← 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)

Rajesh B. Jain As Legal Heir of Bhanwarlal M. Jain, Mumbai vs. Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1942/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Assessee by
Section 143(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

each other: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT Appeal erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for Rs. 1,13,35,645/- without appreciating the fact that the appellant had neither furnished any inaccurate particulars ... Assessment Year. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT Appeal erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the Ld. AO has failed to record the satisfaction as specified in clause

Rajesh B. Jain As Legal Heir of Bhanwarlal M. Jain, Mumbai vs. Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1941/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Sudhakar Bare, CIT-
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

each other: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT Appeal erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for Rs. 1,13,35,645/- without appreciating the fact that the appellant had neither furnished any inaccurate particulars ... Assessment Year. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT Appeal erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the Ld. AO has failed to record the satisfaction as specified in clause

Rajesh B. Jain As Legal Heir of Bhanwarlal M Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-19(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1940/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Assessee by
Section 143(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

each other: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT Appeal erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for Rs. 1,13,35,645/- without appreciating the fact that the appellant had neither furnished any inaccurate particulars ... Assessment Year. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT Appeal erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the Ld. AO has failed to record the satisfaction as specified in clause

Rajesh B. Jain As Legal Heir of Bhanwarlal M Jain, Mumbai vs. Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1939/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Sudhakar Bare, CIT-
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

each other: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT Appeal erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for Rs. 1,13,35,645/- without appreciating the fact that the appellant had neither furnished any inaccurate particulars ... Assessment Year. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT Appeal erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the Ld. AO has failed to record the satisfaction as specified in clause

Rajesh B, Jain As Legal of Bhanwarlal M. Jain, Mumbai vs. Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1938/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Ι.Τ.Α. No.1938/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2008-09) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1937/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1940/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1939/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1941/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1942/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1936/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Rajesh B. Jain As Legal Heir Of Bhanwarlal Jain, 171, 17Th Floor, Silver Arch, Petit Hall Compound, Nepeansea Road, Mumbai - 400006 Pan: Aafpj1924R Assessee -अपीलार्थी / Appellant Vs. Ito, Ward-19(1)(1), Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012. Revenue - प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent : Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agarwal, Adv, Shri Fenil Bhat & Shri Sucheck Anchaliya, Ca

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Assessee by
Section 143(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

each other: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT Appeal erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for Rs. 1,13,35,645/- without appreciating the fact that the appellant had neither furnished any inaccurate particulars ... Assessment Year. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT Appeal erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the Ld. AO has failed to record the satisfaction as specified in clause

Rajesh B. Jain As Legal Heir of Bhanwarlal M. Jain, Mumbai vs. Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1937/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Assessee by
Section 143(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

each other: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT Appeal erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for Rs. 1,13,35,645/- without appreciating the fact that the appellant had neither furnished any inaccurate particulars ... Assessment Year. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT Appeal erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the Ld. AO has failed to record the satisfaction as specified in clause

Rajesh B. Jain As Legal Heir of Bhanwarlal M. Jain, Mumbai vs. Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1936/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Sudhakar Bare, CIT-
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

each other: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT Appeal erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for Rs. 1,13,35,645/- without appreciating the fact that the appellant had neither furnished any inaccurate particulars ... Assessment Year. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT Appeal erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the Ld. AO has failed to record the satisfaction as specified in clause

Mahendra Singh Dharampal & Co., Udaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 229/JODH/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blemahendra Singh Dharampal & Acit Circle 2, Co Udaipur - 313001 15-18, Diamond Plazza, Hiran Magri Sect 5, Udaipur - 313001 Pan No. Aadfm 9764 A Assessee By Shri Yogesh Pokharna, C.A. (Physical) Revenue By Shri K.C. Meena, Addl. Cit-Dr (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 13.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 28.01.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal [Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)] Udaipur Dated 19.03.2024 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Challenging Therein Confirmation Of Penalty Of Rs. 1,54,500/- Levied U/S 271(1)(C) By The Ao.

