“penalty u/s 271(1)(c)”

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

The decision most relied on for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal (9 SCC 589), cited in 200 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on penalty u/s 271(1)(c)

CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal

9 SCC 589 · 2009 · Supreme Court

200

citing judgments

The Supreme Court clarifies the scope of penalty under Section 271(1)(c), holding that for its applicability, conditions stated in the provision must strictly exist, and making an incorrect claim in law does not automatically amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

CIT v. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd.

221 ITR 110 · 1996 · High Court

146

citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act cannot be levied when an addition to income is based purely on an estimate, without concrete evidence proving concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.

Prasanna Dugar v. CIT

70 Taxmann.com 175 · 2016 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be levied even if the assessee voluntarily discloses income after detection by the department or subsequent to a search, especially when the explanation provided is not bona fide or cannot be substantiated.

Ganga Iron & Steel Trading Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax

135 Taxmann.com 244 · 2022 · High Court

citing judgments

A notice imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act is invalid if it shows non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer regarding the specific grounds for levying the penalty.

CIT v. Dhillon Rice Mills

256 ITR 447 · 2002 · High Court

citing judgments

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when additions to income are made on the basis of estimation, rather than on concrete evidence of concealment. Deletion of such a penalty is upheld.

ACIT v. Gebilal Kanhaialal HUF

348 ITR 561 · 2012 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Section 271AAA penalty deletion can be based on the Apex Court's decision in ACIT v. Gebilal Kanhaialal HUF (2012) 348 ITR 561, particularly when there was no specific question put to the assessee about the manner of earning undisclosed income.

CIT v. Norton Electronics Systems (P) Ltd.

41 Taxmann.com 280 · 2014 · High Court

citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not sustainable when the income addition is made on an estimated basis without clinching material suggesting concealment or inaccurate particulars.

New Holland Tractors (India) (P.) Ltd. v. CIT

49 Taxmann.com 573 · 2014 · High Court

citing judgments

The charge of concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income may overlap. A taxpayer's conduct can be considered bonafide even if their submissions were rejected in the quantum appeal.

Judgments citing penalty u/s 271(1)(c)

DCIT Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai vs. Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2704/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT

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

Assessing Officer. In this context and also considering the facts in totality, it is a fit case for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of Income. Also it is pertinent to note that penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is a civil liability ... case for levy of penalty w/s 271(1)(c), for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Also it is pertinent to note that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is a civil liability and it is a remedy for loss of Revenue, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court

DCIT Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai vs. Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2703/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT

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

Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2605/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT

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

Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2604/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT

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

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

affirmed by the Hon'ble CIT(A) is bad in law as the basic conditions for levy of penalty u/s 271(1) (c) are not satisfied. The appellant prays that penalty levied u/s 271(l)(c) may be deleted. 2. On the facts & circumstances of the case the Learned Assessing ... ignored the fact that the issue under consideration has two possible views & where there are more than one view applicable, then penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be invoked.” 2. Facts in brief are that return of income declaring loss at Rs.1,28,48,056/- was filed on 30/09/2015

M/S. Sumit Exports, Mumbai vs. The ACIT 19(3), Mumbai

ITA 645/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Sumit Export V. Acit – 19(3) Dw-5030, 5Th Floor Matru Mandir, Tardev Road D.Tower, Bharat Diamond Bourse Mumbai – 400 007 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E), Mumbai -400051 Pan: Aacfs3599Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Rahul Sarda Department Represented By : Shri Manoj Sinha

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(14)Section 2(47)

U/S 271 (1) (C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961: The Learned AO at the time of passing the assessment order levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Our client hereby request you to drop the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) based

Sri Satish C Kandkur, Yadgir vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Kalaburagi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 47/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, D.R

Section 133ASection 68Section 69

erred in holding that there is concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and further erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs.39,44,290/- 3. Any other ground or grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing ... Facts of the case are that the impugned appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Assessing Officer imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vide his Order dated 28.7.2016. Through the above said order the Assessing Officer has imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c

Sri.Satish C.Kandkur, Yadgir vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Gulbarga

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 46/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, D.R

