← All Phrases

“penalty under section 271(1)(c)”

PenaltySection 271(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)1,699 judgments

The decision most relied on for penalty under section 271(1)(c) is CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), cited in 2,590 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on penalty under section 271(1)(c)

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 penalty under section 271(1)(c)

Shivratan Motilalji Rathi HUF, Pune vs. ITO, Jalna

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

ITA 605/PUN/2025[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2025AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.605 & 606/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2011-12 Shivratan Motilalji Rathi Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Jalna. Huf, Rathi Rathi & Co., 501-504, Akshay Landmarks, Opp. Pu La Garden, Sinhagad Road, Jalna- 411030. Pan : Aaehr5318G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Miss Smruti Sabnis Revenue By Shri Akhilesh Srivastva : Date Of Hearing 24.07.2025 : Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 21.10.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. There Is Delay Of 64 Days In Filing Of The Present Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Affidavit For Condonation That The Applicant Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeals Within The Prescribed Time Limit. Ld. Dr Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection To Condone The Delay, Therefore We Condone The Delay Of 64 Days & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals. 3. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 4. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.605/Pun/2025 For Assessment Year 2008-09 As The Lead Case For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Miss Smruti Sabnis
Section 142(1)Section 142ASection 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 249(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

paid advance tax before filing of the appeal. We further observe that the quantum addition appeal, on the basis of which penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act was levied, has already been remanded by a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal vide order dated 14.02.2025 (supra

Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board, Dehradun vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

In the result, all three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5130/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 10(46)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, New Delhi [‘CIT(A)’]. 3. The assessee, vide various grounds has challenged the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) in all the above captioned appeals. 4. The relevant facts giving rise to these appeals ... Rs.23,14,94,016/- and Rs.23,12,25,364/- for AYs 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively. Later on, penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were levied, in all the relevant years, on the assessed income @ 100% of the tax. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee filed

Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board, Dehradun vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

In the result, all three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5129/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 10(46)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, New Delhi [‘CIT(A)’]. 3. The assessee, vide various grounds has challenged the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) in all the above captioned appeals. 4. The relevant facts giving rise to these appeals ... Rs.23,14,94,016/- and Rs.23,12,25,364/- for AYs 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively. Later on, penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were levied, in all the relevant years, on the assessed income @ 100% of the tax. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee filed

Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board, Dehradun vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

In the result, all three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5128/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 10(46)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, New Delhi [‘CIT(A)’]. 3. The assessee, vide various grounds has challenged the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) in all the above captioned appeals. 4. The relevant facts giving rise to these appeals ... Rs.23,14,94,016/- and Rs.23,12,25,364/- for AYs 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively. Later on, penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were levied, in all the relevant years, on the assessed income @ 100% of the tax. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee filed

Fresenius Kabi Oncology Limited, West Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax/ National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 176/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Fresenius Kabi Oncology Vs. Dcit/ National Faceless Limited B-310 Somdatt Assessment Centre Chambers I R K Puram New Delhi (Main) South West Delhi 110006 Pan No. Aabcd7720L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Aditya Vohra, Advocate Ms. Aakriti Bansal, Ca Respondent By Sh. Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22 /07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/07/2025 Order Per Sudhir Kumar: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-26 New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 12.11.2024 Pertaining To A.Y. 2012-13 Confirming The Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (In Short ‘The Act’).

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

Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] vide order dated 12.11.2024 pertaining to A.Y. 2012-13 confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (in short ‘the Act’). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds in appeal: 1. That the order ... that a perusal of assessment order would show that penalty proceedings were initiated for filing inaccurate particulars of income. However, while levying penalty under section 271 (1) (c) of the Act vide order dated 29-03-2022, the Assessing officer mentioned the charge of section 271(1)(c

Ravindra Nath Patel, Maharajganj vs. Income Tax Officer, Gorkhpur

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

ITA 27/ALLD/2025[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad24 Jul 2025AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaravindra Nath Patel Kasmaria V. Income Tax Officer Kasmaria, Maharajganj, Uttar Aayakar Bhawan, Income Pradesh-273303. Tax Office, Anand Nagar Road, Maharajganj, Up- 273165. Pan: Akbpp8792R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms Vidisha Srivastava, Adv Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. Dr O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms Vidisha Srivastava, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the learned CIT(A) against the assessment order and also against the order imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The learned CIT(A) has decided the appeal against order imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c

Dinesh Baranwal, East Champaran vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Motihari

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is stand allowed

ITA 593/PAT/2024[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Patna24 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.593/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sri Dinesh Baranwal……………….....…..…………………....Appellant C/ M/S Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, C. R Avenue, 3Rd Floor, Kol-72. [Pan: Adkpg6603N] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Motihari…...……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 23, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 24 , 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.05.2024 Passed By The Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 57 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Petition Explaining The Reasons Or Such Delay. After Considering The Submissions & Materials On Record, We Are Satisfied That There Was Reasonable Cause For The Delay In Filing The Appeal. Accordingly, The Said Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was A Dealer Of A Telecom Service Operator, Namely M/S Unitech Wireless Tamil Nadu Pvt.

