“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)

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the

ITA 5628/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar BindalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271A

decided by way of this consolidated order. 3. In present appeals, the solitary grievance of the assessee is against the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c)/ 270A/ 271AAB(1A)(b)/ 271AAC(1) of the Act. 4. The brief facts of the case as emanating from the record

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle -4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the

ITA 5627/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar BindalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271A

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle -4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the

ITA 5626/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar BindalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271A

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle -4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the

ITA 5625/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar BindalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271A

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC-4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the assessment years

ITA 5624/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar BindalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271A

Jindal Padding Private Limited, Village Mannpura, Tehsil Nalag vs. Income Tax Officer Parwano, Parwano

ITA 100/CHANDI/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

1)(c) of the Act was issued on 23.09.2013 calling upon the assessee company to show cause and explain as to why penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act should not be levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. After hearing the assessee, the ld. AO levied minimum ... book profits were determined under section 115JB of the Act any amount of expenses claimed would not render the assessee liable to penalty under section 271(1) (c) of the Act on account of false claim of expenses. The relevant observations of the Delhi High Court read thus:- "The question

Prakashbapu Patil Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd, Sangli vs. ACIT, Circle- Sangli, Sangli

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1328/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1325& 1328/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Prakashbapu Patil Gramin V The Acit, Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat S Circle-Sangli. Sanstha Ltd., Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd., Savali Miraj, Sangli – 416410. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaaap1616N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare – Ar Revenue By Shri Rajesh Gawali – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16; Dated 05.04.2024 & 10.04.2024 Respectively; Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Since The Issue Involved Is Common

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

from various banks. Therefore, Assessing Officer disallowed assessee’s claim of deduction u/sec.80P of Rs.3,46,986/-. 4.1 The Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) vide order dated 23.09.2022. The relevant paragraph of the penalty order is reproduced here as under : “05. From the Assessment Order ... which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the revenue, that by itself would not, in our opinion, attract the penalty under section 271(1)(c). If we accept the contention of the revenue then in case of every Return where the claim made is not accepted

Prakashbapu Patil Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd, Sangli vs. ACIT Circle Sangli, Sangli

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1325/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

Jayappa Reddy, Bengaluru vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru - 1, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1331/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2013-14 Sri Jayappa Reddy No.1, Cholanayakanahalli R.T. Nagar Vs. Pcit Bangalore 560 032 Bengaluru-1 Bengaluru Pan No : Agapj9691E Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Prathik, A.R. Respondent By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 19.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2024

For Appellant: Sri Prathik, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

1)(c) of the Act. Counsel for the assessee contended that it is not a mistake of AO for not initiating the penalty under section 271(1)(C) rather a conscious decision as evident from the fact that the AO has levied penalty under section 271

Suchitra Shashikant Khavare, Hatkanangle, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ichalkaranji

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

ITA 1426/PUN/2024[AY 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Dec 2024

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1426/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Suchitra Shashikant Khavare, V The Income Tax Officer, At Post Shiroli Pulachi S Ichalkaranji. Htkanangle, Konhapur – 416122. Pan: Aowpk8959A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Rajesh Gawalil – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 17.05.2024 For The A.Y.2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Cit(A), Nfac Erred In, Not Condoning The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Thereby Confirming The Penalty Levied U/S 271(1)(C) On The Addition Made By The Ao Of Rs.15,00,000/- U/S 69 Representing Investment In Immovable Property.” Submission Of Ld.Ar : 2. The Ld.Ar For The Assessee Submitted That This Is An Appeal Against Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act. The Quantum Addition Has Been Set-Aside By Itat To Ld.Cit(A) Vide Its Order In Ita No.1410/Pun/2024 For A.Y. 2013-14. Submission Of Ld.Dr : 3. Ld.Dr For The Revenue Submitted That Penalty May Also Be Set-Aside To The Ld.Cit(A).

