“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

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

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

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

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

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

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. Sri. Muthu Cine Service, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1629/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153CSection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(c)

consolidated order for the sake of brevity & convenience. 2. The assessee has raised the following common grounds of appeal against the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) in respect of AY 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 except change ... income and as the true and correct income. 3.1 Thereafter, the AO did not accept the contentions of the assessee & levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the Asst. year 2014-15 to 2016-17 for the concealment of Income & u/s 270A

Pallavi Pal, Noida vs. Ward 5(2)(1), Noida, Aayakar Bhawan, Gautam Budh Nagar

Accordingly, Revenue’s appeal in this case is dismissed

ITA 4657/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahayita No.4657/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2008-09) Income Tax Officer, Shri Vijay Shankar Ward-66(4), Bajpai, New Delhi. Vs. 104, Riico Ind. Area, School Of Aeronautics Delhi Jaipur Highway, Neemrana, Rajsthan-301705. Pan-Aeppb6550D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rahul Bardia, Ca Department By Ms. Harpreet Kaur, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25/08/2025

Section 147Section 148Section 253(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

case and in law, the Ed. CIT(Appeals) has grossly erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee and in deleting the penalty u/s 271(1(c) imposed in the case of the assessee of Rs. 2,18,15,618/-. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances ... case and in law, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has grossly erred in deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs.2,18,15,618/- on the basis of erroneous quashing of assessment proceedings u/s 147 r.ws 144 vide order dated: 19.03.2019 in appeal number 10572/2016-17 despite the fact that

Sahajanand Medical Technologies Limited, Surat vs. Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 998/SRT/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Jan 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 998/Srt/2024 (Ay 2006-07) (Physical Court Hearing) Sahajanand Medical Technologies Deputy Commissioner Of Income- Ltd. Nr. Dabholi Char Rasta, Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), Surat, Room बनाम Ved Road, No.602, 6Th Floor, Vs Surat-395 004 Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, [Pan : Aafcs 7694 L] Surat-395001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

following grounds of appeal:- “1. The Ld. AO has erred in levying penalty and Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. 2. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter, amend or withdraw any grounds of appeal.” 2. Rival submission

Subramaniam Santhanam, Tirupur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Tirupur

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 2568/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2568/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Subramaniam Santhanam Ito 29/50, Aishwaryam Garden, Ward-1(2) बनाम 1St Street, Near St.Paul’S School, Tirupur. / Vs. Kng Pudur Pirivu, Coimbatore-641 025. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Asips-1371-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Raghupathy (Addl.Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-12-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02-01-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Raghupathy (Addl.CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

/Date of Pronouncement : 02-01-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aggrieved by confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Rs.77,639/- for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14, the assessee is in further appeal before us. The impugned order has been passed

Raj Kumar Agarwal HUF, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 37, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 1149/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jan 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2013-14 Raj Kumar Agarwal Huf Asst. Cit, Circle 37, Kolkata, 15, Ganagdhar Babu 3, Govt. Place, Lane, Kolkata – 700001, Vs Eden House, Bow Bazar, West Bengal Kolkata – 700012, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aahhr3501E Present For: Appellant By : Shri S. S. Gupta, Fca Respondent By : Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 24.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.01.2025 O R D E R Per Rakesh Mishra:

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Gupta, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. CIT

Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 91Section 91(3)Section 92(2)

Agarwal HUF; A.Y. 2013-14 2. That the Ld. Asst. CIT erred in law as well as in facts in levying a penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for a sum of Rs. 14,48,660/- and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming ... view of the facts and circumstances of the case no such penalty was at all liable to be levied. 3. That no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was liable to be levied in as much as the appellant assessee had offered an explanation which was material to Computation of Total

Shri Mukesh Rasiklal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-9, Now Circle-4(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 3218/AHD/2015[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Dec 2024AY 1993-94

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh R. Shah – Party in personFor Respondent: Shri Karun Kant Ojha, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 153Section 250

been held in the case of Uttamchand 133 ITR 909 (SC), Shivsankar Shah 106 Taxman 536 (Ρatna HC), that once penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of income tax act has been cancelled by tribunal, prosecution proceedings automatically ends. It is further pleaded that it has been held in the case

Shri Mukesh Rasiklal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-9, Now Circle-4(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 3217/AHD/2015[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Dec 2024AY 1992-93

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh R. Shah – Party in personFor Respondent: Shri Karun Kant Ojha, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 153Section 250

ITO (It), Ward 2(1), Chennai vs. Rohitkumar Nemchand Piparia, Chennai

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1326/CHNY/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1326/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Income Tax Officer Shri Rohitkumar Nemchand Piparia बनाम International Taxation Ward-2(1), #34 (Old #77), Meddox Street, / Vs. Chennai. Choolai, Chennai-600 112. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Akzpp-0661-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri T. Banusekar & Ms.Samyuktha Banusekar (Advocates) - Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-10-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar & Ms.SamyukthaFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

erred in facts and law in deleting the addition made amounting to Rs.4,56,94,344/- on account of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has relied upon the principle of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court ... defaulted in meeting his statutory liability in reporting correct income and paying correct amount of tax which certainly make him liable for penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The Ld. CIT-DR further submitted that after the omission of words 'deliberately' from section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the intention

Simplex Engineering & Foundry Works Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-1, (Ltu), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 5603/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Simplex Engineering & Vs. Dcit, Foundry Works Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1, Ltu, 1503, Hemkunt Towers, New Delhi 98, Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan :Aabcs4930P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. M.P. Rastogi, Adv. Sh. Shivam Malik, Adv. Department By Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27.12.2024 Order