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Since the foundation of the penalty-i.e., the reassessment order dated 09.12.2019 1onger survives, the penalty under Section 271(1)(C) cannot be sustained at this stage. 5. On the other hand, the learned DR opposed the prayer, but could not controvert the fact ... order cannot stand independently. In the present case, the order under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 dated 09.12.2019 which gave rise to the penalty under Section 271(1)(c), has been remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer by the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 28.03.2025. Accordingly, the penalty

C.R. Textile Mills, Salem vs. ITO, Circle-1, Salem

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

ITA 1361/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1361/Chny/2025 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

that there was no furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, and merely because an addition has been sustained, it does not attract penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. The Ld. Departmental Representative has relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 6. We have heard

Monalisa Pradhan, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO Ward-3(1), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 184/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Niranjan panda, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nishanth Rao B, DR
Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

statistical purposes. ITA No. 183 & 184/CTK/2025 Monalisa Pradhan; A.Y. 2016-17 07. In respect of ITA No. 183/CTK/25 which is against the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which has been confirmed by the ld. CIT (A). 08. We are of the view that as the quantum ... been restored in quantum appeal and assessment has been restored to the file of the AO, the foundation for the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, no more survives and consequently, the penalty as levied and confirmed under section 271(1)(c

Monalisa Pradhan, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO Ward-3(1), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 183/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Niranjan panda, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nishanth Rao B, DR
Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

statistical purposes. ITA No. 183 & 184/CTK/2025 Monalisa Pradhan; A.Y. 2016-17 07. In respect of ITA No. 183/CTK/25 which is against the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which has been confirmed by the ld. CIT (A). 08. We are of the view that as the quantum ... been restored in quantum appeal and assessment has been restored to the file of the AO, the foundation for the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, no more survives and consequently, the penalty as levied and confirmed under section 271(1)(c

Rakesh Kumar Jain, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Jaipur

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

ITA 212/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

For Appellant: Shri C.L. Yadav, CA and Shri Vikas Yadav AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary
Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

basis for capital gains tax and though wrongly claimed exemption from the capital gains tax. but that cannot be a case of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. 1961 If it has claimed any exemption after disclosing the relevant basic facts and under ignorance ... basis for capital gains tax and though wrongly claimed exemption from the capital gains tax, but that cannot be a case of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. If it has claimed any exemption after disclosing the relevant basic facts and under ignorance

Xcelris Labs Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 32/AHD/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Jul 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri B. P. Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)Section 43(1)

order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ahmedabad, (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)"), dated 06.12.2021 confirming the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and relates to Assessment Year

Ashoka Tubewell Boring Engineering & Construction, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-2, Patna

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

ITA 90/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Patna18 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajhariya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

Assessing Officer has made assessment on the said return and, therefore, the return is to be considered for the purpose of penalty under section 271{1){c} and the penalty is to be levied on the income assessed over and above the income returned under section 153A ... Neeraj Jindal [(2017) 393 (TR 1 {Del)], it was held, as follows, by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court: - The levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c} of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is not automatic. For levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) , the conditions laid

Aravinda Bhupathiraju Rep by Gpa Holder Sri Kar Bahadur Sri Raja, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle (Internal Taxation), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 262/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. (It). No.262/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Aravinda Bhupathiraju Vs. Asst. Cit (International Taxation) Rep. By. Gpa Holder Income Tax Office, Infinity Towers, K.A.R. Bahadur Sri Raja Sankaramatam Road Falt No. 502, Sky Aditya Apartment Visakhapatnam- 530016 Gitams Road, Yendada Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatnam – 530045 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Bjopb0898P] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Smt A. Aruna, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

imposed i.e., the addition made under the head “capital gains” no longer exists. In such circumstances, it is a settled proposition that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot survive if the quantum addition itself is deleted or substantially modified to extinguish any tax liability. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme ... Court in the case of K.C. Builders (supra) held that when the additions made in the assessment are deleted in appeal, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained. Further, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. SAS Pharmaceuticals [335 ITR 259] held that when

Seema Jain, Indore vs. ITO 1(1), Indore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 591/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year: 2013-14 Seema Jain, Ito 1(1) 73-Ba, Scheme No.94, Indore Regency Adrise, Near बनाम/ Bombay Hospital, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Adtpj4652K Assessee By Shri Anil Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2025

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50Section 50C

consideration of property determined by the DVO did not by itself amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income so as to levy penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the act The revenue has also not shown as to how the assessee could be held to have actually received this

Rajasthan State Bharat Scout and Guide, Jaipur vs. Income-Tax Officer (Exemption), Jaipur

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

ITA 382/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 11(5)

requirements. Consequently, no appropriate action was initiated at that time. Subsequently, the appellant received a show cause notice for the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) on 07.02.2025. Upon receiving the notice, the appellant engaged a Chartered Accountant to prepare the response. During the case analysis, it came

Rajasthan State Bharat Scout and Guide, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Holding Charge of ITO Exemptions, Jaipur

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

ITA 381/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 11(5)

requirements. Consequently, no appropriate action was initiated at that time. Subsequently, the appellant received a show cause notice for the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) on 07.02.2025. Upon receiving the notice, the appellant engaged a Chartered Accountant to prepare the response. During the case analysis, it came

Late Sh Raja Ram Through Legal Heir Virendra Yadav, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward 2(2)(1), Ghaziabad

ITA 1168/DEL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Madhav Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, SR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Page 1 ITA Nos.1167 & 1168/Del/2024 Late Sh. Raja Ram through legal heir Virendra Yadav (AY: 2010-11) THE INCOME TAX

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara vs. M/S. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1785/AHD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in total income (Penalty) Tribunal deleted penalty under section 271(1)(c) in respect of disallowance made under section 14A because there was no evidence in respect of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income – High ... case of every return where the claim made was not accepted by the Assessing Officer for any reason, the assessee would invite penalty under section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature. (Para 10] 30.3 Thus, in our considered view the provisions of explanation 1

Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited, Vadodara vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1)(1), Baroda

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1750/AHD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in total income (Penalty) – Tribunal deleted penalty under section 271(1)(c) in respect of disallowance made under section 14A because there was no evidence in respect of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income – High ... case of every return where the claim made was not accepted by the Assessing Officer for any reason, the assessee would invite penalty under section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature. (Para 10] 30.3 Thus, in our considered view the provisions of explanation 1