← 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)

Shri Mukeshbhai Kishorbhai Lakhani, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(3)(3), Surat

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 413/SRT/2023[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Surat15 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Mukeshbhai Kishorbhai Lakhani, I.T.O., 89, Aashirwad Row House, Near Ward-3(3)(3), Vs. Sarthana Jakat Naka, Surat. Varachha Road, Surat-395006 (Gujarat) Pan No. Abppl 9388 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

unexplained investment. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the addition was upheld. In the meantime, the Assessing Officer levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of Rs. 11.00 lacs in order dated 26/02/2018. The penalty levied by assessing officer was more than 100% of tax sought to be evaded ... credit entry in the bank account. Thus, ultimately the addition which was made by Assessing Officer which was the basis for levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was ultimately restricted to 5% by the Tribunal in ITA No. 20/Srt/2023 (supra). Thus, admittedly, the addition is sustained

Mr Bimal H. Kiri, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. Circle 19(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1335/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2023AY 2011-2012
For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal &For Respondent: Ms. R.M Brindha.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

assessment year 2011-12 made several additions and disallowances. 2. that the Assessing Officer by two separate orders, both dated 26.09.2014 levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) of the Act of Rs 11,27,000 and Rs 60,000, respectively 3. that I filed ... knowledge that the assessment is completed by order dated 27.03.2014 making several additions and disallowances. Further, the Assessing Officer has also levied penalty under sections 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) of the Act by orders dated 26.09.2014. (c) Officer. I have not received any of the aforesaid three

Raj Kishore Prasad, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3, Valsad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 146/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.146/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Hearing) Raj Kishore Prasad, Vs. The Ito, 201, 2Nd Floor, Devashish Complex, Ward-3, Nr. Regenta Central Antarim Hotel, Valsad Off Cg Road, Ahmedabad "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aitpp0535A (Assessee) (Respondent)

Section 10(5)Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

India (employer) in respect of the same LTC has been deleted by the Tribunal, therefore in the hands of the assessee, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act may also be deleted. 8. The Ld. Counsel also submitted that Assessing Officer vide assessment order para no.7.2 ... section 271(1) (c ) of the Act, in respect of Rs. 2,20,518/-, does not have any leg to stand, hence penalty under section 271(1) (c ) of the Act of Rs. 65,060/- should be deleted. ITA.146/SRT/2023/AY.2012-13 Raj Kishore Prasad 14. I note that for AY.2012-13

ACIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Int. Taxation, New Delhi vs. Raytheon Company, Gurgaon

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue for the

ITA 441/DEL/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1383 To 1392/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Yeasrs:2004-05 To 2006-07, 2008-09 To 2011-12 & 2014-15 To 2016-17 बनाम Dcit, Raytheon Company Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. 870, Winter Steet, Int. Taxation, Waltham-Ma 02451, Room No. 416, Foreign Usa, 4Th Floor, E-2 Block, Usa. Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadcr3511P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.441/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2007-08 बनाम Acit, Raytheon Company Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. C/O Srbc & Associates Int. Taxation, Llp, Golf View Corporate Room No. 416, Tower-B, Sector-42, 4Th Floor, E-2 Block, Sector Road, Gurgaon, Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, Haryana. J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadcr3511P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

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

under: - “5.1.1 I have perused the Penalty Order, Grounds of Appeal, and considered the submission of the Appellant. The AO levied Penalty under section 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The said Penalty under section 271(1) (c) of the Act is leviable upon satisfaction of either ... case of Engineering Analysis (supra). 5.2.7 Pursuant to the said Effect Order to the MAP Resolution reached, the AO levied Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act contending that the Appellant has Concealed the Particular of the Income. Further, the Appellant also submitted that the above issue

DCIT, Circle 3(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi vs. Raytheon Company, United State

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue for the

ITA 1392/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1383 To 1392/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Yeasrs:2004-05 To 2006-07, 2008-09 To 2011-12 & 2014-15 To 2016-17 बनाम Dcit, Raytheon Company Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. 870, Winter Steet, Int. Taxation, Waltham-Ma 02451, Room No. 416, Foreign Usa, 4Th Floor, E-2 Block, Usa. Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadcr3511P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.441/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2007-08 बनाम Acit, Raytheon Company Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. C/O Srbc & Associates Int. Taxation, Llp, Golf View Corporate Room No. 416, Tower-B, Sector-42, 4Th Floor, E-2 Block, Sector Road, Gurgaon, Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, Haryana. J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadcr3511P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

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

under: - “5.1.1 I have perused the Penalty Order, Grounds of Appeal, and considered the submission of the Appellant. The AO levied Penalty under section 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The said Penalty under section 271(1) (c) of the Act is leviable upon satisfaction of either ... case of Engineering Analysis (supra). 5.2.7 Pursuant to the said Effect Order to the MAP Resolution reached, the AO levied Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act contending that the Appellant has Concealed the Particular of the Income. Further, the Appellant also submitted that the above issue

