← 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)

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

ITA 2741/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

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 Empoloyees Co-Op. Society Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-11(1), Chennai

ITA 2740/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

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

Nalini Vijay Shah, Ahmedabad vs. ITO Ward 3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1542/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Chavda, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neeju Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 250Section 251Section 271(1)(c)

been made in the hands of the assessee under Section 68 of the Act for both the assessment years under consideration. Consequential penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act has also been levied on the assessee for the impugned years under consideration. The Counsel for the assessee submitted

Nalini Vijay Shah, Ahmedabad vs. ITO Ward 3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1541/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Chavda, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neeju Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 250Section 251Section 271(1)(c)

been made in the hands of the assessee under Section 68 of the Act for both the assessment years under consideration. Consequential penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act has also been levied on the assessee for the impugned years under consideration. The Counsel for the assessee submitted

Nalini Vijay Shah, Satellite vs. Ward 3(1)(2) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1539/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Chavda, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neeju Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 250Section 251Section 271(1)(c)

been made in the hands of the assessee under Section 68 of the Act for both the assessment years under consideration. Consequential penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act has also been levied on the assessee for the impugned years under consideration. The Counsel for the assessee submitted

Subramaniam Saravanakumar, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Ncc-1, Coimbatore

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

ITA 2953/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2953/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Subramaniam Saravanakumar, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 188, Sukrawarpet Street, Income Tax, Coimbatore 641 001. Non Corporate Circle 1, Coimbatore. [Pan:Accps5345Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 06.11.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Raised 14 Grounds In His Appeal & Mainly Challenged The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Dismissing The Appeal Without Condoning Delay In Filing The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)

appeal without condoning delay in filing the appeal. 2 I.T.A. No.2953/Chny/24 3. At the outset, we note that the Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] dated 04.09.2021. Against the penalty order, the assessee preferred an appeal before

Milind Jagannath Bhole, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Thane

In the result, in terms of paragraph 6 above, the appeal preferred by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 243/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sumit MantriFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

inaccurate particulars of income. However, the penalty notice, dated 26/03/2013, does not inform the Assessee about the charge against the Assessee – whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is sought to be levied for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of 2 Assessment Year ... vagueness.” (Emphasis supplied) 6. In view of the aforesaid, we find merit in the contention advance on behalf of the Assessee that penalty levied Section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be sustained as per the judgment of the Full Bench decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court

Ms Imsofer Manufacturing India Private Limited (Now Known As Ferrero India Private Limited), Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)– Pune and National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, Pune and NFAC (Delhi)

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

ITA 1316/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1316/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Imsofer Manufacturing Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. India Private Limited (Now Known As Ferrero India Private Limited), World Trade Center, 8Th Floor, Tower-3, Kharadi- 411014. Pan : Aabci6450N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Siddhesh Chaugule & Nagma Gupta Revenue By Shri Amol Khairnar : Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.04.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “General Grounds: 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Hon. Cit(A) Has Erred In Passing Order Under Section 250 Of The Act I.E. Levying Penalty Of Inr 3,55,82,949/-. Legal Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Siddhesh Chaugule &
Section 154Section 250Section 251Section 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(A)

learned CTT(A) erred in violating the provisions of section 251 (1)(b) of the Act. Non-levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c); 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT has heard the quantum appeal of the appellant. Accordingly ... case and in law, the Hon. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring that there is absence of essential element for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the Appellant's case viz. ‘concealment of particulars of income' or 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income

Ravi Pichaya, Nashik vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

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

ITA 73/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Mar 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath
Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 234A

loan nor any interest have been charged by the Company from the appellant. The Hon'ble Tribunal has upheld the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) on the addition of deemed dividend in its order ITA No.7733/Mum/2010, Α.Υ. 2003-04 dated 05/02/2014. 5.16 The reliance of appellant

Ravi Pichaya, Director in Hextech Engineers India Pvt.Ltd, Nashik vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1, Nashik

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

ITA 2205/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath
Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 234A

loan nor any interest have been charged by the Company from the appellant. The Hon'ble Tribunal has upheld the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) on the addition of deemed dividend in its order ITA No.7733/Mum/2010, Α.Υ. 2003-04 dated 05/02/2014. 5.16 The reliance of appellant

Nh Securities Limited, Mumbai vs. JCIT (OSD) Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 155/MUM/2025[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2025AY 1999-2000

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran: A.Y. : 1999-2000

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Alok Kumar
Section 10(33)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69

order dated 31.12.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-49, Mumbai (‘CIT(A)’ for short) by which the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) to the extent of the quantum addition of Rs.2

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Vadodara vs. Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Limited, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1289/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

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

income computed under normal procedure is less than the tax payable under the deeming provisions of section 115IB of the Act, then penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act could not be imposed with reference to additions/disallowances made under normal provisions. The judgment has attained finality. 4. Subsequently ... normal provisions of the Act is less than the tax payable on the book profits w/s 115JB of the Act, then penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, is not attracted with reference to additions /disallowances made under normal provisions. It is further clarified that in cases prior

Hydro Power Development Corporation of Arunachal Pradesh Limited, Itanagar vs. A.C.I.T., Circle Tezpur, Tezpur

