← 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)

Vijaylaxmi Anand Gupta, Vapi vs. ITO Ward-9, Vapi

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

ITA 1350/SRT/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Suresh K. Kabra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

order passed by Ld. CIT(A) in ITA No. 1349/Srt/2024 relates to quantum addition and ITA No. 1350/Srt/2024 relates to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that during the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer observed that ... quantum additions has been restored to the file of the Assessing Officer, the appeal of the assessee relating to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is hereby directed to be restored to the file of Assessing Officer as well. 10. In the combined result, both

Vijaylaxmi Anand Gupta, Vapi vs. ITO, Ward-9, Vapi

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

ITA 1349/SRT/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Suresh K. Kabra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

order passed by Ld. CIT(A) in ITA No. 1349/Srt/2024 relates to quantum addition and ITA No. 1350/Srt/2024 relates to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that during the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer observed that ... quantum additions has been restored to the file of the Assessing Officer, the appeal of the assessee relating to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is hereby directed to be restored to the file of Assessing Officer as well. 10. In the combined result, both

Archana Achyut Sail, Mumbai vs. NFAC

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 5278/MUM/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2025

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Sumit MantriFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Chandra Sinha
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ in short) (In ITA No.5278/Mum/2024 for A.Y.2016-17 the challenge is to the order imposing penalty, under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act). 2. The appellant-assessee was employed with Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL). For assessment year 2016-17, the assessee ... concerned, it is submitted that although the penalty has been levied under Section 270A of the Act, a similar principle (as the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act) would apply. Alternatively, it is submitted that the authorities below were not justified in treating the case

Archana Achyut Sail, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 5277/MUM/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2025

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Sumit MantriFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Chandra Sinha
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ in short) (In ITA No.5278/Mum/2024 for A.Y.2016-17 the challenge is to the order imposing penalty, under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act). 2. The appellant-assessee was employed with Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL). For assessment year 2016-17, the assessee ... concerned, it is submitted that although the penalty has been levied under Section 270A of the Act, a similar principle (as the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act) would apply. Alternatively, it is submitted that the authorities below were not justified in treating the case

Mantri Cosmos II Owners Welfare Association, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 21/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.20 & 21/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22) Mantri Cosmos Ii Owners Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Welfare Association Income Tax, Circle 6(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaeam1297J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocates K Hari Prasad & K Karthik राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt.M Narmada, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/03/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocates K Hari Prasad and KFor Respondent: : Smt.M Narmada, CIT(DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 80I

Taxman 423/[1988] 171 ITR 390 (Allahabad) (35) is of no help to the revenue inasmuch as that was a case involving penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. That penalty being impossible for concealment of income Page

Mantri Cosmos II Owners Welfare Association, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 20/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.20 & 21/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22) Mantri Cosmos Ii Owners Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Welfare Association Income Tax, Circle 6(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaeam1297J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocates K Hari Prasad & K Karthik राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt.M Narmada, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/03/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocates K Hari Prasad and KFor Respondent: : Smt.M Narmada, CIT(DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 80I

Taxman 423/[1988] 171 ITR 390 (Allahabad) (35) is of no help to the revenue inasmuch as that was a case involving penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. That penalty being impossible for concealment of income Page

ACIT, Circle- 26(2), New Delhi vs. Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Earlier Knwon As Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), New Delhi

ITA 8079/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 1999-2000 Vs. M/S. Vodafone West Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Thereafter Merged With New Delhi Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacf1190P (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/S. Vodafone Idea Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Earlier Known As Vodafone New Delhi Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacb2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Sh. Anil Chachra, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Department By Sh. Vijay B. Basanta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.03.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm These Revenue’S Appeals Ita No.7658/Del/2018 & 8079/Del/2018 For Assessment Years 1999-2000 & 2007-08

Section 271(1)(c)

this regard is as follows: "A) PENALTY LEVIED ONLY IN CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FILING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF THE SAME Penalty under section 271(1)(c) may be imposed only in case where it is proved that the assessee has consciously made a concealment or has furnished inaccurate ... were found to be incorrect or erroneous or false. Such not being the case, there would be no question of inviting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. A mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing

ACIT, Circle-26(2), New Delhi vs. Vodafone West Ltd., (Thereafter Merged With Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), New Delhi

ITA 7658/DEL/2018[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 1999-2000 Vs. M/S. Vodafone West Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Thereafter Merged With New Delhi Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacf1190P (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/S. Vodafone Idea Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Earlier Known As Vodafone New Delhi Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacb2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Sh. Anil Chachra, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Department By Sh. Vijay B. Basanta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.03.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm These Revenue’S Appeals Ita No.7658/Del/2018 & 8079/Del/2018 For Assessment Years 1999-2000 & 2007-08

Section 271(1)(c)

this regard is as follows: "A) PENALTY LEVIED ONLY IN CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FILING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF THE SAME Penalty under section 271(1)(c) may be imposed only in case where it is proved that the assessee has consciously made a concealment or has furnished inaccurate ... were found to be incorrect or erroneous or false. Such not being the case, there would be no question of inviting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. A mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. The Dy-CIT (Int. Taxation)-2(1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 749/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Dcit (International Taxation)- Investment Bank (Formerly 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) : Respondent)

Section 143(3)

Hong Kong Branch on ECB to 15 & 18 Indian borrowers Levy of interest under section 234B Ground No.19 Ground No.22 Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) Ground No.20 Ground No.23 45. From the above table it is clear that the grounds of the assessee and the revenue raised ... marketing of derivative products (60% of INPV was attributed) Levy of interest under section 234B Ground No.26 Ground No.19 Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) Ground No.27 Ground No.20 Cost incurred by HO/OB towards credit risk Ground No.6 - assistance, EDP assistance HO-System Implementation Charges, on behalf

Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. The Dy.CIT of Income Tax (Internationsl Taxation) -2(1) (1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1234/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Dcit (International Taxation)- Investment Bank (Formerly 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) : Respondent)

Section 143(3)

Hong Kong Branch on ECB to 15 & 18 Indian borrowers Levy of interest under section 234B Ground No.19 Ground No.22 Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) Ground No.20 Ground No.23 45. From the above table it is clear that the grounds of the assessee and the revenue raised ... marketing of derivative products (60% of INPV was attributed) Levy of interest under section 234B Ground No.26 Ground No.19 Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) Ground No.27 Ground No.20 Cost incurred by HO/OB towards credit risk Ground No.6 - assistance, EDP assistance HO-System Implementation Charges, on behalf

Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. The Jt CIT (International Taxationa), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1027/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1839/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Adit (International Taxation)- 1(2), Room No. 119, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Vs.11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1273/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1165/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit (International Taxation)- 1(1)(1), Room No. 114, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Vs. Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, 11Th & 12Th & 14Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B : Respondent)

Section 143(3)

commission earned by Hong Kong Branch on ECB to Indian borrowers Levy of interest under section 234B Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) AY 2011-12 Ground No.1 AY 2010-11 Ground No.1 Ground No.2 & 3 Ground No.2 & 3 Ground No.4 Ground No.6 Ground No.5 to 12 Ground

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. ACIT (It) 2 (1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 458/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1839/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Adit (International Taxation)- 1(2), Room No. 119, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Vs.11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1273/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Respondent) 2

Section 143(3)

Ground No.14 & 15 Ground No.17 & 18 Ground No.19 Ground No.20 Ground No.22 Ground No.23 Levy of interest under section 234B Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) 45. From the above table it is clear that the grounds of the assessee and the revenue raised

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 4652/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As ‘Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent)

Section 143(3)

Indian borrowers Ground No.14 & 15 Ground No.17 & 18 Levy of interest under section 234B Ground No.19 Ground No.22 Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) Ground No.20 Ground No.23 45. From the above table it is clear that the grounds of the assessee and the revenue raised

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 2313/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1839/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Adit (International Taxation)- 1(2), Room No. 119, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Vs.11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1273/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent) 2

Section 143(3)

commission earned by Hong Kong Branch on ECB to Indian borrowers Levy of interest under section 234B Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) AY 2011-12 Ground No.1 AY 2010-11 Ground No.1 Ground No.2 & 3 Ground No.2 & 3 Ground No.4 Ground No.6 Ground No.5 to 12 Ground

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1273/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1839/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Adit (International Taxation)- 1(2), Room No. 119, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1273/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Respondent) 2

Section 143(3)

Indian borrowers Ground No.14 & 15 Ground No.17 & 18 Levy of interest under Section 234B Ground No.19 Ground No.22 Levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) Ground No.20 Ground No.23 45. From the above table it is clear that the grounds of the assessee and the revenue raised ... products (60% of INPV was attributed) Ground No.10 Ground No.18 Levy of interest under Section 234B Ground No.26 Ground No.19 Levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) Ground No.27 Ground No.20 Cost incurred by HO/OB towards credit risk assistance, EDP assistance HO-System Implementation Charges, on behalf of Indian

DCIT (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1165/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1839/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Adit (International Taxation)- 1(2), Room No. 119, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Vs.11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1273/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1165/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit (International Taxation)- 1(1)(1), Room No. 114, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Vs. Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, 11Th & 12Th & 14Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B : Respondent)

Section 143(3)

commission earned by Hong Kong Branch on ECB to Indian borrowers Levy of interest under section 234B Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) AY 2011-12 Ground No.1 AY 2010-11 Ground No.1 Ground No.2 & 3 Ground No.2 & 3 Ground No.4 Ground No.6 Ground No.5 to 12 Ground

ADIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai vs. Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1839/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Dcit (International Taxation)- Investment Bank (Formerly 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) : Respondent)

Section 143(3)

Hong Kong Branch on ECB to 15 & 18 Indian borrowers Levy of interest under section 234B Ground No.19 Ground No.22 Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) Ground No.20 Ground No.23 45. From the above table it is clear that the grounds of the assessee and the revenue raised ... marketing of derivative products (60% of INPV was attributed) Levy of interest under section 234B Ground No.26 Ground No.19 Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) Ground No.27 Ground No.20 Cost incurred by HO/OB towards credit risk Ground No.6 - assistance, EDP assistance HO-System Implementation Charges, on behalf

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1479/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Respondent)

Section 143(3)

Indian borrowers Ground No.14 & 15 Ground No.17 & 18 Levy of interest under section 234B Ground No.19 Ground No.22 Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) Ground No.20 Ground No.23 45. From the above table it is clear that the grounds of the assessee and the revenue raised

The Govt. Tele Communication Employees Co-Op. Society Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-11(1), Chennai

ITA 2743/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56Section 57Section 80P

furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. During the course of penalty proceedings, the appellant had submitted its response against the proposal to levy penalty under section 271(1)(c). The Assessing officer however levied penalty of Rs.7,34,291/-u/s 271(1) by taking the above income assessed ... which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the appellant (Department) that by itself would not in our opinion attract penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. If court accepts contention then in case of every return where claim made is not accepted by Assessing officer

The Govt. Tele Communication Employees Co-Op. Society Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-11(1), Chennai

ITA 2742/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56Section 57Section 80P

furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. During the course of penalty proceedings, the appellant had submitted its response against the proposal to levy penalty under section 271(1)(c). The Assessing officer however levied penalty of Rs.7,34,291/-u/s 271(1) by taking the above income assessed ... which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the appellant (Department) that by itself would not in our opinion attract penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. If court accepts contention then in case of every return where claim made is not accepted by Assessing officer