DCIT, Circle 3(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi vs. Raytheon Company, United State

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue for the

ITA 1391/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1383 To 1392/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Yeasrs:2004-05 To 2006-07, 2008-09 To 2011-12 & 2014-15 To 2016-17 बनाम Dcit, Raytheon Company Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. 870, Winter Steet, Int. Taxation, Waltham-Ma 02451, Room No. 416, Foreign Usa, 4Th Floor, E-2 Block, Usa. Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadcr3511P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.441/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2007-08 बनाम Acit, Raytheon Company Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. C/O Srbc & Associates Int. Taxation, Llp, Golf View Corporate Room No. 416, Tower-B, Sector-42, 4Th Floor, E-2 Block, Sector Road, Gurgaon, Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, Haryana. J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadcr3511P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

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

under: - “5.1.1 I have perused the Penalty Order, Grounds of Appeal, and considered the submission of the Appellant. The AO levied Penalty under section 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The said Penalty under section 271(1) (c) of the Act is leviable upon satisfaction of either ... case of Engineering Analysis (supra). 5.2.7 Pursuant to the said Effect Order to the MAP Resolution reached, the AO levied Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act contending that the Appellant has Concealed the Particular of the Income. Further, the Appellant also submitted that the above issue

DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Int. Taxation, New Delhi vs. Raytheon Company, United States

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue for the

ITA 1390/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1383 To 1392/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Yeasrs:2004-05 To 2006-07, 2008-09 To 2011-12 & 2014-15 To 2016-17 बनाम Dcit, Raytheon Company Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. 870, Winter Steet, Int. Taxation, Waltham-Ma 02451, Room No. 416, Foreign Usa, 4Th Floor, E-2 Block, Usa. Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadcr3511P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.441/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2007-08 बनाम Acit, Raytheon Company Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. C/O Srbc & Associates Int. Taxation, Llp, Golf View Corporate Room No. 416, Tower-B, Sector-42, 4Th Floor, E-2 Block, Sector Road, Gurgaon, Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, Haryana. J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadcr3511P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

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

under: - “5.1.1 I have perused the Penalty Order, Grounds of Appeal, and considered the submission of the Appellant. The AO levied Penalty under section 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The said Penalty under section 271(1) (c) of the Act is leviable upon satisfaction of either ... case of Engineering Analysis (supra). 5.2.7 Pursuant to the said Effect Order to the MAP Resolution reached, the AO levied Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act contending that the Appellant has Concealed the Particular of the Income. Further, the Appellant also submitted that the above issue

DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Int. Taxation, New Delhi vs. Raytheon Company, United States

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue for the

ITA 1389/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1383 To 1392/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Yeasrs:2004-05 To 2006-07, 2008-09 To 2011-12 & 2014-15 To 2016-17 बनाम Dcit, Raytheon Company Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. 870, Winter Steet, Int. Taxation, Waltham-Ma 02451, Room No. 416, Foreign Usa, 4Th Floor, E-2 Block, Usa. Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadcr3511P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.441/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2007-08 बनाम Acit, Raytheon Company Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. C/O Srbc & Associates Int. Taxation, Llp, Golf View Corporate Room No. 416, Tower-B, Sector-42, 4Th Floor, E-2 Block, Sector Road, Gurgaon, Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, Haryana. J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadcr3511P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

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

under: - “5.1.1 I have perused the Penalty Order, Grounds of Appeal, and considered the submission of the Appellant. The AO levied Penalty under section 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The said Penalty under section 271(1) (c) of the Act is leviable upon satisfaction of either ... case of Engineering Analysis (supra). 5.2.7 Pursuant to the said Effect Order to the MAP Resolution reached, the AO levied Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act contending that the Appellant has Concealed the Particular of the Income. Further, the Appellant also submitted that the above issue

DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1) Int. Taxation, New Delhi vs. Raytheon Company, United States

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue for the

ITA 1388/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1383 To 1392/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Yeasrs:2004-05 To 2006-07, 2008-09 To 2011-12 & 2014-15 To 2016-17 बनाम Dcit, Raytheon Company Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. 870, Winter Steet, Int. Taxation, Waltham-Ma 02451, Room No. 416, Foreign Usa, 4Th Floor, E-2 Block, Usa. Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadcr3511P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.441/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2007-08 बनाम Acit, Raytheon Company Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. C/O Srbc & Associates Int. Taxation, Llp, Golf View Corporate Room No. 416, Tower-B, Sector-42, 4Th Floor, E-2 Block, Sector Road, Gurgaon, Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, Haryana. J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadcr3511P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

