← 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)

Pravinbhai Keshavbhai Patel, Surat vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 1(3), Surat

In the result, ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 301/SRT/2022[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Surat03 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Shri Pravinbhai Keshavbhai Patel, Addl.C.I.T.,Range-1(3), A/2, Golden Park Society, Surat Vs. Opp. Prime Arcade, Aanand Mahal Road, Adajan, Surat. Pan No. Adgpp 4549 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Smt. Pravinaben Pravinbhai Patel, Addl.C.I.T.,Range-1(3), A/2, Golden Park Society, Surat Vs. Opp. Prime Arcade, Aanand Mahal Road, Adajan, Surat. Pan No. Cdopp 3300 D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 69Section 69C

cash. 10. I find that the Assessing Officer though, at the time of passing the assessment order, initiated penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. However, there is no whisper in the assessment order regrading initiation or satisfaction about the initiation of penalty under Section 271D

Beni Prasad Lahoti, Howrah vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 306/KOL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 14ASection 153ASection 271(1)(c)

date of search, he shall be deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income for the purpose of imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Hon’ble Court, thereafter, propounded that sub-clause (1) and (2) Explanation 5 provides exceptions for deeming the concealment ... Beni Prasad Lahoti would he be deemed to have concealed the income for visiting him with penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act ? The ld.Revenue authorities had drawn inference that since the assessee has not disclosed additional income in the original returns, meaning thereby

Beni Prasad Lahoti, Howrah vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 302/KOL/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 14ASection 153ASection 271(1)(c)

date of search, he shall be deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income for the purpose of imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Hon’ble Court, thereafter, propounded that sub-clause (1) and (2) Explanation 5 provides exceptions for deeming the concealment ... Beni Prasad Lahoti would he be deemed to have concealed the income for visiting him with penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act ? The ld.Revenue authorities had drawn inference that since the assessee has not disclosed additional income in the original returns, meaning thereby

Babita Devi Kanoria, Raniganj vs. I.T.O., Ward-3(1), Asansol

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 54/KOL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 54/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-2011 Babita Devi Kajoria,..............................Appellant W/O. Unesh Kr. Kajoria, Jagannath Garden, Nsb Road, P.O. Raniganj-713347, Burdwan, West Bengal [Pan: Anfpk0759G] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,..............................Respondent Ward-3(1), Asansol, Income Tax Department, Parmar Building, 54, G.T. Road, Upper Chelidanga, P.O. Asansol-713305, Paschim Burdwan (Wb) Appearances By: Shri Aayush Gupta, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit (D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 15, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 22, 2022 O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz):- The Assessee Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Asansol Dated 18.11.2019 Passed For A.Y. 2010-11. 1 Assessment Year: 2010-2011 Babita Devi Kajoria, Raniganj 2. The Assessee Has Taken Three Grounds Of Appeal, But Her Grievances Revolve Around A Single Issue, Namely Ld. Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.3,09,766/-, Which Was Imposed By The Ld. Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C).

Section 133(6)Section 14Section 144Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

opinion about that in the present proceedings, but we can take cognizance of this fact for absolving the assessee from levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 8 Assessment Year: 2010-2011 Babita Devi Kajoria, Raniganj 13. In view of the above, the appeal

Beni Prasad Lahoti, Howrah vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are

ITA 305/KOL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

income assessed in the hands of the assessee is deemed to be a concealed income for the purpose of visiting him with penalty under section 271(1)(c) r.w.s Explanation-5A of the Act. 8. Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c) is reproduced as under:- “Explanation 5A.— Where ... section 153A, the assessee disclosed some additional income voluntarily, would he be deemed to have concealed the income for visiting him with penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act ? The moot question for attracting this explanation is that in the course of search, money, bullion, jewellery or income

Gayathri Devi Vyas, D.Srinivas Vyas Manohar Vyas Vijay Shri Legal Heirs of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2698/CHNY/2018[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)

failed to appreciate that there was neither concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and therefore no penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be levied. 3. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessing officer did not record any satisfaction that the assessee ... abeyance till the High Court’s decision is received. However, by considering entire facts of the case, the Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on 29.06.2012, levying a minimum penalty of ₹.1,13,78,280/- for the assessment year 2001-02. 7 I.T.A. No.2691

Gayathri Devi Vyas, D.Srinivas Vyas Manohar Vyas Vijay Shri Legal Heirs of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2697/CHNY/2018[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)

failed to appreciate that there was neither concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and therefore no penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be levied. 3. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessing officer did not record any satisfaction that the assessee ... abeyance till the High Court’s decision is received. However, by considering entire facts of the case, the Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on 29.06.2012, levying a minimum penalty of ₹.1,13,78,280/- for the assessment year 2001-02. 7 I.T.A. No.2691

Gayathri Devi Vyas, D.Srinivas Vyas Manohar Vyas Vijay Shri Legal Heirs of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2696/CHNY/2018[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)

failed to appreciate that there was neither concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and therefore no penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be levied. 3. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessing officer did not record any satisfaction that the assessee ... abeyance till the High Court’s decision is received. However, by considering entire facts of the case, the Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on 29.06.2012, levying a minimum penalty of ₹.1,13,78,280/- for the assessment year 2001-02. 7 I.T.A. No.2691

Gayathri Devi Vyas, D.Srinivas Vyas Manohar Vyas Vijay Shri Legal Heirs of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2695/CHNY/2018[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)

failed to appreciate that there was neither concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and therefore no penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be levied. 3. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessing officer did not record any satisfaction that the assessee ... abeyance till the High Court’s decision is received. However, by considering entire facts of the case, the Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on 29.06.2012, levying a minimum penalty of ₹.1,13,78,280/- for the assessment year 2001-02. 7 I.T.A. No.2691

