← 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)

Pankajkumar Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rakjot vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Rajkot

ITA 81/RJT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.76 To 80/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2012-13 & आयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No. 81/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya 3Rd Floor, Parth, Diwanpara | बनाम Main Road, Rajkot-3600 001 Vs. Pan: Aampl 3903 F Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2 Rajkot, 2Nd Floor, Amruta Estate, M.G. Rad, Rajkot-360 001 (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/04/2025 Order Per Bench, Captioned Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2008-09 To 2012-13 & Ay 2014-15, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (“Ld.Cit(A)” For Short) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act" For Short), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Orders, Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) & 271Aab(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

Pankaj C Lodhiya 2. The assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.76 to 80/RJT/2022, relates to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and appeal in ITA No.81/RJT/2022 relates to penalty u/s 271AAB(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Since the issue involved in all these appeals are common ... convenience and brevity. 4. First, we sell adjudicate, the assessee's five appeals in ITA Nos.76 to 80/RJT/2022, which relate to the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the facts narrated in ITA No. 76/RJT/2022, for assessment Year

Pankajkumar Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rajkot vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Rajkot

ITA 80/RJT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.76 To 80/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2012-13 & आयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No. 81/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya 3Rd Floor, Parth, Diwanpara Main Road, Rajkot-3600 001 Pan: Aampl 3903 F (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2 Rajkot, 2Nd Floor, Amruta Estate, M.G. Rad, Rajkot-360 001 (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/03/2025 : 30/04/2025 Order Per Bench, Captioned Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2008-09 To 2012-13 & Ay 2014-15, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (“Ld.Cit(A)” For Short) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act" For Short), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Orders, Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) & 271Aab(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

Pankaj C Lodhiya 2. The assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.76 to 80/RJT/2022, relates to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and appeal in ITA No.81/RJT/2022 relates to penalty u/s 271AAB(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Since the issue involved in all these appeals are common ... convenience and brevity. 4. First, we sell adjudicate, the assessee's five appeals in ITA Nos.76 to 80/RJT/2022, which relate to the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the facts narrated in ITA No. 76/RJT/2022, for assessment Year

Pankajkumar Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rajkot vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Rajkot

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

ITA 79/RJT/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

Pankaj C Lodhiya 2. The assessee‘s appeals in ITA Nos.76 to 80/RJT/2022, relates to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and appeal in ITA No.81/RJT/2022 relates to penalty u/s 271AAB(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Since the issue involved in all these appeals are common ... convenience and brevity. 4. First, we sell adjudicate, the assessee’s five appeals in ITA Nos.76 to 80/RJT/2022, which relate to the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the facts narrated in ITA No. 76/RJT/2022, for assessment Year

Pankajkumar Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rakjot vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Rajkot

ITA 78/RJT/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2010-11
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

Pankaj C Lodhiya 2. The assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.76 to 80/RJT/2022, relates to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and appeal in ITA No.81/RJT/2022 relates to penalty u/s 271AAB(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Since the issue involved in all these appeals are common ... convenience and brevity. 4. First, we sell adjudicate, the assessee's five appeals in ITA Nos.76 to 80/RJT/2022, which relate to the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the facts narrated in ITA No. 76/RJT/2022, for assessment Year

Pankajkumar Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rajkot vs. The Actit, Central Circle-2, Rajkot

ITA 77/RJT/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.76 To 80/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2012-13 & आयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No. 81/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya 3Rd Floor, Parth, Diwanpara Main Road, Rajkot-3600 001 Pan: Aampl 3903 F (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/04/2025 Order Per Bench, Captioned Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2008-09 To 2012-13 & Ay 2014-15, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (“Ld.Cit(A)” For Short) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act" For Short), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Orders, Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) & 271Aab(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

Pankaj C Lodhiya 2. The assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.76 to 80/RJT/2022, relates to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and appeal in ITA No.81/RJT/2022 relates to penalty u/s 271AAB(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Since the issue involved in all these appeals are common ... convenience and brevity. 4. First, we sell adjudicate, the assessee's five appeals in ITA Nos.76 to 80/RJT/2022, which relate to the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the facts narrated in ITA No. 76/RJT/2022, for assessment Year

Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rajkot vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Rajkot

ITA 76/RJT/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

u/s 271(1)(c) and 271AAB(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.76 to 80/RJT/2022, relates to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and appeal in ITA No.81/RJT/2022 relates to penalty u/s 271AAB(1)(c) of the Act. Since the issue involved ... convenience and brevity. First, we sell adjudicate, the assessee's five appeals in ITA Nos.76 to 80/RJT/2022, which relate to the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the facts narrated in ITA No. 76/RJT/2022, for assessment Year

D S Kulkarni and Company, Pune vs. DCIT Circle 2, Pune

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2421/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2417 To 2421/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17 D. S. Kulkarni & Vs. Dcit, Cricle-2, Pune Company, Flat No.701, Modi Baug, Dsk Haryali, Shivajinagar, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aaefd2122L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S. Pathak Revenue By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 आदेश / Order Per Bench: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 24.09.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Five Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.2418/Pun/2024 For Assessment Year 2016-17 As A Lead Case For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 147Section 148

statistical purposes. ITA Nos.2417 & 2420/PUN/2024, A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2013-14 : 13. In the above two appeals assessee has challenged the confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Since we have set-aside the quantum appeals of the assessee and remanded

D S Kulkarni and Company, Pune vs. DCIT Circle 2, Pune

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2420/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2417 To 2421/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17 D. S. Kulkarni & Vs. Dcit, Cricle-2, Pune Company, Flat No.701, Modi Baug, Dsk Haryali, Shivajinagar, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aaefd2122L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S. Pathak Revenue By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 आदेश / Order Per Bench: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 24.09.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Five Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.2418/Pun/2024 For Assessment Year 2016-17 As A Lead Case For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 147Section 148

statistical purposes. ITA Nos.2417 & 2420/PUN/2024, A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2013-14 : 13. In the above two appeals assessee has challenged the confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Since we have set-aside the quantum appeals of the assessee and remanded

D S Kulkarni and Company, Pune vs. DCIT Circle 2, Pune

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2419/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2417 To 2421/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17 D. S. Kulkarni & Vs. Dcit, Cricle-2, Pune Company, Flat No.701, Modi Baug, Dsk Haryali, Shivajinagar, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aaefd2122L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S. Pathak Revenue By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 आदेश / Order Per Bench: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 24.09.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Five Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.2418/Pun/2024 For Assessment Year 2016-17 As A Lead Case For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 147Section 148

statistical purposes. ITA Nos.2417 & 2420/PUN/2024, A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2013-14 : 13. In the above two appeals assessee has challenged the confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Since we have set-aside the quantum appeals of the assessee and remanded

D S Kulkarni and Company, Pune vs. DCIT Circle 2, Pune

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2418/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2417 To 2421/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17 D. S. Kulkarni & Vs. Dcit, Cricle-2, Pune Company, Flat No.701, Modi Baug, Dsk Haryali, Shivajinagar, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aaefd2122L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S. Pathak Revenue By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 आदेश / Order Per Bench: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 24.09.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Five Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.2418/Pun/2024 For Assessment Year 2016-17 As A Lead Case For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 147Section 148

statistical purposes. ITA Nos.2417 & 2420/PUN/2024, A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2013-14 : 13. In the above two appeals assessee has challenged the confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Since we have set-aside the quantum appeals of the assessee and remanded

D S Kulkarni and Company, Pune vs. DCIT Circle 2, Pune

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2417/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2417 To 2421/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17 D. S. Kulkarni & Vs. Dcit, Cricle-2, Pune Company, Flat No.701, Modi Baug, Dsk Haryali, Shivajinagar, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aaefd2122L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S. Pathak Revenue By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 आदेश / Order Per Bench: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 24.09.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Five Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.2418/Pun/2024 For Assessment Year 2016-17 As A Lead Case For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 147Section 148

statistical purposes. ITA Nos.2417 & 2420/PUN/2024, A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2013-14 : 13. In the above two appeals assessee has challenged the confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Since we have set-aside the quantum appeals of the assessee and remanded

