← All Phrases

“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
49
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
45
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
30
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
28
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
27
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
24
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)

Meenaxi Gems Pvt Ltd, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-1(1)(4), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 612/SRT/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.612 & 613/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Hybrid Hearing) Meenaxi Gems Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, 5/1108-A, 1167/68-B, Santok Ward – 1(1)(4), Diamonds Office No.106, Gurjar Surat Faliya, Haripura, Surat - 395003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcm4645B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Ar Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/11/2025

Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT vs. Krishi Tyre Retreading & Rubber Industries, (2014) 360 ITR 580 (Raj.) have held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act could not be levied where addition was on estimated basis. The Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Surat in cases of Yogendra ... ACIT, 155 taxmann.com 1, has held that where AO treated entire purchase as bogus based on findings of Investigation Wing and levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c), since payment of purchase had been made through account payee cheques and there was corresponding sales, ad hoc GP rate applied on alleged

Sathaiya Ganapathy, Pudukottai vs. ITO, Ward 1, Bardoli

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

ITA 330/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.329 & 330/Srt/2025 Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Sathaiya Ganapathy, Vs. Ito, Ts No.4114, South 3 Rd Street, Ward – 1, Pukukottai, Tamil Nadu - 622001 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahbpg2414Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mayank A. Ogriwala, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

Section 111ASection 16Section 24Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the addition of ₹23,41,300/- u/s 69A, without appreciating that the assessee had furnished an explanation along with documentary evidence ... facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the disallowance of deductions & addition on STCG on sale of shares, without appreciating that the assessee had no mens rea or malafide intention. The disallowance

Sathaiya Ganapathy, Pudukottai vs. ITO, Ward 1, Bardoli

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

ITA 329/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.329 & 330/Srt/2025 Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Sathaiya Ganapathy, Vs. Ito, Ts No.4114, South 3 Rd Street, Ward – 1, Pukukottai, Tamil Nadu - 622001 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahbpg2414Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mayank A. Ogriwala, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

Section 111ASection 16Section 24Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the addition of ₹23,41,300/- u/s 69A, without appreciating that the assessee had furnished an explanation along with documentary evidence ... facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the disallowance of deductions & addition on STCG on sale of shares, without appreciating that the assessee had no mens rea or malafide intention. The disallowance

Madhvi Ajitkumar Ranka, Na vs. Arivs.ACIT, Navsari Circle, Navsari

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 124/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.124/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Madhvi Ajitkumar Ranka, Vs. Acit, 88, Sunder Nagar, Jamalpore, Navsari Circle, Navsari – 396445 Navsari "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahfpr5791K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Darshit J. Naik, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

Section 250Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 68

after completion of assessment 2 ITA No.124/SRT/2025/AY 2017-18 Madhvi Ajitkumar Ranka proceedings. Subsequently, he came to know about the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, after which he immediately informed his tax consultant. Thereafter, he approached another Chartered Accountant, Mr. Darshit J. Naik, who guided

Santosh Singh Hukam Singh Karnawat, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(8), Surat

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

ITA 655/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

with regards to the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in levying penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on addition made of 5% of total purchase value to the tune ... Hukam Singh Karnawat (Individual) vs. ITO Asst. Year – 2012-13 - 2– 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has wrongly levied penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 overlooking the facts and circumstances of the case by levying penalty at 5 percent on alleged bogus

Janseva Majoor Sahakari Sanshtha Maryadit, Mahim vs. ITO 22(1)(6), Lower Parel, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5752/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. Piyush ChhachedFor Respondent: 12/11/2025
Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

facts and Circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) without appreciating that the Assessment Order passed u/s 144 did not bring out as to whether the Penalty was initiated for concealment OR furnishing of inaccurate

Francis Liston, Ernakulam vs. Income Tax Officer, Noncorporate Ward 2(1), Kochi, Ernakulam

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 673/COCH/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Francis ListonFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal. Snr DR
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 24Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

673/Coch/2025 Francis Liston already dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee is unable to explain the reason for non-imposing penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In our considered view, we find that the Ld.CIT(A) correctly upheld the penalty amount of Rs.8

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Delhi vs. Anova Infracon Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4313/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 144Section 154Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

vide order dated 05.05.2025, allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the penalty by observing that since the addition is deleted, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) does not survived. 6. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds ... vide its order dated 24.03.2025 in Appeal No. CIT(A), Delhi-35/10395/2019-20. Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has taken note of this fact. Since after the order of CIT(A) deleting the additions made, no income remained which could

Income Tax Officer, Delhi vs. Anova Infracon Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4312/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 144Section 154Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

vide order dated 05.05.2025, allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the penalty by observing that since the addition is deleted, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) does not survived. 6. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds ... vide its order dated 24.03.2025 in Appeal No. CIT(A), Delhi-35/10395/2019-20. Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has taken note of this fact. Since after the order of CIT(A) deleting the additions made, no income remained which could

Sourabh Sharma, Indore vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi, Delhi

The appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 342/IND/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 253

profit be estimated at Rs. 7,46,35,926/-i.e. @ 8% of 93,29,49,070/- as business income besides initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of Income of the I.T. Act. Penalty also initiated u/s 271B of the Income Tax Act for failure ... estimated at Rs. 7,46,35,9 . @ 8% of Rs. 93,29,49,070/- as business income besides i ion of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of Income of the I.T. Act. Penalty also initiated u/s 271B of the Act for failure to get its accounts audited