Section 113Section 139(4)Section 144Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 40

inaccurate particulars include furnishing inaccurate particulars of loss. Thus, the claim of the appellant is found to be justified. 4. Thus, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was levied for disallowance of claim of Rs. 5,00,000/- as remuneration to partners on the basis of original return of income ... view, on the issue of reduced losses due to revised computation of income furnished by the assessee, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act would not get attracted to the given set of facts of the present case. Accordingly, the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) based

Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Ambala, Ambala Cantt vs. Surinder Kumar Verma, Ambala

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 447/CHANDI/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.447/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito Ward-4 Shri Surinder Kumar Verma Aaykar Bhawan, B.C. Bazar बनाम/ Vs. H. No. 38, Kabir Nagar Ambala Cantt., Haryana - 133001 Ambala Cantt., Haryana - 133001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acspv-3298-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : None ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.01.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 24-02-2024 Deleting Penalty Of Rs.70,53,886/- As Levied By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 21-09-2015. At The Time Of Hearing, None Appeared For Assessee. The Ld. Sr. Dr Pleaded For Restoration Of Penalty As Levied By Ld. Ao. Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under. 1

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

Therefore, it was to be accepted that AO had failed to frame specific charge against the assessee for initiation and imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). From perusal of assessment order, penalty order and penalty notices issued u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c), it was evident that the penalty

Peda Subba Rao Unnam, Addanki vs. ITO, Ward-1, Ongole

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

ITA 1664/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(a)Section 69A

fide omission due to appellant medical condition and age related oversight. Argument: This is a fit case for levying nil or nominal penalty u/s 271(1)(c) even if the addition is sustained. Case Law: Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt Ltd vs CIT 2012 348 ITR 306 SC 8. Initiation

Ramesh Chowdhury, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 31(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2123/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2015-16 Ramesh Chowdhury…………..……..………………….……….……….……Appellant 7, Padda Pukur Road, Kol – 700020. [Pan: Acspc5253B] Vs. Ito, Ward-31(4), Kolkata………...………………………......……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: S. K. Kamaluddin, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S B Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 06, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 28, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.07.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015–16. 2. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed Its Original Return Of Income Declaring Income Of Rs. 8,68,870/- For The A.Y. 2015-16. Further The Case Of The Appellant Was Selected For The Scrutiny & The Notice U/S. 143(2) Was Issued. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of Act After Making The Disallowance On Account Of Sundry Creditors Bills Amounting To Rs.38,35,643/-. The Assessing Officer Also Initiated Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of Act.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A), wherein, the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed Ramesh Chowdhury and the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) as made by the Assessing Officer was confirmed by ld. CIT(A). 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before ... income’. The ld. AR, therefore, stated that the Assessing Officer failed to mention any specific charge against the assessee for imposing the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in this case and the penalty is itself null and void ab initio. Consequently, he argued that the entire proceedings need

Shree Krishna Woollen Mills Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6025/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Prusethshree Krishna Woollen Vs. Dcit Circle 15(3)(2), Aayakar Bhawan, Mills Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai-400020. Krishna Mills Compound, L. B.S. Marg, Bhandup West S.O, 400078, Mumbai. Pan/Gir No: Aabcs9353G (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

towards interest received by the assessee from the insurance company under the head income from other sources. The AO subsequently levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.2,000,00,00/- on the concealed income of Rs4,88,19,661/-. 5. Aggrieved by the order

Income Tax Officer, Ludhiana vs. K P Exim Inc, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 605/CHANDI/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 605/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year. : 2014-15 The Ito, Vs K.P. Exim Inc. Ludhiana. Main Bahadur Ke Road, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aakfk2926M अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : None. Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2026 O R D E R Physical Hearing Per Raj Pal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

whereby an addition of Rs.3,60,17,984/- was made. On the basis of this assessment order, ld. AO has imposed a penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 21.09.2022. Before ld. CIT (Appeals) it was pointed out that ld.CIT (Appeals), NFAC has set aside this