Gayathri Devi Vyas, D.Srinivas Vyas Manohar Vyas Vijay Shri Legal Heirs of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2694/CHNY/2018[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)

failed to appreciate that there was neither concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and therefore no penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be levied. 3. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessing officer did not record any satisfaction that the assessee ... abeyance till the High Court’s decision is received. However, by considering entire facts of the case, the Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on 29.06.2012, levying a minimum penalty of ₹.1,13,78,280/- for the assessment year 2001-02. 7 I.T.A. No.2691

Gayathri Devi Vyas, D.Srinivas Vyas Manohar Vyas Vijay Shri Legal Heirs of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2693/CHNY/2018[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)

failed to appreciate that there was neither concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and therefore no penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be levied. 3. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessing officer did not record any satisfaction that the assessee ... abeyance till the High Court’s decision is received. However, by considering entire facts of the case, the Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on 29.06.2012, levying a minimum penalty of ₹.1,13,78,280/- for the assessment year 2001-02. 7 I.T.A. No.2691

D.Srinivas Vyas, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2692/CHNY/2018[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)

failed to appreciate that there was neither concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and therefore no penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be levied. 3. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessing officer did not record any satisfaction that the assessee ... abeyance till the High Court’s decision is received. However, by considering entire facts of the case, the Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on 29.06.2012, levying a minimum penalty of ₹.1,13,78,280/- for the assessment year 2001-02. 7 I.T.A. No.2691

D.Srinivas Vyas, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2691/CHNY/2018[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)

failed to appreciate that there was neither concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and therefore no penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be levied. 3. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessing officer did not record any satisfaction that the assessee ... abeyance till the High Court’s decision is received. However, by considering entire facts of the case, the Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on 29.06.2012, levying a minimum penalty of ₹.1,13,78,280/- for the assessment year 2001-02. 7 I.T.A. No.2691

Sudarshan Roshanlal Kharbanda, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-14(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1677/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 801CSection 801C(2)(a)Section 80I

levying interest u/s 234B & 234C of the Income Tax Act. 13. The Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in initiating penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 14. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete and/or modify the above grounds

Sd Svp Nagar Redevelopment P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT -3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 466/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikasw Awasthy () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

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

expenses like cost of construction and development and claimed deduction of same - Assessing Officer disallowed expenses claimed by assessee and, further, imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c) upon it - It was noted that expenditures disallowed during relevant assessment years were otherwise eligible and same were allowed in next assessment ... Assessing Officer and no addition was made by doubting and disturbing figures and amounts mentioned - Whether, on facts, impugned imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was to be set aside - Held, yes” We have also gone through the decision of ITAT, Mumbai Bench ‘B’ in the case

M/S Jawed Habib Hair & Beauty Studio Pvt. Lt D., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-10(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2111/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

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

assessee in its return are found to be incorrect or erroneous or false there is no question of inviting the penalty under section 271(1)(c). A mere making of a claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income

M/S. Kaypan Vanijya Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-6(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1723/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

before or during the course of hearing of the appeal.” 4. The only grievance of the assessee is against the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. M/s. Kaypan Vinijya Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.1723/Mum./2022 5. The brief facts of the case are: The assessee filed ... explanation as noted above, we are of the considered view that this is not a fit case for the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the grounds raised in the present appeal are allowed and the AO is directed to delete the penalty

Mr. Sanjay R. Tarukhia, Mumbai vs. The CIT (Appeals)-34, Mumbai

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

ITA 1930/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Om Prakash Kantआअसं. 1930/मुं/2020 ("न. व. 2009-10) Mr.Sanjay R. Turakhia, 403, Mohini Grace Wadar Chs Ltd., Veera Desai Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai 400 053. Pan: Aabpt-3280-C ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Cit(Appeals)-34, Room No.1603, 16Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai- 400 021. अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Mukesh Chokshi ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Smita Nair सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/11/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 10/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -34, Mumbai [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’ ] , Dated 28/01/2016 For The Assessment Year 2009-10, Vide Which Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’] Has Been Upheld.

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh ChokshiFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Nair
Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.34,66,384/- under section 69A of the Act. The penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been levied in respect of the aforesaid addition. Since, the quantum appeal has been restored to CIT(A), we deem it appropriate

M/S. Mahindra Homes Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/ACIT/ITO/NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Asst Year 2016-17 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2179/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Us That The Issues In Asst Year 2016-17 May Be Taken As The Lead Case & The Decision Rendered Thereon Would Apply With Equal Force For The Asst Year 2017-18 Also In View Of Identical Facts Except With Variance In Figures.

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

Erred in computing consequential interest of Rs.2,82,01,500 under section 234B of the Act; Initiation of Penalty under section 271(1)(c) 38. Erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. M/s. Mahindra Homes Pvt. Ltd., The Appellant craves leave to add, alter

Mahindra Homes P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Range-7(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Asst Year 2016-17 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1008/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Us That The Issues In Asst Year 2016-17 May Be Taken As The Lead Case & The Decision Rendered Thereon Would Apply With Equal Force For The Asst Year 2017-18 Also In View Of Identical Facts Except With Variance In Figures.

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

Erred in computing consequential interest of Rs.2,82,01,500 under section 234B of the Act; Initiation of Penalty under section 271(1)(c) 38. Erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. M/s. Mahindra Homes Pvt. Ltd., The Appellant craves leave to add, alter