← 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)

ACIT-3(4), Mumbai vs. Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2898/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Reliance Industries Ltd., Dy. Cit Circle 3(4), 3Rd Floor, Maker Chamber Iv 222 Room No. 559, Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, Vs. Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr 5055 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2016-17 Acit-3(4), Reliance Industries Ltd., Room No. 481(2), 4Th Floor, 3Rd Floor, Maker Chamber Iv Aayakar Bhavan, N.M. Road, Vs. Nariman Point, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr 5055 K Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Madhur Agrawal
Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 32A

Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. [2010] 189 Taxman 322 (SC), the Assessing Officer disallowed said expenditure under section 14A and simultaneously levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) on account of concealment of income/furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that merely because assessee ... claimed expenditure, which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to revenue, that by itself would not attract penalty under section 271(1)(c). In this case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "... A glance of provision of section 271(1)(c) would suggest that

Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -Circle 3(4), Mumbai

ITA 2767/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Ms. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 32A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH "D" MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA

Paras Poonamchand Gandhi, Mumbai vs. I.T.O., Ward-29(2)(5)

ITA 2482/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Smt. Radha Halbe DeodharFor Respondent: Shri H. M. Bhatt
Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

incorrect claim of the Assessee would have been accepted leading to a substantial loss of revenue. Clearly, in the present case, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was not levied on account of rejection of incorrect claim made by the Appellant. Thus, the order confirming

Palladam Krishnasamy Ganeshwar, Tirupur vs. DCIT, CC-3, Coimbatore

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 1221/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1221/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Palladam Krishnasamy Ganeshwar Dcit बनाम/ 21, Shri Ganesa Textiles, Pollachi Road, Central Circle-3 Vs. Palladam, Tirupur-641 664. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adfpg-6476-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-09-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19-11-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 132Section 132ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 271(1)(c)

arises to refer to the previous return filed u/s 139 of the Act. For all purposes, including for the purpose of levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the return that has to be looked at is the one filed under Section 153A. In fact, the second ... seen with reference to the return that it is filed by the assessee. Thus, for the purpose of levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c), what has to be seen is whether there is any concealment in the return filed by the assessee under Section 153A

Mr. Madan Mohan Mishra, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 10(3)(3), Mumbai

ITA 4175/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 15Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

appeal are as under:- Page |2 ITA No. 4175/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2009-10 Madan Mohan Mishra 1) That the order dated 29.12.2017 leving penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, passed by the assessing officer is against the law and facts on the file ... fact and circumstances of the case and the prevailing legal position on the issue. 2) That the order dated 29.12.2017 levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, passed by the Ld. assessing officer is against the law and facts on the file

Nageshwara Charitable Trust, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Exemption, Nagpur

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

ITA 129/NAG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Vikash Agrawal
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 271(1)(c)

above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.” 11. The issue arose in this appeal relates to levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 12. During the quantum proceedings, the learned CIT(A) did not condone the delay in filing the appeal ... hereby set aside to the file of the learned CIT(A) to re–adjudicate the issue of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and pass order on merit in accordance with law. Thus, all the grounds raised by the assessee trust are allowed for statistical

Nageshwara Charitable Trust, Nagpur vs. ITO WD 3, Exemp, Nagpur

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

ITA 128/NAG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Vikash Agrawal
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 271(1)(c)

above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.” 11. The issue arose in this appeal relates to levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 12. During the quantum proceedings, the learned CIT(A) did not condone the delay in filing the appeal ... hereby set aside to the file of the learned CIT(A) to re–adjudicate the issue of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and pass order on merit in accordance with law. Thus, all the grounds raised by the assessee trust are allowed for statistical

ACIT-2(1)(1), Kanpur vs. Up State Yarn Company Limited, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 469/LKW/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Nov 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraacit-2(1)(1) Up State Yarn Company V. 15/295-A, Civil Lines, Kanpur, Limited Uttar Pradesh-208001. 1 Smith Square, 14/72, Civil Lines, Uttar Pradesh- 208001. Pan:Aaacu1674K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 11 11 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 11 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 254Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

terms: “concealment of income" and “furnishing inaccurate particulars" The Court went on to hold therein that in order to attract a penalty under section 271(1)(c) mens rea was necessary, as according to the Court, the word “inaccurate” signified a deliberate act or omission on behalf of the assessee ... ultimate inference in Dilip N. Shroff's case (supra) to the effect that mens rea was an essential ingredient for the penalty under section 271(1)(c) that the decision in Dilip N. Shroff's case (Supra) was overruled. 9. We are not concerned in the present case with