M. Jayaprakash, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-8(1), Chennai

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are stands dismissed

ITA 3529/CHNY/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr.SBR Kumar Laghimsetti, Addl.CIT
Section 148Section 271(1)(C)

dated 30.09.2025 for the Assessment Years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010- 11 respectively confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act 1961. ITA No.3525,3526,3527,3528 & 3529/Chny/2025 2.0 Since identical facts and issues are involved in five ... Sr.DR and perused the material on record. The issue that arises for our consideration is whether the AO was justified in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act, in the facts of the case. Admittedly, in the present case, the appellant was assessed to tax at higher income

M Jayaprakash, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-8(1), Chennai

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are stands dismissed

ITA 3528/CHNY/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr.SBR Kumar Laghimsetti, Addl.CIT
Section 148Section 271(1)(C)

dated 30.09.2025 for the Assessment Years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010- 11 respectively confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act 1961. ITA No.3525,3526,3527,3528 & 3529/Chny/2025 2.0 Since identical facts and issues are involved in five ... Sr.DR and perused the material on record. The issue that arises for our consideration is whether the AO was justified in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act, in the facts of the case. Admittedly, in the present case, the appellant was assessed to tax at higher income

M. Jayaprakash, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-8(1), Chennai

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are stands dismissed

ITA 3527/CHNY/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr.SBR Kumar Laghimsetti, Addl.CIT
Section 148Section 271(1)(C)

dated 30.09.2025 for the Assessment Years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010- 11 respectively confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act 1961. ITA No.3525,3526,3527,3528 & 3529/Chny/2025 2.0 Since identical facts and issues are involved in five ... Sr.DR and perused the material on record. The issue that arises for our consideration is whether the AO was justified in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act, in the facts of the case. Admittedly, in the present case, the appellant was assessed to tax at higher income

M Jayaprakash, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-8(1), Chennai

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are stands dismissed

ITA 3526/CHNY/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr.SBR Kumar Laghimsetti, Addl.CIT
Section 148Section 271(1)(C)

dated 30.09.2025 for the Assessment Years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010- 11 respectively confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act 1961. ITA No.3525,3526,3527,3528 & 3529/Chny/2025 2.0 Since identical facts and issues are involved in five ... Sr.DR and perused the material on record. The issue that arises for our consideration is whether the AO was justified in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act, in the facts of the case. Admittedly, in the present case, the appellant was assessed to tax at higher income

Jayaprakash, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-8(1), Chennai

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are stands dismissed

ITA 3525/CHNY/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr.SBR Kumar Laghimsetti, Addl.CIT
Section 148Section 271(1)(C)

dated 30.09.2025 for the Assessment Years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010- 11 respectively confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act 1961. ITA No.3525,3526,3527,3528 & 3529/Chny/2025 2.0 Since identical facts and issues are involved in five ... Sr.DR and perused the material on record. The issue that arises for our consideration is whether the AO was justified in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act, in the facts of the case. Admittedly, in the present case, the appellant was assessed to tax at higher income

Alka Ashok Jagtap, Kalyan vs. Income Tax Officer, Kalyan

ITA 7524/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla& Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokaralka Ashok Jagtap Income Tax Office C-304, Regency Avenue Rani Mansion Syndicate, Murbad Road, Vs. Kalyan, Kalyan Kalyan West, Thane- 421301, Kalyan Pan/Gir No. Ahtpj7760J (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sunil Jain Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2026

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) without appreciating that the penalty was levied solely on account of the addition and not based on any independent finding of concealment or furnishing inaccurate

Niripraj Singh Sohal, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward 6(1) Ludhiana, Ludhiana

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

ITA 6276/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sh. Vinod Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 139Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

response to which return declaring income of Rs. 33,56127/- was filed. Subsequently assessment was completed at the same income and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was initiated. Vide order dated 21.08.2024, Ld. AO imposed penalty for concealment of income u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 8,56,794/- computed ... present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, Ld. AR has submitted that the reassessment was completed at returned income and, therefore, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could not be levied as held in various judicial pronouncements. Further, the assessee had already paid substantial tax in the form of advance