Section 133ASection 68Section 69

Raju Tirathdas Ramchandani, Mum vs. Income Tax Officer-22(3)(1), Mum

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2252/MUM/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhraju Tirathdas Vs. Income Tax Officer - Ramchandani, 603, 22(3)(1), Piramal Premodyan Co-Op Chamber, Lal Baugh Housing Society, 12Th Parel, Road, Ram Krishna Maharashtra - 400012 Mission, Khar (W) Mumbai – 400 052 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aebpr3611P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shashi Bekal Respondent By : Mahita Nair Date Of Hearing 31.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Am: The Solitary Ground Of Appeal Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Nfac In Confirming The Levy Of Penalty Of Rs.4,49,922/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. 2. Fact In Brief Is That Assessment U/S 144 R.W.S 147 Of The Act Was Finalized On 04.03.2013. During The Course Assessment A.O Noticed That Assessee Has Made Total Investment Of Rs.14,00,000/- During The Year In All Templaton India Treasury Management Account Regular Plan – Weekly Dividend Plan Scheme. The A.O Stated That During The Course Of

For Appellant: Shashi BekalFor Respondent: Mahita Nair

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Rs.14,00,000/- as unexplained investment and added back to the total income of the assessee. The A.O has also initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Thereafter, vide penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated ... deleted. The ld. Counsel also contended that notice issued u/s 274 dated 04.03.2013 in the case of the assessee for levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is also defective because the A.O has not striked out the irrelevant portion. ITA No.2252/Mum/2022 A.Y. 2005-06 3 Raju Tirathdas

Gaurishankar Chaudhary, Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-4(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No

ITA 6112/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Harmesh Lal

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

under: “5.2 In the submissions made during appellate proceedings, the assessee has contended that the action of the AO of levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is incorrect primarily for the following reasons: i. The AO in the assessment order has initiated penalty for "furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income ... decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) gets vitiated. The assessee has further submitted that the decision of Karnataka High Court in ITA No.380 of 2015 in the case of SSA Emerald Meadows

Gaurishankar Chaudhary, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC-4(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No

ITA 6110/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Harmesh Lal

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Magnaram Choudhary, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 17(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7077/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7077/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11) Shri Magnaram Choudhary बिधम/ Ito-17(2)(3) Flat No. 304, Building No. Matru Mandir, Mumbai. Vs. B-2/D, Nav Maharashtra Nagar Co-Op Society, M. P. Mill Compound, Tardeo, Mumbai-400034. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ainpc0320L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee An Individual Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-28 Mumbai Dated 03.05.2017 For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Against The Penalty Confirmed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

reads as under: - “In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer erred in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) without mentioning in the notice u/s 271 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) whether the appellant furnished inaccurate particulars/concealed income which ... perusal of the aforesaid ground reveals that the assessee has assailed the action of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without taking into consideration the fact that the notice issued by the AO before imposition of the penalty did not specify

Kundanmal Keshrimalji Dhakad, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer WD-18(2) (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1691/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhkundanmal Keshrimalji Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Dhakad, Shop No.14, Ward 18(2)(2), Ladivala Chambers, Matru Mandir, Tardeo, Sheikh Memon Street, Mumbai – 400 007 Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai – 400 002 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aeepd9718G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Sridhar Govind Menon Date Of Hearing 20.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 26.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Nfac, Delhi, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O U/S 143(3) Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Hereinafter Referred To As "Nfac" Has Erred In Deciding The Appeal Of The Appellant Ex-Parte On 30 April, 2022 Ignoring The Fact That The Adjournment Request Of The Appellant Dated 25Th April, 2022 Requesting For Adjournment Till 10Th May, 2022 Was Already On Records & The Same Was Pending As On The Date Of Deciding The Appeal.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sridhar Govind Menon

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

income from other source and added the amount of Rs.90,95,589/- to the total income of the assessesse and also initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of concealment of income. Thereafter the A.O has levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c