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

representing investment in immovable property.” Submission of ld.AR : 2. The ld.AR for the assessee submitted that this is an appeal against penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The quantum addition has been set-aside by ITAT to ld.CIT(A) vide its order in ITA No.1410/PUN/2024 ... Ld.DR for the Revenue submitted that Penalty may also be set-aside to the ld.CIT(A). Findings &Analysis : 4. In this case, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y.2013-14 has been levied vide order dated 21.09.2022. Assessee filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Numgambakkam vs. Jsr Infra Developers Private Limited, Vellore

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

ITA 2253/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2253/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Jsr Infra Developers Private Income Tax, Limited, No. 4, 10A, East Central Circle 2(4), Cross Road, Gandhi Nagar, Chennai. Vellore 632 006, Tamil Nadu. [Pan:Aadcj4440P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.07.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-19, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Appellant-Revenue Raised 7 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration Is To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Justified In Cancelling The Penalty Imposed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80I

Tribunal quashed the penalty proceedings under section 271AAB of the Act by holding the format for issuing show-cause notice for penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be used for initiating penalty proceedings under section 271AAB of the Act since the provisions of each are mutually ... exclusive. In 12 I.T.A. No.2253/Chny/24 the present case, as discussed above, the Assessing Officer made charges under section 270A and levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, therefore, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is justified in quashing the penalty proceedings by holding that the charge

Roopanand Ramachandran, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Chennai

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

ITA 2180/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2180/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Roopanand Ramachandran, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 307, Lloyds Road, Non Corporate Ward 12(2), Royapettah, Chennai 600 014. Greams Road Chennai 600 006. [Pan:Aaipr3151P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Dhanasekaran, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C. Murugresan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.06.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Challenging Exparte Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Against Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri V. Dhanasekaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C. Murugresan, Addl. CIT

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2011-12 challenging exparte order of the ld. CIT(A) against levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. 2. At the outset, the ld. AR Shri V. Dhanasekaran, Advocate submits that ... remanded to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to consider both quantum addition as well as penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The ld. DR Shri C. Murugesan, Addl. CIT vehemently opposed the same and submitted that the assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings are separate

Dakshinamoorthy Kumaresan, Thiruvarur vs. Income Tax Officer, Thiruvarur

ITA 2452/CHNY/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2024AY 2016-2017

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

impugned order of the Tribunal deleted the penalty imposed upon the Respondent- Assessee. This by holding that the initiation of penalty under Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act by Assessing Officer was for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income while the order imposing penalty is for concealment of income

Pumpkin Pictures Private Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -2, Thane

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4197/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Bhosle, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Krishnakumar, Sr. AR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Income Tax Act, 1961 while passing the Impugned Penalty Order. 2. The Ld. Assessing Officer had erred in levying the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the reasons stated in the Impugned Order, without giving reasonable opportunity to the Appellant Company. The Impugned ... Assessing Officer had erred in not considering the fact that it is a settled law that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax cannot be levied on addition made on estimated basis as for levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the act, Assessing Officer

Snigdha Saluja, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-30(1), Delhi

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 3820/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Ms. Kriti Bindal, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. DR

Section 10BSection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

claimed deduction which according to the AO was 5 not admissible to the assessee would not make a case for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petro Products P Ltd. (supra) has held that mere

Purushottam Narayanrao Jadhao, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 3(4), Nagpur

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

ITA 283/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Nagpur12 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

business income, as per the audited financial statements. 4. Whether on the facts and in law, the learned AO erred in levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Rs.15,48,196/-. 5. The Assessee craves to add, alter, vary, omit, amend, or delete one or more of the above

Zaheer Ahamed, Chamarajanagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chamarajanagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2021/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Tharun Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Shri V Parithivel, JCIT (DR)

Section 144Section 251Section 271(1)(c)

case.” 6. Based on the above, we conclude that since the quantum addition, which was the basis for levying the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, has already been set aside for re- examination by the AO, the penalty order that was passed

Shantilal R. Patel, Panchmahal vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Lunawada

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

ITA 1576/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1573, 1574, 1575 & 1576/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2012-2013, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Shantilal R Patel, Income Tax Officer, 1, Shriji Park, बनाम Ward-1, Vs. Lunawada Vardhari Road, Lunawada. Lunawada, Panchmahal-389230. Pan: Akbpp6276G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ( ""यथ" /Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mk Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri N J Vyas, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri MK Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri N J Vyas, Sr.DR

Section 234Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69A

unexplained sources. 2.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC erred in law and on facts has confirmed the initiation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the alleged concealment and/or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 3.0 The learned Commissioner

Shantilal R. Patel, Panchmahal vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Lunawada

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

ITA 1575/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri MK Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri N J Vyas, Sr.DR

Section 234Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69A

Shantilal R. Patel, Panchmahal vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Lunawada

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

ITA 1574/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri MK Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri N J Vyas, Sr.DR

Section 234Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69A