← 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)

Moraj Building Concepts Private Limited, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous

ITA 279/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

assessment order, have been confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) in his order dated 15.12.2021. The mens-rea is also clear & established. Hence, Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is attracted and is imposable. 6. In view of the above discussion and on careful consideration of facts and circumstances of the case ... confirmed the addition made by the A.O. 3. The assessee has failed to give any explanation or reply and defence for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The assessee has deliberately concealed its taxable income by making inaccurate claims. 5. That this case is fit case

Moraj Building Concepts Private Limited, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous

ITA 278/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

assessment order, have been confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) in his order dated 15.12.2021. The mens-rea is also clear & established. Hence, Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is attracted and is imposable. 6. In view of the above discussion and on careful consideration of facts and circumstances of the case ... confirmed the addition made by the A.O. 3. The assessee has failed to give any explanation or reply and defence for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The assessee has deliberately concealed its taxable income by making inaccurate claims. 5. That this case is fit case

Bhl Forex and Finlease Limited, Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal-23, New Delhi

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

ITA 1181/DEL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahmanbhl Forex & Finlease Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle - 2, 6, Mohan Singh Place, New Delhi. Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001. (Pan : Aabcb8886H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Gini Gandhi, Advocate Ms. Anu Bajaj, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2025 Date Of Order : 14.05.2025 O R D E R 1. The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 11.07.2023 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against Imposition Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’). In This Regard, He Submitted That Assessee Has Filed Its Original Return Of Income U/S 139(4) Of The Act Which Was Belated Return & Declared The Loss. As Per The Provisions Of The Act, The Losses Declared In The Belated Returns

For Appellant: Ms. Gini Gandhi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

page 15 of the paper book which is the revised return of income filed on 29.03.2023. He prayed that the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) be deleted and he relied on the following case laws :- (i) Delhi ITAT in the case of Toscana Lasts Limited

Kamini Krishna Kotak, Mumbai vs. Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

The appeals are allowed while Ground No

ITA 6640/MUM/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2025AY 2012-2013
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

case for levy of penalty. 4.0 Accordingly, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case for levy of penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the IT. Act " 12. In our view, for this reason also penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot

Kamini Krishna Kotak, Mumbai vs. Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

The appeals are allowed while Ground No

ITA 6610/MUM/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Y. P. Trivedi, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

opinion that it is a fit case for levy of Assessment Year 2010-2011, 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the IT. Act ………………...” In our view, for this reason also penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be sustained. 12. Thus

Kamini Krishna Kotak, Mumbai vs. Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

The appeals are allowed while Ground No

ITA 6602/MUM/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2025AY 2010-2011
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

case for levy of penalty. 4.0 Accordingly, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case for levy of penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the IT. Act " 12. In our view, for this reason also penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot

Shri Bhaktinagar Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., Rajkot vs. The ITO 3 (1) (1), Rajkot

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee (ITA No

ITA 200/RJT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.200/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Shri Bhakti Nagar Co Operative Housing Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(1) Society Ltd. (Bhaktinagar Circle, Meghani Rang Bhavan, Aaykar Bhawan, Race Course Rajkot) Rong Road, A D Vyas & Co, Charted Accounts, Kotecha Rajkot - 360001 Nagar Main Road, Opp Kotecha Girl’S School, Off Kalawad Road. Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaas2363M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: ShriGautam Acharya, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(c)

suggest that claim of the appellant is Bonafide. I find no reason to interfere with the decision of AO in imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, AO's action in imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs 8,10,682/- is justified ... case under consideration the quantum appeal has been dismissed by the Authorities. On the quantum appeal, the assessing officer imposed the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee also took us through the paper-book page no. 67 and stated that the case

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal vs. Madhya Pradesh Rajya Sahakari Anusuchit Jati Vitt Evam Vikas Nigam, Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 353/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80P

interpreting the provision of section 80P of the IT Act, 1961 and allowing the appeal of the assessee, thereby deleting the penalty u/S 271(1)(c) of Rs. 1,75,00,000~, when inaccurate particulars of income are clearly apparent from the return of income filed and the submissions ... that the AO has adjusted the business income and denied unclaimed deduction u/s 80P under erroneous assumptions, therefore, the consequence of leying penalty u/S 271(1)(c) of the Act also becomes legally and factually invalid. Thus, | find no reason to agree with the AO in sustaining the penalty

Yogesh Shivaji Shinde, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Nashik

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 168/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.168/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Yogesh Shivaji Shinde, Vs. Ito, National Faceless H. No.377, Mhb Colony, Assessment Centre, Satpur, Nashik- 422007. Delhi. Pan : Aekps3129Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Mahesh Pagare (Virtual) Revenue By : Shri Ganesh B. Budruk Date Of Hearing : 28.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.11.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Not Justified In Levying Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of Rs. 56,350/- On The Ground That The Assessee Had Under Reported & Mis Reported His Income. In Consequence Of Misreporting Without Appreciating That The Said Levy Of Penalty Was Not Justified In Law.

