← All Phrases

“penalty u/s 271(1)(c)”

PenaltySection 271(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)2,277 judgments

BABUBHAI GANGABHAI BAGUL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1, NAVSARI

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

ITA 1352/SRT/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

dated 11.11.2025 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11. 2. At the outset, itself Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed

PRAFULLA KUMAR BIDHARA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD 5(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, ITA No.763/CTK/2025 is partly allowed whereas ITA

ITA 764/CTK/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarita No.763&764/Ctk/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Sarangi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

stands deleted. Thus, this ground of the assessee is allowed. 12. ITA No.764/CTK/2025 – This appeal filed by the assessee against the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2011-12. It was submitted that out of the three additions made, the Tribunal has confirmed only an addition

PRAFULLA KUMAR BIDHARA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD 5(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, ITA No.763/CTK/2025 is partly allowed whereas ITA

ITA 763/CTK/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarita No.763&764/Ctk/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Sarangi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

stands deleted. Thus, this ground of the assessee is allowed. 12. ITA No.764/CTK/2025 – This appeal filed by the assessee against the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2011-12. It was submitted that out of the three additions made, the Tribunal has confirmed only an addition

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SHILLONG, SHILLONG vs. MEGHALAYA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, LUMJINGSHAI, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 308/GTY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2016-17
Section 139(4)Section 139(9)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 72Section 80Section 80I

under:-\n\n“The penalty order, the grounds of appeal and the submission have been perused.\nIt is seen that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been imposed for furnishing of inaccurate\nparticulars of two amounts (i) an amount of Rs 6,31,275/- In respect of disallowances\nmade

SHRI AJAY MAYOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1607/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

clearly demonstrates that the taxability of the said amount involves a debatable issue and therefore there is no question of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. In response, Ld. DR placed reliance on the observations made by CIT(Appeals) in the appellate order

DAWAT E ISLAMI AP,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD 1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1575/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1575/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dawat E Islami Ap, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Exemption Ward-1(1), Pan: Aabtd5383Q Hyderabad. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) करदाताका""त"न"ध"व/ : Shri Ankit Chokshi, Ca (Hybrid Mode) Assessee Represented By राज"वका""त"न"ध"व/ : Shri Mathivanan S A, Sr. Ar Department Represented By सुनवाईसमा"तहोनेक""त"थ/ : 05/03/2026 Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख/ : 11/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Dawat E Islami Ap, (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 25/07/2025 For The A.Y.2015-16. Dawat E Islami Ap Vs. Ito

Section 12ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275

Therefore, the claim is genuine and no concealment of income/particulars. Therefore, penalty levied may be deleted. 5. Ld. AO erred in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the same as the appellant has neither concealed the particulars of income

SUMANTO PAUL,DELHI vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER , INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

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

ITA 8755/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year: 2016-17 Sumanto Paul, Vs The Assessing Officer, 139, Kohat Enclave, Assessment Unit, Pitampur, Income Tax Department, Delhi – 110 034. New Delhi. Pan: Aajpp4082C

For Appellant: Ms Shruti Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Nitin Kumar Jaiman, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

finalized the penalty by passing orders as follows:- 1. Total amount of addition on which Rs.26,59,125/- penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is leviable 2. Tax on addition with surcharge Rs.16,43,340/- 3. Minimum penalty u/s 271(1)(c) @ 100% Rs.16,43,340/- of tax sought ... evaded 4. Maximum Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) @ 300% Rs.49,30,018/- of tax sought to be evaded 5. Penalty levied to be livable Rs.16,43,340/- 3. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee as barred by limitation since the assessee failed to justify

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), DEHRADUN, SUBHASH ROAD DEHRADUN vs. STATE INFRASTRUCTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF UTTARAKHAND LTD. , I.T. PARK, SAHASTRADHARA ROAD, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 233/DDN/2025[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Dehradun10 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Dcit Vs State Infrastructure & Circle-1(1) Industrial Development Dehradun Corporation Of Uttarakhand- Uttarakhand Ltd., 29 Iie, Sahastradhara Road (It Park) Road, Haripuram, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Pan-Aahcs7324R Revenue Assessee Revenue By Shri Pramod Verma, Cit Dr Assessee By Shri Sahil Kala, Ca Date Of Hearing 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Revenue Against The Order Dated 22.09.2025 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 19.12.2016 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Heard Both The Parties At Length. The Claim Of The Assessee Was That It Had Suo-Motto Withdrew The Inadvertent Amount Of Deduction Claimed U/S 80Ia Of The Act However, The Ao Has Levied The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act By Ao Which Was Confirmed By Ld. Cit(A). 3. Ld. Cit (A) By Observing That Under Identical Circumstances, Penalty Levied For Ay 2011-12 Was Deleted By His Predecessor. Since The Ld. Cit(A) Has Followed The Order For Ay 2011-12 Wherein Penalty Levied Under Identical Circumstances, Was Deleted Which Facts Has Not Been Controverted By The Revenue. The Relevant Observation Of Ld. Cit(A) While Deleting The Penalty Are Reproduced As Under:-

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40ASection 801ASection 80I

motto withdrew the inadvertent amount of deduction claimed u/s 80IA of the Act however, the AO has levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by AO which was confirmed by Ld. CIT(A). 3. Ld. CIT (A) by observing that under identical circumstances, penalty levied ... confirm the addition made by AO in assessment order and partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 6.2 AO levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income on part of the assessee for a sum of Rs.5,76,34,588/- (Rs. 5,74,49,588/-excess claimed u/s