Section 271(1)(c)

penalty proceedings were initiated on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars. 3. The AO vide order dated 4th March 2016 levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of IT Act. 3.1 The CIT (Appeals) vide order dated 31st May 2018 also affirmed the penalty vide order dated

Karan Rajan Bahl, Mumbai vs. ITO -24(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4171/MUM/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhial & Smt. Renu Jauhrikaran Rajan Bahl V/S. Cit/Nfac, Mumbai बनाम 222, Kewal Industrial Maharashtra Estate, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Agppb9301E Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh KothariFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar

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

head Income from Business or Profession. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for filing inaccurate particulars/concealment of income were also initiated. Subsequently, Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was levied at Rs. 13,04,515/- (being 100% of the tax) vide order dated 30.03.2019. 5. Aggrieved with the order, the assessee ... covered by the order of the co-ordinate bench for AY 2008-09 wherein on exactly identical facts and circumstances, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been deleted. Relevant portion of the order of the co-ordinate bench in ITA No. 1497/MUM/2015 in assessee’s own case

Prakashbapu Patil Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd, Sangli vs. ACIT, Circle- Sangli, Sangli

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1328/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1325& 1328/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Prakashbapu Patil Gramin V The Acit, Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat S Circle-Sangli. Sanstha Ltd., Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd., Savali Miraj, Sangli – 416410. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaaap1616N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare – Ar Revenue By Shri Rajesh Gawali – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16; Dated 05.04.2024 & 10.04.2024 Respectively; Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Since The Issue Involved Is Common

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

that he has not committed any default. But in this case, the assessee has not furnished any explanation for not levying of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income to the extent ... prove that he has not committed any default. But in this case, the assessee has not furnished any explanation for not levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income to the extent of Rs 6,67,882/-in ITR for the A.Y.2015-16.” 6.3 Thus

Prakashbapu Patil Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd, Sangli vs. ACIT Circle Sangli, Sangli

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1325/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

Jayappa Reddy, Bengaluru vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru - 1, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1331/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2013-14 Sri Jayappa Reddy No.1, Cholanayakanahalli R.T. Nagar Vs. Pcit Bangalore 560 032 Bengaluru-1 Bengaluru Pan No : Agapj9691E Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Prathik, A.R. Respondent By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 19.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2024

For Appellant: Sri Prathik, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

examining the case record of the assessee, the ld. PCIT observed that the ld. AO has not initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ld. Sri Jayappa Reddy, Bengaluru Page 3 of 4 PCIT was of the view that the assessee is guilty of concealment of income ... returned income of the assessee. Therefore, we are of the view that the AO has consciously taken a decision not to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is further relevant to note that the ld. AO has initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271F

Udyogi International Private Limited, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2114/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)

held that -Where loss is disallowed on the ground of it being speculative loss it would not amount to concealment and hence penalty u/s 271(1)(C) cannot be levied. Further in a case CIT V.SSP Ltd. (2010) 189 Taxman282(P&H) it has been held thus- Mere erroneous claim ... deduction in the absence of any concealment or giving of inaccurate particulars is no ground for levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) . Where the assessee had offered valid explanation and had raised debatable issues for claiming the expenditure, disallowance of the claim alone would not justify imposition of penalty

Rajkumari Ashok Thakur, Palghar vs. CIT Appeal, Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3589/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainvs. Nfac, Delhi Rajkumari Ashok Thakur Vaishali Deshi Bar Juna Palghar, Near St Depot, Maharashtra – 401404. Pan/Gir No. Akwpt9344C (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 234Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 68

liable to be maintained 6) The Assessing Officer wrongly charged interest u/s 234 A, B, C and D and initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c). 2. All the grounds raised by the assessee are interrelated and interconnected and relates to challenging the additions 3 Rajkumari Ashok Thakur, Mumbai made u/s

Selvaraj Arputharaj, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-I, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

ITA 2031/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2029/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2030/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2031/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri R.Anish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anita, Addl. CIT

Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

Chny / 2024 for AY 2013-14 & ITA No. 2031 / Chny / 2024 for AY 2014-15 7.0 As far as the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) vide order dated 25.10.2021 for concealment of rental income in above appeals are concerned, it is noted that facts of the case ... decision taken in ITA No.2029 would apply mutatis mutandis. Accordingly the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee qua challenge to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) vide ITA No.2030 and 2031 above, for undisclosed rental income are dismissed. 8.0 Through the above appeals the appellant has also contested through ground

Selvaraj Arputharaj, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-I, Coimbaotore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

ITA 2030/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri R.Anish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anita, Addl. CIT

Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

Selvaraj Arputharaj, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-I, Coimbaotore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

ITA 2029/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri R.Anish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anita, Addl. CIT

Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

Dakshinamoorthy Kumaresan, Thiruvarur vs. Income Tax Officer, Thiruvarur

ITA 2452/CHNY/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2024AY 2016-2017

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

However, the Assessing Officer (AO) did not accept the explanation of the assessee. Thus, considered the case as fit for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, a penalty of Rs.2,18,230/-, which is the minimum amount of tax which is sought to be evaded

M/S. Flourish Purefoods Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT., Cent.Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 30/AHD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyali.T(Ss).A. No.518/Ahd/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Flourish Purefoods Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income 11-12, Ecs House, Garden View, Tax, Nr. Global Hospital, Bodakdev, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad-380054 Ahmedabad [Pan No.Aadcv2683B] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. P. Srivastava, Sr. D.R

Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 68

appeal of the assessee is allowed 19. The next appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 13/Ahd/2022 relates to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act with respect to addition on account of claim of depreciation amounting to Rs. 18,92,228/- confirmed by Ld. CIT(Appeals