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Pagare (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax is not justified in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 56,350/- on the ground that the assessee had under reported and mis reported his income. In consequence of misreporting without appreciating that ... filed against Tax Consultant before Economic Wing of Police Department etc. were also furnished by the assessee and therefore, the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) without rebutting the explanation offered by the assessee was not justified in view of provisions of the said Act. 3. The learned Commissioner

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(6), Surat vs. Hiteshbhai Popatbhai Sakariya, Surat

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 106/SRT/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69C

that the assessee claimed bogus purchases in its Return of Income in order to suppress taxable income thereby making himself liable for Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case ... income. The stand of revenue is upheld by the ITAT in restricting the addition to the extent of 6%. Therefore, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act should be upheld qua the addition upheld in the quantum assessment proceedings. 6. On the other hand, the learned Authorized Representative

Rameshwardas Shivcharandas and Company, Nanded vs. ITO Ward 1, Jalna

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

ITA 524/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.524/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh B Budruk
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 282

term capital gain is resulting in double taxation. The addition may kindly be deleted. 12. The Ld. AO erred in initiating the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and 271F. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, omit or alter any of the grounds before or at the time

Monish Ranjan Dasgupta, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 61(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 2447/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80

simply accepted the returned income u/s 148. Hence assessee's case is covered by the decisions referred to above and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) will not be imposable. In CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal [2001] 251 ITR 963 (SC) the assessee filed revised returns showing higher income after search ... returned income and such variation should be as a result of concealment. It is not the case of assessing officer that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been imposed on certain additions made to the returned income. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/S S.A.S. Pharmaceuticals (supra

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1), Surat, Anavil Business Centre vs. Navinbhai Himatlal Shah, Diwali Baug Athwalines

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 115/SRT/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.107 To 109/Srt/2025 Assessment Years:(2010-11 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) The Ito, Vs. Hiteshbhai Popatbhai Sakariya, Ward – 1(2)(6), 17, Hetal Nagar Society, Rander Road, Surat Near Navyug College, Surat - 395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akvps5306G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Himashu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.115/Srt/2025 Assessment Year:(2007-08) The Ito, Vs. Navinbhai Himatlal Shah, Ward – 1(3)(1), 7/Swashray Society, Diwali Baug, Surat Athwalines, Surat - 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afsps3575H (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.1/Srt/2025 [Arising In Ita No.115/Srt/2025] Assessment Year:(2007-08) Navinbhai Himatlal Shah, Vs. The Ito, 7/Swashray Society, Diwali Baug, Ward – 1(3)(1), Athwalines, Surat - 395001 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afsps3575H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mitul R. Mehta, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025

Section 271(1)(c)

that the assessee claimed bogus purchases in its Return of Income in order to suppress taxable income thereby making himself liable for Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case ... income. The stand of revenue is upheld by the ITAT in restricting the addition to the extent of 6%. Therefore, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act should be upheld qua the addition upheld in the quantum assessment proceedings. 8. On the other hand, the learned Authorized Representative

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(6), Surat vs. Hiteshbhai Popatbhai Sakariya, Surat

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 109/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.107 To 109/Srt/2025 Assessment Years:(2010-11 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) The Ito, Vs. Hiteshbhai Popatbhai Sakariya, Ward – 1(2)(6), 17, Hetal Nagar Society, Rander Road, Surat Near Navyug College, Surat - 395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akvps5306G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Himashu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.115/Srt/2025 Assessment Year:(2007-08) The Ito, Vs. Navinbhai Himatlal Shah, Ward – 1(3)(1), 7/Swashray Society, Diwali Baug, Surat Athwalines, Surat - 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afsps3575H (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.1/Srt/2025 [Arising In Ita No.115/Srt/2025] Assessment Year:(2007-08) Navinbhai Himatlal Shah, Vs. The Ito, 7/Swashray Society, Diwali Baug, Ward – 1(3)(1), Athwalines, Surat - 395001 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afsps3575H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mitul R. Mehta, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025

Section 271(1)(c)

that the assessee claimed bogus purchases in its Return of Income in order to suppress taxable income thereby making himself liable for Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case ... income. The stand of revenue is upheld by the ITAT in restricting the addition to the extent of 6%. Therefore, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act should be upheld qua the addition upheld in the quantum assessment proceedings. 8. On the other hand, the learned Authorized Representative

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(6), Surat vs. Hiteshbhai Popatbhai Sakariya, Surat

