← 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)

Pba Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 5(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4212/MUM/2025[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi a/wFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR a/w
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

income computed under normal procedure is less than the tax payable under the deeming provisions of Section 115JB 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

Pba Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 5(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4211/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi a/wFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR a/w
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

income computed under normal procedure is less than the tax payable under the deeming provisions of Section 115JB 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

Mckinsey & Company India LLP, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-29(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 1028/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

McKinsey & Company India LLP The Appellant also submits that the appeal includes corporate tax-related grounds pertaining to the consequential levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Given the MAP resolution, these grounds have now become infructuous. We further wish to bring to the kind attention ... well as additional ground No. 16 filed on 17.04.2022. It is further stated that the grounds relating to consequential levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act have become infructuous. ITA No.- 1028/Del/2021 McKinsey & Company India LLP 4. The Ld. Sr. DR did not have any objection

Neysa Jewllery Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5934/MUM/2025[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia(Physical Hearing)

Section 10ASection 133ASection 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) invoked Explanation 1. Explanation-1 of section 271(1)(c) relates to deemed concealment, however, while levying the penalty under section 271(1)(c), the AO concluded that assessee furnished inaccurate particulars. We find that revised return of assessee has been accepted by AO. In other ... concealment. Thus, in view of the aforesaid factual and legal position, we do not find any justification for levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed. 9. In the result, the appeal of assessee

Mohammed Helaluddin Ahmed, Dankigaon, Gopal Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward, Nagaon

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 330/GTY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati11 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jha, DR
Section 271(1)(c)

after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In respect of ITA No. 330/GTY/25 which is against the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which has been confirmed by the ld. CIT (A). 7. We are of the view that as the quantum ... appeal has been restored to the file of the ld. CIT (A), the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, is also to be decided after deciding the quantum appeal and therefore restore to CIT (A) for adjudication after giving opportunity to assessee. ITA Nos. 329 & 330/GTY/2025 Mohammed

Mohammed Helaluddin Ahmed, Hojai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Nagaon

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 329/GTY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati11 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jha, DR
Section 271(1)(c)

after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In respect of ITA No. 330/GTY/25 which is against the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which has been confirmed by the ld. CIT (A). 7. We are of the view that as the quantum ... appeal has been restored to the file of the ld. CIT (A), the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, is also to be decided after deciding the quantum appeal and therefore restore to CIT (A) for adjudication after giving opportunity to assessee. ITA Nos. 329 & 330/GTY/2025 Mohammed

Sunil Kumar Ahuja, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 128/HYD/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.126, 127 & 128/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Asst. Year:2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10) Sunil Kumar Ahuja, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Central Circle-1(1), Pan: Ablpa2822L Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "वारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 02/02/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement: 11/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: The Captioned Three Appeals Are Filed By Shri Sunil Kumar Ahuja (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), All Dated 25.11.2024 For The A.Y.2007-08, A.Y.2008-09 & A.Y.2009-10 Respectively. Since All These Three Appeals Are Related To The Same Assessee & The Issues Involved Are Identical, They Are Heard Together & One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income” without striking off the irrelevant portion. The law is now well settled that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act can be levied only when the assessee is made aware of the specific charge against it. The two limbs ... extracted hereafter: "7. In our opinion, the conclusion reached by the Tribunal in the instant case that the notice for imposition of penalty under section 271(1) (c) of the Act, did not specify which limb of the said provision the penalty was sought to be levied, is covered

Sunil Kumar Ahuja, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 127/HYD/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.126, 127 & 128/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Asst. Year:2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10) Sunil Kumar Ahuja, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Central Circle-1(1), Pan: Ablpa2822L Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "वारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 02/02/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement: 11/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: The Captioned Three Appeals Are Filed By Shri Sunil Kumar Ahuja (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), All Dated 25.11.2024 For The A.Y.2007-08, A.Y.2008-09 & A.Y.2009-10 Respectively. Since All These Three Appeals Are Related To The Same Assessee & The Issues Involved Are Identical, They Are Heard Together & One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income” without striking off the irrelevant portion. The law is now well settled that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act can be levied only when the assessee is made aware of the specific charge against it. The two limbs ... extracted hereafter: "7. In our opinion, the conclusion reached by the Tribunal in the instant case that the notice for imposition of penalty under section 271(1) (c) of the Act, did not specify which limb of the said provision the penalty was sought to be levied, is covered

Sunil Kumar Ahuja, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Cetral Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 126/HYD/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.126, 127 & 128/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Asst. Year:2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10) Sunil Kumar Ahuja, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Central Circle-1(1), Pan: Ablpa2822L Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "वारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 02/02/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement: 11/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: The Captioned Three Appeals Are Filed By Shri Sunil Kumar Ahuja (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), All Dated 25.11.2024 For The A.Y.2007-08, A.Y.2008-09 & A.Y.2009-10 Respectively. Since All These Three Appeals Are Related To The Same Assessee & The Issues Involved Are Identical, They Are Heard Together & One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income” without striking off the irrelevant portion. The law is now well settled that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act can be levied only when the assessee is made aware of the specific charge against it. The two limbs ... extracted hereafter: "7. In our opinion, the conclusion reached by the Tribunal in the instant case that the notice for imposition of penalty under section 271(1) (c) of the Act, did not specify which limb of the said provision the penalty was sought to be levied, is covered