Ruchi Acroni Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. - 7(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 824/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.824 /Mum/2018 (A.Y. 2012-13) Ruchi Acroni Industries Vs. Dcit,Cc-7(2) Ltd., 611, Tulsiani Room No. 655, 6 Th Floor, Chambers, Nariman Aaykar Bhavan, Point, Mumbai – 21 Mumbai 20 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacr6534R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Bhupendra Shah Respondent By : Ajay Chandra Date Of Hearing 12.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am):

For Appellant: Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Ajay Chandra

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

Assessment Order. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer erred in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and charging interest u/s 234A, B & C. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income

Mehul Jadavji Shah, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-7(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee regarding of partly allowed

ITA 1380/MUM/2021[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.191/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1380/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Mehul Jadavji Shah बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-7(2) 1301, 13Th Floor, Peninsula Room No. 655, 6Th Floor, Vs. Business Park, Tower-B Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Senapati Bapat Marg, Road, Mumbai-400020. Lower Parel (W), Mumbai- 400013. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajps1654H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sukhsagar Syal Revenue By: Shri P. R. Mane (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Shri P. R. Mane (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

specifying the fault/charge against which the assessee was being proceeded against which for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, the penalty issued in pursuance to the same is also bad in law. For that, we rely on the decisions of the Full bench ... paperbook) did not explicitly convey to the assessee for which fault/charge the assessee is being proceeded against for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Resultantly, the show cause notices are found to be defective/invalid, and therefore held to be bad in law as held in similar/identical

De Dietrich Process Systems India P. Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. Dy CIT - 19(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2021/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2021 & 2022/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Dcit-19(3)(1), Mumbai De Dietrich Process Systems Aayakar Bhavan, India Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Mumbai-400 020 R. No. 548/549, Road No. 16, Vs. Ttc Indl. Area, Midc Rabale, Navi Mumbai-400 701 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccd8576D (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sanjay R. Parikh, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Mahita Nair, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 13.07.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 10.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 24.12.2019, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-16, Mumbai In Relation To The Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) For Ay 2014-15 & 2015-16. 2

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Parikh, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Mahita Nair, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40Section 40aSection 43B

this consolidated order. 3. In various grounds of appeal, the assessee has mainly challenged levy and confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on various additions /disallowances made in the assessment order and the same are as under:- In AY 2014-15 i) Addition on account of provision of doubtful ... Addition towards loss of sale of fixed assets. 4. Besides this, assessee has also challenged the very initiation and levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the ground that AO has not specified the charge at the time of initiation penalty and the notice u/s 274. 5. Since most

Mehul Jadavji Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC- 7 (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee regarding of partly allowed

ITA 191/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Shri P. R. Mane (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

DCIT- 26(1), Mumbai vs. Hindusta Mortar Lining LLP, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2458/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyaldy.Cit-26(1), Room No. 623, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. ...... Appellant Vs. M/S Hindusta Mortar Lining Llp Gala No.35, Shree Jee Ind. Estate, Subhash Road, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai-400060. Pan: Aaffh4358D ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Respondent By : None Date Of Hearing : 14/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/09/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Nfac’] Dated 02.03.2021 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As [‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh, Sr. DRFor Respondent: None

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 268ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 662,21/-which was levied on the addition of Rs. 2,14,308/- being 12.5% of the total bogus purchase ... facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty u/s 271(1) (C) of Rs 662,21/- in spite of the penalty being levied on the amount of Rs. 2,14,308/- made on the basis of information

Levi Strauss (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, ground 10(c) is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 223/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Smt.Shreya Loyalka, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Bijoy Kumar Panda, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 288ASection 37Section 92C

general in nature and no specific adjudication is called for, hence, the same is dismissed. Ground 11 with reference to initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act is premature and we dismiss the same. The other surviving grounds, we shall adjudicate the same as under. Grounds

M/S Jaico Automobile Engineering Company Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-11(5), Bangalore

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

ITA 125/BANG/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Sept 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R

Section 271(1)(c)

penalty notice though issued by the Assessing Officer could not be responded to. The assessing officer has proceeded to levy the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act alleging concealment in his order. Consequently, penalty of Rs.9,62,91,447/- has been levied. Hence, the appeal. M/s. Jaico Automobile