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 108/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.107 To 109/Srt/2025 Assessment Years:(2010-11 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) The Ito, Vs. Hiteshbhai Popatbhai Sakariya, Ward – 1(2)(6), 17, Hetal Nagar Society, Rander Road, Surat Near Navyug College, Surat - 395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akvps5306G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Himashu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.115/Srt/2025 Assessment Year:(2007-08) The Ito, Vs. Navinbhai Himatlal Shah, Ward – 1(3)(1), 7/Swashray Society, Diwali Baug, Surat Athwalines, Surat - 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afsps3575H (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.1/Srt/2025 [Arising In Ita No.115/Srt/2025] Assessment Year:(2007-08) Navinbhai Himatlal Shah, Vs. The Ito, 7/Swashray Society, Diwali Baug, Ward – 1(3)(1), Athwalines, Surat - 395001 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afsps3575H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mitul R. Mehta, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025

Section 271(1)(c)

that the assessee claimed bogus purchases in its Return of Income in order to suppress taxable income thereby making himself liable for Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case ... income. The stand of revenue is upheld by the ITAT in restricting the addition to the extent of 6%. Therefore, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act should be upheld qua the addition upheld in the quantum assessment proceedings. 8. On the other hand, the learned Authorized Representative

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(6), Surat vs. Hiteshbhai Popatbhai Sakariya, Surat

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 107/SRT/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.107 To 109/Srt/2025 Assessment Years:(2010-11 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) The Ito, Vs. Hiteshbhai Popatbhai Sakariya, Ward – 1(2)(6), 17, Hetal Nagar Society, Rander Road, Surat Near Navyug College, Surat - 395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akvps5306G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Himashu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.115/Srt/2025 Assessment Year:(2007-08) The Ito, Vs. Navinbhai Himatlal Shah, Ward – 1(3)(1), 7/Swashray Society, Diwali Baug, Surat Athwalines, Surat - 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afsps3575H (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.1/Srt/2025 [Arising In Ita No.115/Srt/2025] Assessment Year:(2007-08) Navinbhai Himatlal Shah, Vs. The Ito, 7/Swashray Society, Diwali Baug, Ward – 1(3)(1), Athwalines, Surat - 395001 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afsps3575H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mitul R. Mehta, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025

Section 271(1)(c)

that the assessee claimed bogus purchases in its Return of Income in order to suppress taxable income thereby making himself liable for Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case ... income. The stand of revenue is upheld by the ITAT in restricting the addition to the extent of 6%. Therefore, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act should be upheld qua the addition upheld in the quantum assessment proceedings. 8. On the other hand, the learned Authorized Representative

Sanjaybhai Damjibhai Golakiya, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-3(3)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal of the appellant is allowed

ITA 951/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.951/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Sanjaybhai Damjibhai Golakiya, Vs. The Assessment Unit, D-74, Vithalnagar Society, Hirabaug, Income-Tax Department, Varachha Road, Surat - 395006 Jurisdictional Ao: The Ito, Ward – 3(3)(1), Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Alopg2048R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025

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

revenue is upheld by the CIT(A) in restricting the addition to the extent of 5% of bogus purchases. Therefore, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act should be upheld qua the addition upheld in the quantum appellate proceedings. 10. We have heard both the parties and perused ... impugned purchase by the CIT(A). Thus, it is clear that the addition was sustained on estimation basis. The penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has been levied on the estimated addition sustained by the CIT(A). The ld. AR has argued that the Hon’ble jurisdictional High

Vishal Plastomers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Jt.CIT, Range-8, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1782/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT.DR &
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 41(1)

bills. It be so hold now. 6. Confirming levy of interest u/s 234A/234B/234C & 234D is not justified. 7. Initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not justified.” 6. GROUND NO. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee contest the order of the Ld.CIT(A) confirming disallowance

The ITO, Ward-8(4), Ahmedabad vs. Vishal Plastomers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1776/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT.DR &
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 41(1)

bills. It be so hold now. 6. Confirming levy of interest u/s 234A/234B/234C & 234D is not justified. 7. Initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not justified.” 6. GROUND NO. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee contest the order of the Ld.CIT(A) confirming disallowance

Pradeep Garg, Ajmer vs. ITO 2(1) Ajmer, Ajmer

ITA 397/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40A(3)Section 64(1)(iv)

/NFAC erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the order imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs. 1,71,452/-. The penalty so imposed by the AO & confirmed by the Id. CIT(A)/NFAC being totally contrary ... income of Rs.3,47,613/- assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 24.10.2011. Subsequently, the Id. AO initially imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.5,52,009/-. In the quantum appeal, aggrieved from the order u/s