← 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)

M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Dhanbad vs. ACIT Circle-1, Dhanbad

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

ITA 125/RAN/2018[10-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

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

income. Further, none of the additions will come under purview of furnishing inaccurate particulars. Ld. AO was therefore not justified in imposing penalty U/s 271(1)(c). 6. For that other grounds in details will be argued at the time of hearing." 2. The brief facts of the case ... BCCL Vs ACIT & ors 5 appeals and other contractors. Subsequently, notice u/s 274 of the Act was issued for initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and was accordingly imposed. 3. Before the ld.CIT(A),the assessee claimed that the AO, in the show cause notice

M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Dhanbad vs. ACIT Cir-1, Dhanbad

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

ITA 124/RAN/2018[09-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

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

income. Further, none of the additions will come under purview of furnishing inaccurate particulars. Ld. AO was therefore not justified in imposing penalty U/s 271(1)(c). 6. For that other grounds in details will be argued at the time of hearing." 2. The brief facts of the case ... BCCL Vs ACIT & ors 5 appeals and other contractors. Subsequently, notice u/s 274 of the Act was issued for initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and was accordingly imposed. 3. Before the ld.CIT(A),the assessee claimed that the AO, in the show cause notice

M/S Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad vs. ACIT Circle-1, Dhanbad

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

ITA 122/RAN/2018[08-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

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

income. Further, none of the additions will come under purview of furnishing inaccurate particulars. Ld. AO was therefore not justified in imposing penalty U/s 271(1)(c). 6. For that other grounds in details will be argued at the time of hearing." 2. The brief facts of the case ... BCCL Vs ACIT & ors 5 appeals and other contractors. Subsequently, notice u/s 274 of the Act was issued for initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and was accordingly imposed. 3. Before the ld.CIT(A),the assessee claimed that the AO, in the show cause notice

M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Dhanbad vs. ACIT Cir-1, Dhanbad

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

ITA 121/RAN/2018[07-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

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

income. Further, none of the additions will come under purview of furnishing inaccurate particulars. Ld. AO was therefore not justified in imposing penalty U/s 271(1)(c). 6. For that other grounds in details will be argued at the time of hearing." 2. The brief facts of the case ... BCCL Vs ACIT & ors 5 appeals and other contractors. Subsequently, notice u/s 274 of the Act was issued for initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and was accordingly imposed. 3. Before the ld.CIT(A),the assessee claimed that the AO, in the show cause notice

Dipika De, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 24(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 906/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: The Ld.Ao.

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69

penalty proceedings are entirely different and the Ld. AO was duty bound to examine the material before him while considering levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2.1 The Ld. DR relied on the order of Ld. AO and the Ld. CIT(A) and stated that ... u/s 271(1)(c), read with section 274 of the Act, and after considering the assessee’s submissions, the Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. On appeal, the Tribunal cancelled the penalty on the ground that show cause notice u/s

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 13(1), New Delhi, I.P. Estate vs. Logic Eastern (India) Private Limited, Noida, Uttar Pradesh

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 437/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17] Deputy Commissioner Of Logic Eastern (India) Private Income Tax, Circle-13(1), Limited, Room No.316A, 3Rd Floor, Vs C-56/39, 5Th Floor, Sector-62, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301 New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aaacl3539Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Amisha S. Gupta, Cit(Dr) Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 07.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07.07.2025 Order Per Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am

Section 143(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 37Section 40

matter of prosecution under section 276C.” 4.7. Thereafter, the AO relied upon various case laws in support of the proposition that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is civil liability and for attracting such civil liability, willful concealment is not an essential ingredient as is case in the matter of prosecution ... income in respect of above two additions made in the assessment order and therefore the assessee was not liable for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty of Rs.1,79,05,055/-. 6. Aggrieved with the said order

M/S. Draipl-Mskel(Jv), Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1605/AHD/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jul 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2007-08 Draipl-Kskel (Jv) Ito, Ward-9(2) 2Nd Floor, “Msk” Vs. Ahmedabad. Passport Office To Panjarapole Rd. Ambawadi Ahmedabad 380 015. Pan : Aaaad 3825 B (Applicant) (Responent)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 80I

aside. The matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer, who shall re-examine the issue of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) after passing the reassessment order in compliance with the quantum remand direction of the Co-ordinate Bench dated 29.04.2025. The assessee shall be given

Uma Kant Singh, Purnea vs. DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle-3, Patna