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 72/GTY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

deserves another chance to submit necessary details before the Ld. CIT(A) so that the facts and circumstances surrounding the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act can be determined, one way or another. Accordingly, we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and remand

S Ramesh, Trunelveli vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3173/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3169/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Pothiraj, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acxpp-8538-R Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3170/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Mahesh, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6890-K Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3171/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Murugesh Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6963-D Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3172/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Ashok Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Mr. Y.Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 132Section 153CSection 250Section 270ASection 56(2)(vii)

under deeming provisions of the Act. 6. The ITAT Delhi in the case ITO vs. Ajay Sharma (ITAT Delhi, 2017) canceled the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for an addition made under Section 50C. The tribunal held that the valuation by the Stamp Valuation Authority does not conclusively prove ... unjustified. 7. In the case, Smt. Varshaben Vipulbhai Bhalani vs. ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad, 2023), the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled that penalties under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed solely based on the deeming provision of Section 50C. The tribunal emphasized that Section 50C, which considers the stamp

S Ashok, Tirunelvel vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3172/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3169/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Pothiraj, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acxpp-8538-R Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3170/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Mahesh, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6890-K Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3171/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Murugesh Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6963-D Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3172/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Ashok Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Mr. Y.Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 132Section 153CSection 250Section 270ASection 56(2)(vii)

under deeming provisions of the Act. 6. The ITAT Delhi in the case ITO vs. Ajay Sharma (ITAT Delhi, 2017) canceled the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for an addition made under Section 50C. The tribunal held that the valuation by the Stamp Valuation Authority does not conclusively prove ... unjustified. 7. In the case, Smt. Varshaben Vipulbhai Bhalani vs. ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad, 2023), the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled that penalties under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed solely based on the deeming provision of Section 50C. The tribunal emphasized that Section 50C, which considers the stamp

S Murugesh, Tirunelveli vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3171/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3169/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Pothiraj, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acxpp-8538-R Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3170/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Mahesh, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6890-K Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3171/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Murugesh Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6963-D Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3172/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Ashok Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Mr. Y.Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 132Section 153CSection 250Section 270ASection 56(2)(vii)

under deeming provisions of the Act. 6. The ITAT Delhi in the case ITO vs. Ajay Sharma (ITAT Delhi, 2017) canceled the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for an addition made under Section 50C. The tribunal held that the valuation by the Stamp Valuation Authority does not conclusively prove ... unjustified. 7. In the case, Smt. Varshaben Vipulbhai Bhalani vs. ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad, 2023), the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled that penalties under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed solely based on the deeming provision of Section 50C. The tribunal emphasized that Section 50C, which considers the stamp

S Magesh, Tirunelveli vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3170/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3169/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Pothiraj, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acxpp-8538-R Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3170/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Mahesh, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6890-K Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3171/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Murugesh Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6963-D Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3172/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Ashok Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Mr. Y.Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 132Section 153CSection 250Section 270ASection 56(2)(vii)

under deeming provisions of the Act. 6. The ITAT Delhi in the case ITO vs. Ajay Sharma (ITAT Delhi, 2017) canceled the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for an addition made under Section 50C. The tribunal held that the valuation by the Stamp Valuation Authority does not conclusively prove ... unjustified. 7. In the case, Smt. Varshaben Vipulbhai Bhalani vs. ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad, 2023), the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled that penalties under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed solely based on the deeming provision of Section 50C. The tribunal emphasized that Section 50C, which considers the stamp

S. Pothyraj, Tiunelveli vs. DCIT, Central Circle01(3), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3169/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3169/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Pothiraj, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acxpp-8538-R Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3170/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Mahesh, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6890-K Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3171/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Murugesh Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6963-D Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3172/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Ashok Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Mr. Y.Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 132Section 153CSection 250Section 270ASection 56(2)(vii)

under deeming provisions of the Act. 6. The ITAT Delhi in the case ITO vs. Ajay Sharma (ITAT Delhi, 2017) canceled the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for an addition made under Section 50C. The tribunal held that the valuation by the Stamp Valuation Authority does not conclusively prove ... unjustified. 7. In the case, Smt. Varshaben Vipulbhai Bhalani vs. ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad, 2023), the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled that penalties under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed solely based on the deeming provision of Section 50C. The tribunal emphasized that Section 50C, which considers the stamp

Kuber Metpack P.Ltd ( Formerly Known As Kevin Metpack P.Ltd), Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi

In the result appeal of assessee vide ITR Nos

ITA 1408/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 68

naturally collapses. In the present case, when the quantum addition stands deleted, there cannot be any case for survival of corresponding concealment penalty under Section 271(1)(c). Accordingly, we set aside the order of lower authority and delete the penalty for concealment under Section 271(1)(c) imposed

Kuber Khadyan Pvt. Ltd., New Dlehi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

In the result appeal of assessee vide ITR Nos

ITA 320/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 68

naturally collapses. In the present case, when the quantum addition stands deleted, there cannot be any case for survival of corresponding concealment penalty under Section 271(1)(c). Accordingly, we set aside the order of lower authority and delete the penalty for concealment under Section 271(1)(c) imposed