← 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, New Delhi vs. Sh. Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

ITA 3368/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK

Swatipushp Dealers Pvt. Ltd.(Since Merged With Snowtemp Commercial Pvt. Ltd.), Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-11(2), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 258/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 258/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Swatipushp Dealers Pvt. Ltd.,……………………Appellant (Since Merged With Snowtemp Commercial Pvt. Ltd.) 101, 1St Floor, 18, Prince Anwar Shah Road, Kolkata-700033 [Pan:Aapcs5069P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………...…Respondent Ward-11(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Abhishak Bansal, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Loviesh Shelley, Jcit, D.R. Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 11, 2024 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

pursuance of this order, a fresh assessment order was passed on 12.09.2016. It appears that on the basis of this order, a penalty under section 271(1)(c) was imposed by the ld. Assessing Officer vide his order dated 14.06.2018. The ld. Assessing Officer has imposed a penalty of Rs.2

Sh. Jagmohan Singh, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, CC-1, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 421/CHANDI/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

again carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide his order dt. 16/02/2016 has confirmed the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. Against the said order, the assessee moved in appeal before the Tribunal whereby certain additional ground of appeal ... disposed off the additional ground of appeal and has confirmed the findings as per the earlier order for the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Against the said findings and the directions of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has again come in appeal before

Lyka Labs Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment years 2010-

ITA 1417/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh DadiaFor Respondent: Shri Mirza Azhar Beig
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

penalty levied is excessive.” 3. The solitary dispute raised by the assessee in all these appeals pertains to the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The brief facts of the case, as emanating from the record, are: The assessee is engaged in the business ... penalty order, the learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and upheld the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”), inter

Lyka Labs Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment years 2010-

ITA 1416/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh DadiaFor Respondent: Shri Mirza Azhar Beig
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

penalty levied is excessive.” 3. The solitary dispute raised by the assessee in all these appeals pertains to the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The brief facts of the case, as emanating from the record, are: The assessee is engaged in the business ... penalty order, the learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and upheld the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”), inter

Lyka Labs Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment years 2010-

ITA 1415/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh DadiaFor Respondent: Shri Mirza Azhar Beig
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

penalty levied is excessive.” 3. The solitary dispute raised by the assessee in all these appeals pertains to the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The brief facts of the case, as emanating from the record, are: The assessee is engaged in the business ... penalty order, the learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and upheld the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”), inter

DCIT Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai vs. Hemalatha Rajan, Chennai

In the result, all three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 493/CHNY/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.11/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Karuppusamy Pandiarajan, Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle 7, No. 61, Tas Enclave, C3, Golden Kings Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, 121, Court, 10Th Main Road, Santhi Colony, N.H. Road, Chennai 600 034. Anna Nagar West Extn., Chennai 40. [Pan: Aadpp4895M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.492 & 493/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Smt. Hemalatha Rajan, 3Rd Floor, Golden Kings Court, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai 600 034. No. 61, Tas Enclave, Santhi Colony, 10Th Main Road, Anna Nagar West Extn., Chennai 40. [Pan: Aatph2012G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: The Appeal In Ita No. 11/Chny/2020 Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.10.2019 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-8

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

assessment year 2009- 10 in the case of Smt. Hemalatha Rajan towards quantum addition as well as penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] respectively. 2. Since issues raised in both the quantum appeals are similar and based on same identical facts

DCIT Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai vs. Hemalatha Rajan, Chennai

In the result, all three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 492/CHNY/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.11/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Karuppusamy Pandiarajan, Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle 7, No. 61, Tas Enclave, C3, Golden Kings Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, 121, Court, 10Th Main Road, Santhi Colony, N.H. Road, Chennai 600 034. Anna Nagar West Extn., Chennai 40. [Pan: Aadpp4895M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.492 & 493/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Smt. Hemalatha Rajan, 3Rd Floor, Golden Kings Court, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai 600 034. No. 61, Tas Enclave, Santhi Colony, 10Th Main Road, Anna Nagar West Extn., Chennai 40. [Pan: Aatph2012G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: The Appeal In Ita No. 11/Chny/2020 Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.10.2019 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-8

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

assessment year 2009- 10 in the case of Smt. Hemalatha Rajan towards quantum addition as well as penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] respectively. 2. Since issues raised in both the quantum appeals are similar and based on same identical facts

ACIT Non Corporate Circle-7, Chennai vs. Karuppusamy Pandiarajan, Chennai

In the result, all three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 11/CHNY/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.11/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Karuppusamy Pandiarajan, Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle 7, No. 61, Tas Enclave, C3, Golden Kings Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, 121, Court, 10Th Main Road, Santhi Colony, N.H. Road, Chennai 600 034. Anna Nagar West Extn., Chennai 40. [Pan: Aadpp4895M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.492 & 493/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Smt. Hemalatha Rajan, 3Rd Floor, Golden Kings Court, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai 600 034. No. 61, Tas Enclave, Santhi Colony, 10Th Main Road, Anna Nagar West Extn., Chennai 40. [Pan: Aatph2012G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: The Appeal In Ita No. 11/Chny/2020 Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.10.2019 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-8

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

assessment year 2009- 10 in the case of Smt. Hemalatha Rajan towards quantum addition as well as penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] respectively. 2. Since issues raised in both the quantum appeals are similar and based on same identical facts