Ravalnath Gbs Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Ajara, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1824/PUN/2024[AY 2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1819, 1820 & 1824/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2019-20 Ravalnath Gbs Sahakari Vs. Assessment Unit, Income Patsanstha Maryadit Ajara, Tax Department, Nfac, At/P.O.- Ajara, S.O. Ajara, Centre, Delhi Kolhapur- 416505. Pan : Aaaar5687D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By Shri Milind Debaje (Virtual) : Date Of Hearing : 22.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 24.07.2024 & 25.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2019-20 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Three Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1819/Pun/2024 For Assessment Year 2016-17 As The Lead Case For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. Shingte
Section 142(1)Section 69A

above appeal assessee has challenged the order of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in not condoning the delay and confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. Since we have set-aside the quantum appeals of the assessee and remanded the matter back to the file

Ravalnath Gbs Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Ajara, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1820/PUN/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1819, 1820 & 1824/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2019-20 Ravalnath Gbs Sahakari Vs. Assessment Unit, Income Patsanstha Maryadit Ajara, Tax Department, Nfac, At/P.O.- Ajara, S.O. Ajara, Centre, Delhi Kolhapur- 416505. Pan : Aaaar5687D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By Shri Milind Debaje (Virtual) : Date Of Hearing : 22.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 24.07.2024 & 25.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2019-20 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Three Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1819/Pun/2024 For Assessment Year 2016-17 As The Lead Case For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. Shingte
Section 142(1)Section 69A

above appeal assessee has challenged the order of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in not condoning the delay and confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. Since we have set-aside the quantum appeals of the assessee and remanded the matter back to the file

Ravalnath Gbs Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Ajara, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1819/PUN/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1819, 1820 & 1824/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2019-20 Ravalnath Gbs Sahakari Vs. Assessment Unit, Income Patsanstha Maryadit Ajara, Tax Department, Nfac, At/P.O.- Ajara, S.O. Ajara, Centre, Delhi Kolhapur- 416505. Pan : Aaaar5687D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By Shri Milind Debaje (Virtual) : Date Of Hearing : 22.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 24.07.2024 & 25.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2019-20 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Three Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1819/Pun/2024 For Assessment Year 2016-17 As The Lead Case For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. Shingte
Section 142(1)Section 69A

above appeal assessee has challenged the order of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in not condoning the delay and confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. Since we have set-aside the quantum appeals of the assessee and remanded the matter back to the file

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Parasuraman Karthik Iyer, Chennai

In the result, appeals in ITA

ITA 31/HYD/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1796 To 1798/Hyd/2019 & Ita Nos.30 & 31/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Dy. Cit Vs. Shri Parasuraman Karthik Iyer, Chennai Circle 16(2) Pan:Aftpk1261M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. M. Narmada, Cit(Dr) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese 5 Appeals Filed By The Department Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Cit (A)-4, Hyderabad, Out Of Which 3 Appeals Are Arising From The Orders Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 For The A.Y 2008-09 To 2010-11 & 2 Appeals Are Arising From The Penalty Order Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act, For The A.Ys 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively. In The Quantum Appeals, The Department Has Raised

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. M. Narmada, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 80G

others of 2019 Parasuraman Karthik Iyer Assessing Officer in the quantum appeals, therefore, the matters of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are also set aside to the record of the Assessing Officer for taking the steps as per the outcome of the set aside proceedings

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Parasuraman Karthik Iyer, Chennai

In the result, appeals in ITA

ITA 30/HYD/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1796 To 1798/Hyd/2019 & Ita Nos.30 & 31/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Dy. Cit Vs. Shri Parasuraman Karthik Iyer, Chennai Circle 16(2) Pan:Aftpk1261M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. M. Narmada, Cit(Dr) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese 5 Appeals Filed By The Department Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Cit (A)-4, Hyderabad, Out Of Which 3 Appeals Are Arising From The Orders Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 For The A.Y 2008-09 To 2010-11 & 2 Appeals Are Arising From The Penalty Order Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act, For The A.Ys 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively. In The Quantum Appeals, The Department Has Raised