SUNIL SURESH RANE,DOMBIVLI vs. ITO WARD 42(3)(4), MUMBAI

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

ITA 7729/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarsunil Suresh Rane Vs. Ito Ward 42(3)(4) 301 Amrita, Apts, Rajaji Kautilya Bhawan C41- Path Lane 43, Avenue 3, Near No.4 Dombivli Videsh Bhavan, G Block Mumbai - 421201 Bkc, Gilban Area, Bkc, Bandra East Mumbai - 400051 Pan/Gir No. Abtpr2589P (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Aakash Parekh (Virtually Present) Revenue By Shri Brajendra Kumar (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 29.09.2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2016-17. The Following Grounds Are Reproduced Below: “1. Ground No. 1: Gross Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251

circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to any other ground, the Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c). 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Act. 12. Ground No. 12: Prejudicial and Unwarranted Observations/Directions On the facts and in the circumstances

ACHALA PUNJA,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2630/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2014-15
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 194Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

claim u/s 54.\n3. The appellant submits that there has been no concealment of any income or\nfurnishing of inaccurate particulars warranting penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Mere\nmaking of a claim, even if it is found not sustainable in law, by itself, will not\namount to furnishing inaccurate particulars ... rely on the following decisions that squarely\nsupport her case that mere disallowance of a claim genuinely made does\nnot attract penalty u/s 271(1)(c).\n•\nCIT v. Harshavardhan Chemicals & Minerals Ltd. (259 ITR 212,\nRajasthan HC)\n•\nCIT v. SSP (India

BASANT LAL GUPTA,SIDHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 , REWA

In the result, ITA. No. 129/JAB/2024 & ITA

ITA 132/JAB/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur06 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 147Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)

agreement, all the grounds raised in the appeal are treated as disposed of in accordance with the above directions. Regarding imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act; the dispute pertains to ITA. No.132/JAB/2024 for A.Y. 2010-11 u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act. Representatives of both ... this order. Accordingly, the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) in ITA. No.132/JAB/2024 is set aside and matter regarding levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act is restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer; with the direction to decide this issue in accordance with

BASANT LAL GUPTA,SIDHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 , REWA

In the result, ITA. No. 129/JAB/2024 & ITA

ITA 131/JAB/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur06 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 147Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)

agreement, all the grounds raised in the appeal are treated as disposed of in accordance with the above directions. Regarding imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act; the dispute pertains to ITA. No.132/JAB/2024 for A.Y. 2010-11 u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act. Representatives of both ... this order. Accordingly, the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) in ITA. No.132/JAB/2024 is set aside and matter regarding levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act is restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer; with the direction to decide this issue in accordance with

BASANT LAL GUPTA,SIDHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 , REWA

In the result, ITA. No. 129/JAB/2024 & ITA

ITA 130/JAB/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur06 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 147Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)

agreement, all the grounds raised in the appeal are treated as disposed of in accordance with the above directions. Regarding imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act; the dispute pertains to ITA. No.132/JAB/2024 for A.Y. 2010-11 u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act. Representatives of both ... this order. Accordingly, the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) in ITA. No.132/JAB/2024 is set aside and matter regarding levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act is restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer; with the direction to decide this issue in accordance with

BASANT LAL GUPTA,SIDHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, , REWA

In the result, ITA. No. 129/JAB/2024 & ITA

ITA 129/JAB/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur06 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 147Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)

agreement, all the grounds raised in the appeal are treated as disposed of in accordance with the above directions. Regarding imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act; the dispute pertains to ITA. No.132/JAB/2024 for A.Y. 2010-11 u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act. Representatives of both ... this order. Accordingly, the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) in ITA. No.132/JAB/2024 is set aside and matter regarding levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act is restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer; with the direction to decide this issue in accordance with

PUNEET KATIYAR,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(3)(5), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1007/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)

short). Vide the impugned appellate order dated 30.07.2025, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal against the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act. (C.1) At the time of hearing before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had also filed ... Departmental Representative for Revenue, were in agreement that the issue in dispute in the present appeal regarding levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act should be restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A), with the direction to pass de novo order, if required

JAIKISHIN OMPRAKASH PAHUJA,GHATKOPAR, MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 2(2), KALYAN, KALYAN, MUMBAI

ITA 8893/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2016-17
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69

circumstances of the case and in law, the\nAO erred in charging interest u/s 234A, B, C and D and\ninitiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b) and 271F.\n7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the\nlearned Commissioner of Income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2 1 1 , VADODARA, VADODARA vs. UNIMED TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, PANCHMAHAL

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

ITA 279/AHD/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 43A

show-cause notice dated 27.03.2025 and initiated penalty proceedings. The assessee filed a reply on 28.03.2025. However, the Ld AO levied penalty u/s. 271[1][c] of Rs.1,61,42,867/- vide order dated 29.03.20 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 4. Aggrieved against the Penalty order, assessee company filed ... residual additions sustained in the quantum proceedings involve interpretative and debatable issues with full disclosure of facts by the appellant, no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is leviable on such additions. Accordingly, the penalty of Rs.1,61,42,867/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) is deleted. 5.7. In the light

SUN DIAM,SURAT vs. ITO 2(3)(6), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1112/SRT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

date of hearing. 2. 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the basis of invalid penalty notice in which the limb of levy of penalty under section ... mentioned. 3. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the d CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is time barred and thus the penalty order is itself bad in law and required to be quashed

SUN DIAM,SURAT vs. ITO 2(3)(6), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1111/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

date of hearing. 2. 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the basis of invalid penalty notice in which the limb of levy of penalty under section ... mentioned. 3. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the d CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is time barred and thus the penalty order is itself bad in law and required to be quashed

SUN DIAM,SURAT vs. ITO 2(3)(6), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1110/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

date of hearing. 2. 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the basis of invalid penalty notice in which the limb of levy of penalty under section ... mentioned. 3. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the d CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is time barred and thus the penalty order is itself bad in law and required to be quashed

Showing 1–20 of 2,277 · Page 1 of 114

...