers from insufficiency of charge proposed and leviable. The difference between 'concealment ... High Court of Orissa, ITA no. 211/Orissa/1995. It was held that the expression "concealed the particulars of income" and 'has furnished inaccurate particulars of income have not been defined either in Section 271(1)(c) or elsewhere in the Act. One thing is certain that these two circumstances

DCIT, Delhi vs. Ajayvision Education Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 4172/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 201Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

Assessing Officer after "disallowing" the amount, initiated proceedings for concealment. If at all, any amount disallowed, at the most invite penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. To that extent, the notice issued by the Assessing Officer suffers from insufficiency of charge proposed and leviable. The difference between 'concealment ... High Court of Orissa, ITA no. 211/Orissa/1995. It was held that the expression "concealed the particulars of income" and 'has furnished inaccurate particulars of income have not been defined either in Section 271(1)(c) or elsewhere in the Act. One thing is certain that these two circumstances

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam vs. Venkata Sita Ramachandra Rao Kanchumarthy, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 352/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.352/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2016-17) Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Venkata Sita Ramachandra Rao Kanchumarty International Taxation, Circle H.No. 26-22-16 Ground Floor, Infinity Tower Near Chinna Anjaneya Swamy Temple Sankarmattam Road Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry Visakhapatnam – 530016 East Godavari District – 533103 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Edzpk3519Q]

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 292B

disallowed claim of loss and made addition to income of assessee - He also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income - Tribunal deleted penalty holding that penalty notice was vague as there was no specific charge for initiation of penalty proceedings which assessee could

Yogesh Jashubhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4) Now Ward- 1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 159/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.158/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.159/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 Yogesh Jashubhai Patel, The Income Tax Officer Harivallabh Society बनाम/ Ward-3(4) V/S. Naroda Now Ward-1(2)(1) Opp. Devi Cinema Ahmedabad – 380 051 Ahmedabad – 382 345 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Audpp 9058 L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 06/01/2023 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-2012. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No.158/Ahd/2023:

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.DR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

assessed the income at Rs. 6,19,780/-. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. In the grounds of appeal ... made a bona fide claim and disclosed all relevant facts, mere disallowance or difference in computation does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Similarly, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in National Textiles v. CIT [2001] 249 ITR 125 (Guj.) has held that when income is assessed

Yogesh Jashubhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4) Now Ward- 1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 158/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.158/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.159/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 Yogesh Jashubhai Patel, The Income Tax Officer Harivallabh Society बनाम/ Ward-3(4) V/S. Naroda Now Ward-1(2)(1) Opp. Devi Cinema Ahmedabad – 380 051 Ahmedabad – 382 345 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Audpp 9058 L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 06/01/2023 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-2012. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No.158/Ahd/2023:

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.DR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

assessed the income at Rs. 6,19,780/-. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. In the grounds of appeal ... made a bona fide claim and disclosed all relevant facts, mere disallowance or difference in computation does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Similarly, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in National Textiles v. CIT [2001] 249 ITR 125 (Guj.) has held that when income is assessed

Shri Rajkot District Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Rajkot vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1(2), Rajkot

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 196/RJT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.196/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) Shri Rajkot District Co-Operative Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle-1(1), Jilla Bank Bhavan, Kasturba Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Opp. Chaudhary High School, Road, Rajkot-360001 Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afups2094H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Smt. Pallavi, Ld. Cit(Dr) : 06/08/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 04/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay)-2018-19, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax Office [(In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 29.12.2023, Which In Turn Assessment Order Passed By Income Tax Department / Assessing Officer Under Section 144C(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Vide Order Dated 30.03.2023 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee, Are As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Pallavi, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

light of this facts, there was no case for the AO to allege or to hold the entries under dispute as "furnishing inaccurate particulars of income" so as to invoke provision of Section 271(1)(c). 6. Subsequently, in pursuance of the order u/s 263 dated 21.03.2016 passed

The Bank Employees Co Operative Bank Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-36, Kolkata

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

ITA 362/KOL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 362/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 The Bank Employees Cooperative Bank Limited,………………………………………………….Appellant 23A, Netaji Subhas Road, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Aabat5298D] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,..…….Respondent Circle-36, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107 Appearances By: Shri Sanbarta Koley, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Ms. Archana Gupta, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: August 07, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: October 31, 2025 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(v)Section 40A(9)Section 83

Rs.25,20,700/- to the total income along with initiation of penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income as the amount of interest earned on Members Welfare Fund was shown as income and as a matching concept of Generally Accepted Accounting

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Phi Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and both the Rule 27 application of the assessee are allowed for A

ITA 3084/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

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

stock’. (relevant paras are 37 and 38 of the assessment order). On account of these disallowances, the A.O. initiated penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, and noted in para no. 36, 38 and 39 of his order as under ... Officer in the assessment order dated 30.12.2011 passed in this case-initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and also levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 2.3 In this

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Phi Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and both the Rule 27 application of the assessee are allowed for A

ITA 3083/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

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

stock’. (relevant paras are 37 and 38 of the assessment order). On account of these disallowances, the A.O. initiated penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, and noted in para no. 36, 38 and 39 of his order as under ... Officer in the assessment order dated 30.12.2011 passed in this case-initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and also levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 2.3 In this

Sh.Mohit Batola, Dehradun vs. ACIT, CC, Ddn, Dehradun

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 101/DDN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun30 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Mohit Batola Vs Acit 155, Village Miyanwala Central Circle P.O.-Harrawala, Dehradun, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand-248001 Pan-Aftpb3533M Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Verendra Kalra, Ca Revenue By Shri S.K.Chaterjee, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.10.2025 Order

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 153A(1)(b)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274(1)

passed wherein penalty of Rs.8,46,856/- was levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. Before us, the Ld. AR of the assessee submits that at the time of initiation of the proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, notice ... that in both notices, it was not specified whether the penalty proceedings were initiated for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. He thus, by following the order of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory reported

Ankit Jain, Tonk vs. Income Tax Officer, Tonk

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1303/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Jaideep Malik, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (through V.C.)
Section 115BSection 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69C

completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.153C assessing the income at Rs.8,63,500/- Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were also initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 6. Aggrieved from the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) Jaipur-4, who dismissed

Ankit Jain, Tonk vs. Income Tax Officer, Tonk

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1302/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Jaideep Malik, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (through V.C.)
Section 115BSection 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69C

completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.153C assessing the income at Rs.8,63,500/- Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were also initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 6. Aggrieved from the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) Jaipur-4, who dismissed

Anshul Jain, Tonk vs. Income Tax Officer, Tonk

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1301/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Jaideep Malik, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (through V.C.)
Section 115BSection 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69C

completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.153C assessing the income at Rs.8,63,500/- Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were also initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 6. Aggrieved from the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) Jaipur-4, who dismissed

Tejas Shivaji Adsul, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Kolhapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 59/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri A.R. Naik (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva
Section 115JSection 143Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 270A(6)

assessee submits that in the reassessment order, the A.O has initiated penalty u/s 270A on a vague charge of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income' also in the notice u/s 274 r.w.s 270A, the exact limb of section 270A(9) which has been allegedly violated by the assessee has not been

Rnt Associates Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5221/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. Vishal ShahFor Respondent: 29/10/2025
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

also initiated for furnishing inaccurate (1) (c) of the IT Act is also initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income(concealment of income.” particulars of income(concealment of income.” 5.4 The same ambiguity pervades the notice under Section 274, a The same ambiguity pervades the notice under Section