Gobind Chhangomal Sajnani, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 185/JPR/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jun 2024AY 2009-10
For Respondent: Sh. Vedant Agrawal (CA)
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Rahil Maheshkumar Nizamuddin, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Intl Taxation Circle 1(2), Blr, Bangalore

ITA 379/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan &For Respondent: Sri Guru Kumar S., D.R
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

were found to be incorrect or erroneous or false. Such not being the case, there would not be question of inviting the penalty under section 271[1][c] of the Act. A mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable, in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing ... arrive at a conclusion that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income willfully and come to a conclusion to levy penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. The whole issue should be looked in a broader way and a lenient view ought to have

Shital Pravin Jaikrishnia, Nashik vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Nashik

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 681/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.681/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shital Pravin Jaikrishnia, The Income Tax Officer, 37 38 39 40, Aditya Avenue, V Ward-1(3), Nashik. Tidke Colony, S Nashik – 422002. Pan: Adipj1793J Appellant/Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 31/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2015-16 Dated 20.02.2024 Emanating From The Penalty Order U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 13.05.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit(A)-Nfac Erred In Law In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Ita, 1961 To Rs 10,13,112 (Being 100% Of Tax Evaded) As Against The Penalty Of Rs. 20,64,224 (Being 200% Of Tax Evaded For Concealment Of Income). The Learned I-T Authorities Ought To Have Appreciated That There Is No Any Concealment Of Income.

Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

income or any other taxable income. Since there is no taxable capital gain, there is no concealment of income by assessee. Hence, penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income is unsustainable. 4 Accordingly, AO is directed to delete the penalty. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee is allowed

DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur, Ncrb vs. Barmer Lignite Mining Company Limited, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 71/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

were found to be incorrect or erroneous or false Such not being the case, there would be no question of inviting the penalty under section 271(1)(c). A mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law by itself will not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars ... view that Explanation 1 of 271(1) is not attracted in the case of the assessee for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act Accordingly, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer on these three disallowance is deleted. Thus Ground No. 3 is allowed.’’ 2.2 During

Amarshiv Construction Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 57/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd, 322 ITR 158 (SC) & Price Waterhouse Coopers (P) Ltd. vs. CIT, 348 ITR 306 (SC), the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act will not be attracted. 6. The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment Oder, Penalty Order and the order

Trend Micro India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-25(2), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 8751/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2013-14 Trend Micro India Private Limited, Vs Acit, 10Th Floor, Eros Corporate Tower, Circle-25(2), Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aacct2082Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate & Shri S.S. Tomar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2024

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in relation to computation of transfer pricing adjustment for the provisions of business support and research & development services, without appreciating ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO levying penalty under section 271(1 )(c) of the Act, without appreciating that there was only a mere difference of opinion regarding selection/ rejection of comparable companies for provisions

Purvi Vasantrai Mehta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed as being barred by limitation

ITA 4360/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: The Tribunal After A Delay Of 2420 Days. In The Application Seeking Condonation Of Delay It Has Been Stated As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Kiran MehtaFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

failed to make out case for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The fact that the Assessing Officer has levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of 3 the Act vide order, dated 30/03/2018, neither revives limitation nor does it constitute sufficient cause for condoning delay of 2420 days

Purvi Vasantrai Mehta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4359/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Him & Dismissing The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Kiran MehtaFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt
Section 271(1)(c)Section 54E

Accordingly, the order, dated 09/10/2023, passed by the CIT(A) as well as the Penalty Order, dated 30/03/2018, levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is set aside. Thus, penalty of INR 12,31,784/- levied by Assessing Officer (Assessment Year: 2012-13) under Section 271(1

Sunita Ashok Bhaiya, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circel-5, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 43/NAG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 May 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Ms./Shri Shri Alfiya RozieFor Respondent: Shri Mrunmay Ramteke
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

only issue involved in all the years under consideration is, whether or not the Assessing Officer was justified in levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Since all these appeals pertain to the same assessee involving common issues arising out of identical set of facts ... 1)(c) of the Act which was initiated separately by the Assessing Officer while concluding the assessment, the issue of imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was challenged by the assessee before the learned CIT(A). 9. The learned CIT(A) relying upon the decision

Sunita Ashok Bhaiya, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 42/NAG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 May 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Ms./Shri Shri Alfiya RozieFor Respondent: Shri Mrunmay Ramteke
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

only issue involved in all the years under consideration is, whether or not the Assessing Officer was justified in levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Since all these appeals pertain to the same assessee involving common issues arising out of identical set of facts ... 1)(c) of the Act which was initiated separately by the Assessing Officer while concluding the assessment, the issue of imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was challenged by the assessee before the learned CIT(A). 9. The learned CIT(A) relying upon the decision

Sunita Ashok Bhaiya, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 41/NAG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 May 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Ms./Shri Shri Alfiya RozieFor Respondent: Shri Mrunmay Ramteke
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

only issue involved in all the years under consideration is, whether or not the Assessing Officer was justified in levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Since all these appeals pertain to the same assessee involving common issues arising out of identical set of facts ... 1)(c) of the Act which was initiated separately by the Assessing Officer while concluding the assessment, the issue of imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was challenged by the assessee before the learned CIT(A). 9. The learned CIT(A) relying upon the decision