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 152/PAT/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Patna02 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not appear in response to the single notice fixing the date for hearing and is seen to have not filed any submission also in response to the said notice. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded ahead to confirm the penalty levied by the Ld. AO. We find an identical pattern in other appeals also of a single notice being issued by the Ld. CIT(A) for which there was seen to be no response from the side of the assessee and thereafter, the penalty imposed in all the

Section 153ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)

these five cases, the following is the position regarding the levy of penalty. (a) AY 2015-16 Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs. 18,23,170/- was levied. (b) AY 2016-17 Penalty u/s 271(1)(c ... order and did not file any appeal, ostensibly to buy peace of mind. However, the Ld. AO proceeded to impose the impugned penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is seen that before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not appear in response to the single notice

Uma Kant Singh, Purnea vs. DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle-3, Patna

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 151/PAT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna02 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not appear in response to the single notice fixing the date for hearing and is seen to have not filed any submission also in response to the said notice. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded ahead to confirm the penalty levied by the Ld. AO. We find an identical pattern in other appeals also of a single notice being issued by the Ld. CIT(A) for which there was seen to be no response from the side of the assessee and thereafter, the penalty imposed in all the

Section 153ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)

these five cases, the following is the position regarding the levy of penalty. (a) AY 2015-16 Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs. 18,23,170/- was levied. (b) AY 2016-17 Penalty u/s 271(1)(c ... order and did not file any appeal, ostensibly to buy peace of mind. However, the Ld. AO proceeded to impose the impugned penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is seen that before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not appear in response to the single notice

Uma Kant Singh, Purnea vs. DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle-3, Patna

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 150/PAT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna02 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not appear in response to the single notice fixing the date for hearing and is seen to have not filed any submission also in response to the said notice. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded ahead to confirm the penalty levied by the Ld. AO. We find an identical pattern in other appeals also of a single notice being issued by the Ld. CIT(A) for which there was seen to be no response from the side of the assessee and thereafter, the penalty imposed in all the

Section 153ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)

these five cases, the following is the position regarding the levy of penalty. (a) AY 2015-16 Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs. 18,23,170/- was levied. (b) AY 2016-17 Penalty u/s 271(1)(c ... order and did not file any appeal, ostensibly to buy peace of mind. However, the Ld. AO proceeded to impose the impugned penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is seen that before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not appear in response to the single notice

Uma Kant Singh, Purnea vs. DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle-3, Patna

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 149/PAT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna02 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not appear in response to the single notice fixing the date for hearing and is seen to have not filed any submission also in response to the said notice. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded ahead to confirm the penalty levied by the Ld. AO. We find an identical pattern in other appeals also of a single notice being issued by the Ld. CIT(A) for which there was seen to be no response from the side of the assessee and thereafter, the penalty imposed in all the

Section 153ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)

these five cases, the following is the position regarding the levy of penalty. (a) AY 2015-16 Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs. 18,23,170/- was levied. (b) AY 2016-17 Penalty u/s 271(1)(c ... order and did not file any appeal, ostensibly to buy peace of mind. However, the Ld. AO proceeded to impose the impugned penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is seen that before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not appear in response to the single notice

Uma Kant Singh, Purnea vs. DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle-3, Patna

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 148/PAT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna02 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not appear in response to the single notice fixing the date for hearing and is seen to have not filed any submission also in response to the said notice. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded ahead to confirm the penalty levied by the Ld. AO. We find an identical pattern in other appeals also of a single notice being issued by the Ld. CIT(A) for which there was seen to be no response from the side of the assessee and thereafter, the penalty imposed in all the

Section 153ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)

these five cases, the following is the position regarding the levy of penalty. (a) AY 2015-16 Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs. 18,23,170/- was levied. (b) AY 2016-17 Penalty u/s 271(1)(c ... order and did not file any appeal, ostensibly to buy peace of mind. However, the Ld. AO proceeded to impose the impugned penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is seen that before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not appear in response to the single notice

Panjurajan Ganesan, Sivakasi vs. DCIT, CC - 2, Madurai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 278/CHNY/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.278/Chny/2020 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Panjurajan Ganesan Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.74A, Velayutham Road, Corporate Circle-2, Sivakasi, Madurai. Tamil Nadu-626 123. [Pan:Abypg3315R] (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. D. Anand, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. G. Latchana, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.07.2025

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. G. Latchana, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

year 2009-10 was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.153A of the Act, on 27.12.2010. During the course of completion of assessment proceedings penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was initiated vide notice dated 27.12.2010. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) vide order in ITA No.136/2010-11 dated 07.08.2013 gave partial relief ... dated 27.12.2010 was issued for both defaults as concealed the particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income where as the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) dated 25.09.2014 was imposed for the concealment of income which is not permissible in the light of above referred judgments