India Tube Mills and Metal Industries Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-15(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 2262/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Surinder Mehra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar (SRDR)
Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)

Rs.74,23,092/-. Finally, the tax on the concealed income was calculated amount to Rs.22,93,736/- by the ld.AO. The penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated and a penalty of Rs.22,93,736/- was levied on the assessee being 100% of the tax sought

Gujarat Insecticides Limited, Bharuch vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1) (Previously the ACIT, Circle-2, Bharuch), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 675/AHD/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.675/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2007-08 Gujarat Insecticides Ltd. The Dy.Cit बनाम/ Plot No.805-806 Circle-2(1)(1) V/S. Gidc Estate, Ankleshwar Vadodara-390 007 Bharuch,Ankleshwar – 393 002 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaacg 8436 D अपीलाथ&/ (Appellant) '( यथ&/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjay R. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/11/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars. Gujarat Insecticides Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst. Year : 2007-08 4. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, primarily on the grounds that the quantum disallowance had been upheld by the co-ordinate bench, establishing that ... DCIT Asst. Year : 2007-08 5 7. The AR placed reliance on following judicial precedents where collectively it was held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act should not be levied on issues where a substantial question of law has been admitted by a High Court

Shreenath Corporation, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(2) Old Ward-2(2)(5), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1651/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2014-15 Shreenath Corporation Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(1)(2) C/O. Ms Chhajed & Co., Ca Ahmedabad. “Kamal Shanti”, Nr. Sardar Patel Statute Ahmedabad 380 014. Pan : Acffs 4232 D Assessee By : Shri M.S. Chhajed, Ar : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/11/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/11/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Guptathis Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 6.8.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act" For Short) ,Dismissing Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer (Ao) Levying Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act ,As Non-Maintainable.

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Chhajed, AR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) ,dismissing assessee’s appeal against the order of the Assessing Officer (AO) levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act ,as non-maintainable. 3. The ld.CIT(A), we find has dismissed the assessee’s appeal as non-maintainable

Amitabha Sanyal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-58(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the penalty levied is hereby deleted

ITA 359/KOL/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Nov 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2011-12 Amitabha Sanyal, Income Tax Officer, 108B, Block-F, New Alipore, Ward – 58(4), Kolkata, Kolkata – 700053 Vs Aayakar Bhawan, (Pan: Aleps2352J) Bamboo Villa, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata - 700014 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Amitabha Sanyal, AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, CIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 250Section 254(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

upheld. Further reliance is placed on the case laws given below: CIT V. HANDLOOM EMPORIUM [2006] 282 ITR 431(ALL.) Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is applicable even when concealment of income is admitted by filing a revised return after detection of concealment. M. S. MOHAMMED MARZOOK (LATE

Ayyappankavu Chandrasekharan Vijayalakshmi, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-14(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2136/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2136/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ayyappankavu Chandrasekharan Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Vijayalakshmi, 4, Thiruvengadam Income Tax, Street, West Mambalam, Corporate Circle 14(1), Chennai 600 033. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aadpv3516D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Kumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.05.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. We Find That This Appeal Was Filed With A Delay Of 22 Days. On Perusal Of The Petition Filed In Support Of Notarized Affidavit, Submissions Of The Ld. Ar & Ld. Dr, We Find The Reasons Explained By The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri R. Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)

appeal in time. Thus, the delay of 22 days is condoned. 3. At the outset, we note that the Assessing Officer imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] for concealment of particulars of income. On perusal of the penalty order

Parexel International Services India Pvt.Ltd, Chandigarh vs. ACIT, Circle-5(1), (Neac), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 129/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, CAFor Respondent: Shri Reuben Mathew Jacob, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(C)

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO erred in imposing penalty under Section 271(1)(C) of the Act. The Appellant prays that appropriate relief be granted. The above grounds are without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave