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

under: - “5.1.1 I have perused the Penalty Order, Grounds of Appeal, and considered the submission of the Appellant. The AO levied Penalty under section 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The said Penalty under section 271(1) (c) of the Act is leviable upon satisfaction of either ... case of Engineering Analysis (supra). 5.2.7 Pursuant to the said Effect Order to the MAP Resolution reached, the AO levied Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act contending that the Appellant has Concealed the Particular of the Income. Further, the Appellant also submitted that the above issue

DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Int. Taxation, New Delhi vs. Raytheon Company, United States

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue for the

ITA 1387/DEL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1383 To 1392/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Yeasrs:2004-05 To 2006-07, 2008-09 To 2011-12 & 2014-15 To 2016-17 बनाम Dcit, Raytheon Company Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. 870, Winter Steet, Int. Taxation, Waltham-Ma 02451, Room No. 416, Foreign Usa, 4Th Floor, E-2 Block, Usa. Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadcr3511P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.441/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2007-08 बनाम Acit, Raytheon Company Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. C/O Srbc & Associates Int. Taxation, Llp, Golf View Corporate Room No. 416, Tower-B, Sector-42, 4Th Floor, E-2 Block, Sector Road, Gurgaon, Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, Haryana. J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadcr3511P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

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

under: - “5.1.1 I have perused the Penalty Order, Grounds of Appeal, and considered the submission of the Appellant. The AO levied Penalty under section 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The said Penalty under section 271(1) (c) of the Act is leviable upon satisfaction of either ... case of Engineering Analysis (supra). 5.2.7 Pursuant to the said Effect Order to the MAP Resolution reached, the AO levied Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act contending that the Appellant has Concealed the Particular of the Income. Further, the Appellant also submitted that the above issue

DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1) Int. Taxation, New Delhi vs. Raytheon Company, United States

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue for the

ITA 1386/DEL/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1383 To 1392/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Yeasrs:2004-05 To 2006-07, 2008-09 To 2011-12 & 2014-15 To 2016-17 बनाम Dcit, Raytheon Company Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. 870, Winter Steet, Int. Taxation, Waltham-Ma 02451, Room No. 416, Foreign Usa, 4Th Floor, E-2 Block, Usa. Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadcr3511P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.441/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2007-08 बनाम Acit, Raytheon Company Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. C/O Srbc & Associates Int. Taxation, Llp, Golf View Corporate Room No. 416, Tower-B, Sector-42, 4Th Floor, E-2 Block, Sector Road, Gurgaon, Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, Haryana. J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadcr3511P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

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

under: - “5.1.1 I have perused the Penalty Order, Grounds of Appeal, and considered the submission of the Appellant. The AO levied Penalty under section 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The said Penalty under section 271(1) (c) of the Act is leviable upon satisfaction of either ... case of Engineering Analysis (supra). 5.2.7 Pursuant to the said Effect Order to the MAP Resolution reached, the AO levied Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act contending that the Appellant has Concealed the Particular of the Income. Further, the Appellant also submitted that the above issue

DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Int. Taxation, New Delhi vs. Raytheon Company, United States

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue for the

ITA 1385/DEL/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1383 To 1392/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Yeasrs:2004-05 To 2006-07, 2008-09 To 2011-12 & 2014-15 To 2016-17 बनाम Dcit, Raytheon Company Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. 870, Winter Steet, Int. Taxation, Waltham-Ma 02451, Room No. 416, Foreign Usa, 4Th Floor, E-2 Block, Usa. Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadcr3511P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.441/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2007-08 बनाम Acit, Raytheon Company Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. C/O Srbc & Associates Int. Taxation, Llp, Golf View Corporate Room No. 416, Tower-B, Sector-42, 4Th Floor, E-2 Block, Sector Road, Gurgaon, Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, Haryana. J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadcr3511P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

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

under: - “5.1.1 I have perused the Penalty Order, Grounds of Appeal, and considered the submission of the Appellant. The AO levied Penalty under section 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The said Penalty under section 271(1) (c) of the Act is leviable upon satisfaction of either ... case of Engineering Analysis (supra). 5.2.7 Pursuant to the said Effect Order to the MAP Resolution reached, the AO levied Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act contending that the Appellant has Concealed the Particular of the Income. Further, the Appellant also submitted that the above issue

DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Int.Taxation, New Delhi vs. Raytheon Company, United States

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue for the

ITA 1384/DEL/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1383 To 1392/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Yeasrs:2004-05 To 2006-07, 2008-09 To 2011-12 & 2014-15 To 2016-17 बनाम Dcit, Raytheon Company Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. 870, Winter Steet, Int. Taxation, Waltham-Ma 02451, Room No. 416, Foreign Usa, 4Th Floor, E-2 Block, Usa. Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadcr3511P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.441/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2007-08 बनाम Acit, Raytheon Company Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. C/O Srbc & Associates Int. Taxation, Llp, Golf View Corporate Room No. 416, Tower-B, Sector-42, 4Th Floor, E-2 Block, Sector Road, Gurgaon, Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, Haryana. J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadcr3511P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