Taranjeet, Tohana vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeals stand allowed

ITA 771/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No. 770/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No. 771/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Taranjeet Singh Ito बनाम/ Vs. H. No 279, Tharvi, Pirthala Ward -1 Tohana, Fatehabad-125120 Fatehabad "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Apvpt-2307-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Saurabh Jain (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-06-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01-07-2025. आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. In The Captioned Appeals For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14, The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Confirmation Of Quantum Addition & Levy Of Consequential Penalty U/S 271(1)(C). First, We Take Up Quantum Appeal Ita No.770/Chandi/2024 Which Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Jain (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

captioned appeals for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14, the assessee is aggrieved by confirmation of quantum addition and levy of consequential penalty u/s 271(1)(c). First, we take up quantum appeal ITA No.770/Chandi/2024 which arises out of an order passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless

Taranjeet, Tohana vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

The appeals stand allowed

ITA 770/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No. 770/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No. 771/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Taranjeet Singh Ito बनाम/ Vs. H. No 279, Tharvi, Pirthala Ward -1 Tohana, Fatehabad-125120 Fatehabad "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Apvpt-2307-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Saurabh Jain (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-06-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01-07-2025. आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. In The Captioned Appeals For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14, The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Confirmation Of Quantum Addition & Levy Of Consequential Penalty U/S 271(1)(C). First, We Take Up Quantum Appeal Ita No.770/Chandi/2024 Which Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Jain (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

captioned appeals for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14, the assessee is aggrieved by confirmation of quantum addition and levy of consequential penalty u/s 271(1)(c). First, we take up quantum appeal ITA No.770/Chandi/2024 which arises out of an order passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Speciality Papers Limited, Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5054/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Neha Sharma 0 Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148ASection 153CSection 250

been offered for tax and is hereby added to the total income of the assessee U/s 68 of I.T. Act. 1961. Penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act 1961 is hereby initiated for concealment of income.” Speciality Papers Limited. 7. Aggrieved the assessee filed further appeal before

Damodar Reddy Kaiti, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward - 9(1), Hydrabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 372/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.371/Hyd/2025 & 372/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Damodar Reddy Kaiti Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward-9(1) [Pan :Aehpk0424M] Hyderabad

For Appellant: Shri K.A.Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Gurupreet Singh, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Ld.CIT(A). 9. We have heard both the parties and considered the relevant facts on record on the issue of imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee argued that there is no link between the assessment order and the issues considered ... levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee could not get reasonable opportunity of hearing to explain his case before the Ld.CIT(A). We find that the Ld.CIT(A) had disposed the appeal filed by the assessee in a hurried manner by providing only one opportunity

Damodar Reddy Kaiti, Hydeabad vs. ITO., Ward-9(1)., Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 371/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.371/Hyd/2025 & 372/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Damodar Reddy Kaiti Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward-9(1) [Pan :Aehpk0424M] Hyderabad

For Appellant: Shri K.A.Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Gurupreet Singh, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Ld.CIT(A). 9. We have heard both the parties and considered the relevant facts on record on the issue of imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee argued that there is no link between the assessment order and the issues considered ... levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee could not get reasonable opportunity of hearing to explain his case before the Ld.CIT(A). We find that the Ld.CIT(A) had disposed the appeal filed by the assessee in a hurried manner by providing only one opportunity

Pkh Ventures Limited, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. The Deputy Commissioner Income Tax, Aaykar Bhavan, Churchgate

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

ITA 3322/MUM/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: SMT. BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anirudh Dave (Instructed by Shri Piyush Agarwal)For Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Despite several notices issued by Ld. CIT(A), no compliance was made by the assessee, and accordingly, vide order dated 11.03.2025, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was confirmed by him. P a g e | 3 A.Y. 2012-13 PKH Ventures Ltd. Aggrieved with the order

The Ruby Mills Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle - 8(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the substantial ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 3021/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar(Physical Hearing) The Ruby Mills Limited Dcit, Circle – 8(3)(1), 11Th Floor, Ruby House A, J.K. Sawant Vs Aayakarbhawan,Mumbai-400020. Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – 400028. [Pan No. Aaact0220G] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

despite the fact that the Assessing Officer failed to arrive at satisfaction during the course of assessment proceedings whether the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or for concealment of income, which constitutes the basis and foundation of the proceedings for levy ... filed by the appellant during the course of assessment proceedings and that the appellant has not concealed any material facts to attract penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the factual information was provided during the course of assessment proceedings. This fact is supported