Manjeet Kaur Kamboj, Yamuna Nagar Haryana vs. ITO Ward-2, Yamuna Nagar Haryana

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 550/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumat & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 550/Chd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Manjit Kaur Kamboj, Ito Ward-2, Lotus Valley Public School, बनाम Yamuna Nagar, Sector – 18, Huda, Haryana Vs. Yamunanagar, Haryana "ायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Abmpk5213G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) िनधा""रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Ms. Meenal Goyal, Ca & Sh. Abhinav Jain, Adv. राज" की ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2025 आदेश/Order Shri Laliet Kumar: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.03.2024 Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For A.Y. 2012-13. 2. Grounds Of Appeal, As Taken By The Assessee In Form 36, Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Ms. Meenal Goyal, CA and Sh. Abhinav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250

there was no willful default on the part of the appellant. Accordingly, it is held that the appellant is not liable for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The penalty amounting to Rs. 4,20,320/- is cancelled. The ground no.1 to 4 of the appeal are allowed

Valaka Engineering Private Limited, West Bengal vs. ACIT, Circle – 20, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed in the above terms

ITA 3932/DEL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalasstt. Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Yash Mehta, CA
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 27(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

correct jurisdiction lies with the ITAT, Delhi Benches because the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order and also levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, is ACIT, Central Circle-20, Delhi. It means that the jurisdiction for filing of this appeal lies with ITAT, Delhi Benches ... only surviving issue in this appeal for assessee is as regards to the order of Ld. CITA, confirming the issue of levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the 2 | P a g e ValakaEngg Private Ltd Vs ACIT, Circle-20, ND Act, in respect of un-explained cash credits

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-(1), Raipur vs. Ajay Golechaa, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 454/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.454/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: None (Petition filed)For Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

held as follows: “Appellant in his submission stated that the assessee has withdrawn claim of exemption u/s.10(38) of the Act. Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable for furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income. No penalty is leviable for making a claim which is found ... dated Jul 20, 2018 has deleted the addition itself. After which there was no question of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Penalty has been imposed only on the basis of findings in assessment proceedings. In the assessment proceedings, no specific adverse conclusive finding relating to the affairs

Sandeep Jalan, Guwahati vs. DCIT/ACIT Cir-1, Guwahati

Appeal is allowed

ITA 157/GTY/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati19 Nov 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A), Dated 08.12.2023, Under The Income Tax Act, 1961. 1. Period Of Delay: There Is A Delay Of 494 Days In Filing The Said Appeal

Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69Section 69C

Thereafter show cause notice was issued to the assessee on various dates calling for his explanation as to why an order imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) as discussed should not be levied upon him for concealment of particulars of income. In response, the assessee filed his submission laying major ... alleging concealment of income ignoring such revised computation is arbitrary, unjustified, unwarranted and illegal. 5. For that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 can only be levied when the explanation offered by the appellant is found to be false and there being no such

Tribhawan vs. ITO Ward-2, Rewari

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

ITA 872/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumartribhawan, Vs. Ito, C/O Ipso Legal H-35, 1St Ward-2, Rewari Floor, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi- 110014 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Arlpt6268P Assessee By : Ms. Sumangla Saxena, Adv (Vc) Shri Dishant Sethi, Adv Revenue By: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/11/2025

For Appellant: Ms. Sumangla Saxena, Adv (VC)For Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 151Section 154

assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act, the other appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 1413/Del/2021 challenging the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act will have no legs to stand. 10. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced

Indian Tool Technology Centre, Jalandhar vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Jalandhar

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

ITA 262/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, C.A
Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 56

case, Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Id. Assessing Officer in imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, ignoring the facts of case and without observing the principles of natural justice.” 5. Brief facts emerging from records ... admitted the appeal u/s 260A of the Act 61, is proof enough that the matter or the issue is debatable and no penalty u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act is attracted in case of debatable issues. 11. He further submitted that in the instant case penalty has been imposed

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Nevales Networks Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4827/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-14(1)(1), M/S. Nevales Networks Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 432, 4Th Floor, The Capital, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Level 7, Plot-C70, M.K.Road, G Block, Mumbai-400020. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan : Aadcn1748A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Piyush Chhajed Revenue By : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui

For Appellant: Shri Piyush ChhajedFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Ld.CIT(A)‟], dated 20-05-2025, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14, wherein the Ld.CIT(A) has deleted the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟). 2 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee-company has filed ... thereafter, further show cause was issued on 15-09-2016 wherein the assessee was asked to submit as to why the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act should not be levied on various additions/disallowances made in the order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. There was apparently

Income Tax Officer, Lower Parel vs. Bhavani Balasubramaniam Iyer, Mumbai

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

ITA 2933/MUM/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Yagnesh DesaiFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 69

Revenue against the order of the Ld.CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi, dt. 25-02-2025 in the context of levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟). 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the case of the assessee was reopened ... 2933/Mum/2025: 19. This appeal is filed by the Revenue, challenging the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in the context of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act wherein the Ld.CIT(A) has reduced the quantum of penalty and directed the AO to re-compute penalty u/s 271

Income Tax Officer, Pirmal Chamber, Lower Parel vs. Bhavani Balasubramaniam Iyer, Mumbai

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

ITA 2932/MUM/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Yagnesh DesaiFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 69

Revenue against the order of the Ld.CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi, dt. 25-02-2025 in the context of levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟). 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the case of the assessee was reopened ... 2933/Mum/2025: 19. This appeal is filed by the Revenue, challenging the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in the context of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act wherein the Ld.CIT(A) has reduced the quantum of penalty and directed the AO to re-compute penalty u/s 271

Bhavani Lyer, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(1)(1)A, Mumbai

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

ITA 2777/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Yagnesh DesaiFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 69

Revenue against the order of the Ld.CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi, dt. 25-02-2025 in the context of levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟). 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the case of the assessee was reopened ... 2933/Mum/2025: 19. This appeal is filed by the Revenue, challenging the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in the context of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act wherein the Ld.CIT(A) has reduced the quantum of penalty and directed the AO to re-compute penalty u/s 271