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. M. Narmada, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 80G

others of 2019 Parasuraman Karthik Iyer Assessing Officer in the quantum appeals, therefore, the matters of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are also set aside to the record of the Assessing Officer for taking the steps as per the outcome of the set aside proceedings

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Parasuraman Karthik Iyer, Chennai

In the result, appeals in ITA

ITA 1798/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1796 To 1798/Hyd/2019 & Ita Nos.30 & 31/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Dy. Cit Vs. Shri Parasuraman Karthik Iyer, Chennai Circle 16(2) Pan:Aftpk1261M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. M. Narmada, Cit(Dr) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese 5 Appeals Filed By The Department Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Cit (A)-4, Hyderabad, Out Of Which 3 Appeals Are Arising From The Orders Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 For The A.Y 2008-09 To 2010-11 & 2 Appeals Are Arising From The Penalty Order Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act, For The A.Ys 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively. In The Quantum Appeals, The Department Has Raised

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. M. Narmada, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 80G

others of 2019 Parasuraman Karthik Iyer Assessing Officer in the quantum appeals, therefore, the matters of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are also set aside to the record of the Assessing Officer for taking the steps as per the outcome of the set aside proceedings

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Parasuraman Karthik Iyer, Chennai

In the result, appeals in ITA

ITA 1797/HYD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1796 To 1798/Hyd/2019 & Ita Nos.30 & 31/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Dy. Cit Vs. Shri Parasuraman Karthik Iyer, Chennai Circle 16(2) Pan:Aftpk1261M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. M. Narmada, Cit(Dr) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese 5 Appeals Filed By The Department Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Cit (A)-4, Hyderabad, Out Of Which 3 Appeals Are Arising From The Orders Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 For The A.Y 2008-09 To 2010-11 & 2 Appeals Are Arising From The Penalty Order Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act, For The A.Ys 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively. In The Quantum Appeals, The Department Has Raised

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. M. Narmada, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 80G

others of 2019 Parasuraman Karthik Iyer Assessing Officer in the quantum appeals, therefore, the matters of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are also set aside to the record of the Assessing Officer for taking the steps as per the outcome of the set aside proceedings

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Parasuraman Kathik Iyer, Chennai

In the result, appeals in ITA

ITA 1796/HYD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1796 To 1798/Hyd/2019 & Ita Nos.30 & 31/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Dy. Cit Vs. Shri Parasuraman Karthik Iyer, Chennai Circle 16(2) Pan:Aftpk1261M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. M. Narmada, Cit(Dr) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese 5 Appeals Filed By The Department Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Cit (A)-4, Hyderabad, Out Of Which 3 Appeals Are Arising From The Orders Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 For The A.Y 2008-09 To 2010-11 & 2 Appeals Are Arising From The Penalty Order Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act, For The A.Ys 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively. In The Quantum Appeals, The Department Has Raised

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. M. Narmada, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 80G

others of 2019 Parasuraman Karthik Iyer Assessing Officer in the quantum appeals, therefore, the matters of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are also set aside to the record of the Assessing Officer for taking the steps as per the outcome of the set aside proceedings

Virmabhai Ajabaji Patel, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed in the above terms

ITA 544/MUM/2025[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2009-2010

Bench: Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanvirmabhai Ajabbaji Patel Vs. Ito – 19(3)(5) Room No. 201, Matru 156, Room No. 6, Mistry Mandir Bldg, Tardeo Bldg, 2Nd Kumbharwala Road, Mumbai. (Vijesh Metal) – 400004. Pan/Gir No. Agkpp3389B (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250bSection 271(1)(c)

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act of Rs. 4,78,270/-. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case ... Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in the instant case where the disallowance/ addition is made on account of estimated basis, being Gross profit ratio on alleged non genuine purchases. 3. Your Appellant craves leave to add, to alter