Vadodara Enviro Channel Ltd., (Formerly Known As Effluent Channel Project Ltd.), Vadodara vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(2), Vadodara

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

ITA 2094/AHD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

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

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

against separate appellate orders dated 19.06.2015 and 16.06.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Ahmedabad confirming the levy of Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income I.T.A Nos. 2387/Ahd/15 & 2094/Ahd/17 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 2 Vadodara Enviro Channel Ltd. vs. ACIT

Vadodara Enviro Channel Ltd. (Formerly Known As Effluent Channel Project Ltd.), Baroda vs. The ACIT., Circle-1(2), Baroda

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

ITA 2387/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

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

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

against separate appellate orders dated 19.06.2015 and 16.06.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Ahmedabad confirming the levy of Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income I.T.A Nos. 2387/Ahd/15 & 2094/Ahd/17 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 2 Vadodara Enviro Channel Ltd. vs. ACIT

Shantiji Piraji Suthar, Banaskantha vs. The ITO, Ward-4, Palanpur

ITA 789/AHD/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.787/Ahd/2024, 788/Ahd/2024 & 789/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shantiji Piraji Suthar The Ito बनाम/ Sherpura, Ward-4 V/S. Tal.Deesa Palanpur – 385 001 Banaskantha – 385 535 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Bwops 8650 P अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) ….. Assessee By : Shri Anil Brahmakshatriya, Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Anil Brahmakshatriya, ARFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr.DR
Section 10(1)Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 68

unjustified, and the case merits fresh consideration based on these facts. 6.2. The assessee has also raised grounds against the imposition of penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Act (concealment of income) and section 271F of the Act (failure to file a return). Since these penalties were levied ... assessment order, they are dependent on the outcome of the main issue regarding the cash deposits added under section 68. The penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been levied for concealment of income, which is directly linked to the addition made under section 68 as unexplained

Shantiji Piraji Suthar, Banaskantha vs. The ITO, Ward-4, Palanpur

ITA 788/AHD/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.787/Ahd/2024, 788/Ahd/2024 & 789/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shantiji Piraji Suthar The Ito बनाम/ Sherpura, Ward-4 V/S. Tal.Deesa Palanpur – 385 001 Banaskantha – 385 535 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Bwops 8650 P अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) ….. Assessee By : Shri Anil Brahmakshatriya, Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Anil Brahmakshatriya, ARFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr.DR
Section 10(1)Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 68

unjustified, and the case merits fresh consideration based on these facts. 6.2. The assessee has also raised grounds against the imposition of penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Act (concealment of income) and section 271F of the Act (failure to file a return). Since these penalties were levied ... assessment order, they are dependent on the outcome of the main issue regarding the cash deposits added under section 68. The penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been levied for concealment of income, which is directly linked to the addition made under section 68 as unexplained

Shantiji Piraji Suthar, Banaskantha vs. The ITO, Ward-4, Palanpur

ITA 787/AHD/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.787/Ahd/2024, 788/Ahd/2024 & 789/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shantiji Piraji Suthar The Ito बनाम/ Sherpura, Ward-4 V/S. Tal.Deesa Palanpur – 385 001 Banaskantha – 385 535 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Bwops 8650 P अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) ….. Assessee By : Shri Anil Brahmakshatriya, Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Anil Brahmakshatriya, ARFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr.DR
Section 10(1)Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 68

unjustified, and the case merits fresh consideration based on these facts. 6.2. The assessee has also raised grounds against the imposition of penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Act (concealment of income) and section 271F of the Act (failure to file a return). Since these penalties were levied ... assessment order, they are dependent on the outcome of the main issue regarding the cash deposits added under section 68. The penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been levied for concealment of income, which is directly linked to the addition made under section 68 as unexplained

Dharmendra Shantilal Patel, HUF, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 660/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

such penalty is requested to be deleted.” 8. This appeal filed by the assessee relates to upholding the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by Ld. CIT(A), in connection with additions made by the Assessing Officer in quantum appeal in ITA No. 590/Ahd/2023. Since ... considered view that Ld. CIT(A) has not erred in facts and law in upholding the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 10. In the combined result, both the appeals filed by the assessee