R J Corporation, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 42(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 7715/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

estimated the profit element embedded in the purchases at 12.5 percent and further made an addition towards alleged commission. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was thereafter levied on such estimated additions. The Ld. AR submitted that the Hon’ble High Court, after detailed consideration of the scope of section ... proceedings. It was contended that once the assessee has accepted the addition, it necessarily follows that the income was concealed and therefore penalty under section 271(1)(c) is rightly leviable. R. J. Corporation 11. The Ld. DR further submitted that the reliance placed

R J Corporation, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 42(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 7714/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

estimated the profit element embedded in the purchases at 12.5 percent and further made an addition towards alleged commission. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was thereafter levied on such estimated additions. The Ld. AR submitted that the Hon’ble High Court, after detailed consideration of the scope of section ... proceedings. It was contended that once the assessee has accepted the addition, it necessarily follows that the income was concealed and therefore penalty under section 271(1)(c) is rightly leviable. R. J. Corporation 11. The Ld. DR further submitted that the reliance placed

Bhasin Motors Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle -(4)2, New Delhi

ITA 5544/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 150(1)Section 234ASection 251(1)(c)Section 251(2)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

M/S. Cimmco Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5724/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Hon’Ble & Shri Naveen Chandra, Hon’Ble

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36

5724_DEL_2016_CIMMCO LTD IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH

Incometax Officer, Ward-1, Ballari vs. Bellary Urban Development Authority, Ballari

ITA 1523/BANG/2025[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Ajith V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy .N, JCIT-DR
Section 10(46)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K

Kishore Anand Shetty, Goregaon East Mumbai vs. Circle 32(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed in terms indicated above

ITA 4975/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 54F

term capital gain was dismissed as not pressed. Penalty Appeal – ITA No. 4976/Mum/2025 32. We now take up the penalty appeal, wherein penalty under section 271(1)(c) has been levied on the additions/disallowances made in the quantum assessment, namely, the addition under section 50C and the disallowance of exemption

Winwood Marketing Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 6(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2196/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2012-13 Winwood Marketing Pvt. Ltd..……..………………….……….……….……Appellant C/O Agarwal Vishwanath & Associates, 133/1/1A, Sn Banerjee Road, Pushkal Bhawan 3Rd Floor, Kol – 700013. [Pan: Aabcw3528M] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Kolkata…….……...…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Subhankar Ghosh, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S B Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 19, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 05, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.09.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012–13. 2. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Had Filed His Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2012-13 Declaring A Total Income Nil. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass With The Reason ‘Large Share Premium Received’. Accordingly, Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued. The Assessment Order U/S. 143(3) Of The Act Was Passed Determining Total Income Of Rs.4,79,44,500/- (Share Capital Of Rs.8,30,000/- + Premium Of Rs.4,71,14,500/-) & The Assessing Officer Also Initiated Penalty Proceedings U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act. Winwood Marketing Pvt. Ltd 3. Aggrieved By The Said Order, The Assessee Preferred Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A), Wherein, The Appeal Of The Assessee Has Been Dismissed & The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) As Made By The Assessing Officer Was Confirmed By Ld. Cit(A).

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 35 taxmann.com 250/218 Taxman 423/359 ITR 565 (Karnataka) wherein it was held that the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reasons where the show cause notice under section ... Income-tax v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 35 taxmann.com 250/218 Taxman 423/359 ITR 565 (Karnataka) held that the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reasons where the show cause notice under section

Chiragkumar Rajendrabhai Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 30(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, ITA No. 7130/M/2025 is allowed

ITA 7132/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri A K Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (SR. D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69C

limb/charge for initiating the penalty proceedings and held as under: 16. It is well settled that the condition precedent for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is only when the Assessing Officer, in the course of proceedings, is satisfied that an assessee has concealed the particulars

Chiragkumar Rajendrabhai Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 30(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, ITA No. 7130/M/2025 is allowed

ITA 7131/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri A K Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (SR. D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69C

limb/charge for initiating the penalty proceedings and held as under: 16. It is well settled that the condition precedent for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is only when the Assessing Officer, in the course of proceedings, is satisfied that an assessee has concealed the particulars

Chiragkumar Rajendrabhai Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, ITA No. 7130/M/2025 is allowed

ITA 7130/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri A K Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (SR. D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69C

limb/charge for initiating the penalty proceedings and held as under: 16. It is well settled that the condition precedent for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is only when the Assessing Officer, in the course of proceedings, is satisfied that an assessee has concealed the particulars

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(It)-2(1)-2, Mumbai vs. Dz Bank India Representative Office, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue and the cross-objections by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1161/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

disclosed by the assessee. Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) held that without prejudice to the right of the AO to initiate penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act depending on his independent satisfaction on the basis of facts and circumstances, it is decided not to impose the penalty ... interest income, the assessee had filed inaccurate particulars of income. Accordingly, finding the case to be fit for the levy of a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the AO levied a penalty of Rs. 20 crore at the rate of 124% of the tax sought