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

under: - “5.1.1 I have perused the Penalty Order, Grounds of Appeal, and considered the submission of the Appellant. The AO levied Penalty under section 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The said Penalty under section 271(1) (c) of the Act is leviable upon satisfaction of either ... case of Engineering Analysis (supra). 5.2.7 Pursuant to the said Effect Order to the MAP Resolution reached, the AO levied Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act contending that the Appellant has Concealed the Particular of the Income. Further, the Appellant also submitted that the above issue

DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Int. Taxation, New Delhi vs. Raytheon Company, United States

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue for the

ITA 1383/DEL/2023[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1383 To 1392/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Yeasrs:2004-05 To 2006-07, 2008-09 To 2011-12 & 2014-15 To 2016-17 बनाम Dcit, Raytheon Company Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. 870, Winter Steet, Int. Taxation, Waltham-Ma 02451, Room No. 416, Foreign Usa, 4Th Floor, E-2 Block, Usa. Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadcr3511P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.441/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2007-08 बनाम Acit, Raytheon Company Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. C/O Srbc & Associates Int. Taxation, Llp, Golf View Corporate Room No. 416, Tower-B, Sector-42, 4Th Floor, E-2 Block, Sector Road, Gurgaon, Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, Haryana. J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadcr3511P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

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

under: - “5.1.1 I have perused the Penalty Order, Grounds of Appeal, and considered the submission of the Appellant. The AO levied Penalty under section 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The said Penalty under section 271(1) (c) of the Act is leviable upon satisfaction of either ... case of Engineering Analysis (supra). 5.2.7 Pursuant to the said Effect Order to the MAP Resolution reached, the AO levied Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act contending that the Appellant has Concealed the Particular of the Income. Further, the Appellant also submitted that the above issue

ACIT, Circle-13(1), New Delhi vs. Johnson Matthey India P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 735/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Anukrati Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT(DR)
Section 271(1)(c)

submitted that it is trite law that where the issue in the Quantum appeal is susceptible to interpretation and debate, then penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied on the taxpayer. This position in law is based on the principle that where High Court admits ... been submitted that since, the quantum appeal of the appellant has been admitted by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act should be deleted. 10.2 The appellant invited attention to the judgement of Hon'ble ITAT in the appellant's own case

ACIT, Circle 13(1), New Delhi vs. Johnson Matthey India P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 734/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Anukrati Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT(DR)
Section 271(1)(c)

submitted that it is trite law that where the issue in the Quantum appeal is susceptible to interpretation and debate, then penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied on the taxpayer. This position in law is based on the principle that where High Court admits ... been submitted that since, the quantum appeal of the appellant has been admitted by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act should be deleted. 10.2 The appellant invited attention to the judgement of Hon'ble ITAT in the appellant's own case

Aci, Circle 13(1), New Delhi vs. Johnson Matthey India P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 733/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Anukrati Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT(DR)
Section 271(1)(c)

submitted that it is trite law that where the issue in the Quantum appeal is susceptible to interpretation and debate, then penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied on the taxpayer. This position in law is based on the principle that where High Court admits ... been submitted that since, the quantum appeal of the appellant has been admitted by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act should be deleted. 10.2 The appellant invited attention to the judgement of Hon'ble ITAT in the appellant's own case

ACIT, Circle-13(1), New Delhi vs. Johnson Maththey India P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 732/DEL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Anukrati Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT(DR)
Section 271(1)(c)

submitted that it is trite law that where the issue in the Quantum appeal is susceptible to interpretation and debate, then penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied on the taxpayer. This position in law is based on the principle that where High Court admits ... been submitted that since, the quantum appeal of the appellant has been admitted by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act should be deleted. 10.2 The appellant invited attention to the judgement of Hon'ble ITAT in the appellant's own case

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Surat vs. M/S. K. G. Developers, Surat

In the result, this appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 433/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

upheld by the ld. CIT(A). On receipt of order of ld. CIT(A) in quantum assessment, the Assessing Officer levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 2.34 crores for A.Y. 2011-12. The Assessing Officer levied minimum penalty ... explanation of assessee was not accepted. The Assessing Officer thereby levied penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. Aggrieved by the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee again filed detailed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Surat vs. M/S. K. G. Developers, Surat

In the result, this appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 432/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

upheld by the ld. CIT(A). On receipt of order of ld. CIT(A) in quantum assessment, the Assessing Officer levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 2.34 crores for A.Y. 2011-12. The Assessing Officer levied minimum penalty ... explanation of assessee was not accepted. The Assessing Officer thereby levied penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. Aggrieved by the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee again filed detailed