← 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)

The DCIT, Central Circle-2, Vadodara vs. Shri Pravinchandra Ranchhodbhai Patel, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 46/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pravinchandra The Deputy Commissioner Of Ranchhodbhai Patel, Income-Tax, Vs. 52, Sarvodaya Society, Central Circle-2, Nizampura, Vadodara Vadodara Pan : Acppp 2695 F अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Jigar Adhyaru, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15.02.2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta:

For Appellant: Shri Jigar Adhyaru, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

unaccounted income of Rs.39,00,000/-. Subsequent to the ld. CIT(A)’s order confirming the aforesaid additions, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was completed by the Assessing Officer vide his order dated 29.01.2021, levying a penalty of Rs.1,49,38,800/- being the 3 DCIT

Mseb Enngineers Consumer Co-Op Society Ltd, Sangli vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Sangli

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1373/PUN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 1373/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mseb Engineers Consumer Co-Op Society Ltd. 100 Ft. Road, Opp Sarovar Hotel, Vishrambag, Sangli Pan : Aaaam5424D . . . . . . . . अपऩलधर्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. Income Tax Office, Ward-1(1), Sangli . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Mr Sharad Vaze [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

assessee. This order was misconceived by the appellant and uploaded the same against pending appeal challenged the impugned levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. There was no intention to misguide the Ld. NFAC and the erroneous communication stemmed out of pure misunderstanding under bonafied belief

DCIT, Circle 2(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Eka Software Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 977/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojarind Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Eka Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 2(1)(1), Building 2A, East Tower, Bengaluru. Vrindavan Tech Village, Outer Ring Road, Devarbeesanhalli Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru – 575 001. Pan : Aabce 3660 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Ajay Rotti, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 14.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Ajay Rotti, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

estimation basis and concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars has not been established by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be levied. In support of this proposition, reliance is placed on the decision of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation ... Mumbai [2017] 84 taxmann.com 51 (Mumbai - Trib.) wherein, on similar set of facts, it has been held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be levied. Further, in the case of M/s Chempure vs. ITO (ITA Nos 451, 452 & 453/M/2006), the income was estimated at 25% of alleged bogus purchases

S Sagar Enterprise, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2895/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2895/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) S Sagar Enterprise बिधम/ Dcit, Cc-1(1) Be-5010, Bharat Diamond Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Vs. Bourse, Bandra Kurla Cgo Annexe, Maharishi Complex, Bandra (East), Karve Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400051. 400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagfs8866G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rahul Sarda (Adv) Revenue By: Shri Nayanjyoti Nath (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/02/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai Dated 22.06.2023 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee As Discernable From Perusal Of Grounds Of Appeal Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Act (Hereinafter “The Act”) To The Tune Of Rs.16,17,140/-.

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Sarda (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Nayanjyoti Nath (Sr. AR)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

purchases was made by AO, which was reduced to 30% of purchase by the Ld. CIT(A). In such a scenario, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was not warranted because estimated addition has inherent subjectivity involved. Therefore, no penalty is warranted. Therefore, we direct the deletion

Prem Prakash Agarwal, Naya Bazar Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 756/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

same was considered as undisclosed brokerage income and consequent to that action the ld. AO also levied the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the act vide order dated 23.03.2022 contending that the assessee has concealed the income as per provision of section 271(1)(c ... that Prem Prakash Agarwal vs. DCIT there was no concealment of income and I hold that the AO has rightly imposed a penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income.” 7. Feeling dissatisfied from the finding of the ld. CIT(A), assessee preferred the present appeal

Prem Prakash Agarwal, Naya Bazar Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 755/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

same was considered as undisclosed brokerage income and consequent to that action the ld. AO also levied the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the act vide order dated 23.03.2022 contending that the assessee has concealed the income as per provision of section 271(1)(c ... that Prem Prakash Agarwal vs. DCIT there was no concealment of income and I hold that the AO has rightly imposed a penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income.” 7. Feeling dissatisfied from the finding of the ld. CIT(A), assessee preferred the present appeal

Ravi Kumar Verma, Meerut vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Meerut Cantt

Appeal stand allowed

ITA 2616/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2012-13

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

assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. That learned CIT(Appeals) erred in law & fact by imposing an penalty u/s 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs. 1818851/-, while there was no concealment nor filing of an inaccurate particulars. Hence imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is amounting

Vishwas Shukla, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Ahmedabad vs. Midvalley Healthcare Services Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 656/AHD/2023[2010]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Feb 2024

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Midvalley Healthcare Services The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Vs. 51, 5Th Floor, New York Tower, Central Circle-2(3), S.G Road, Thaltej, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad, Gujarat Pan : Aaecm 7777 K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07.02.2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 12.06.2023 Passed U/S 250(6) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11. 2. The Only Effective Ground Raised In This Appeal Is Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs.4,30,72,029/- Levied By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act, By Not Appreciating That The Department Is Presently In Appeal Before The High Court Of Gujarat Against The Order Passed By Hon’Ble Itat Deleting The Quantum Addition.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 10BSection 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

Subsequent to the ld. CIT(A)’s order confirming the addition Rs. 12,67,19,713/- under Section 10B of the Act, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was completed by the Assessing Officer vide his order dated 03.03.2016, levying a penalty of Rs.4,30,72,029/- being

Income Tax Officer, Mandsaur vs. Oref Securities Pvt. Ltd., Mandsaur

In the result, this appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 254/IND/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2013-14 Income-Tax Officer, Oref Securities Pvt. Ltd., Mandsaur 69, Agrasen Nagar, बनाम/ Mandsaur Vs. (Revenue/Appellant ) (Assessee /Respondent) Pan: Aabco 0111 G Assessee By Shri Subhash Chand Jain, Ca & Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 30.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07.02.2024

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

observed that the quantum-addition has already been deleted by the ITAT Indore Bench and therefor the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot survive. The revenue/respondent is also accepting this aspect noted by CIT(A) but claiming that since the revenue’s quantum-appeal against the order of ITAT ... assessee. Before us, Ld. DR emphasized the grievance of revenue. Per contra, Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the impugned penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is based on the quantum-addition made by AO and since the quantum-addition itself stands deleted, the CIT(A) was legally justified in granting

Udaykumar Prabhudas Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 29(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 883/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleudaykumar Prabhudas Shah V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 29(3)(1) Kautilya Bhavan 1601 Moksh Mahal Bandra Kurla Complex P.K. Road, Sarvodaynagar, Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 Mulund, Mumbai – 400080 Pan: Alyps8682D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Dharan Gandhi Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

erred in levying interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act 5. The Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act 6. The Appellant craves leave to add, to amend, alter/delete and/or modify the above grounds of appeal on or before the final hearing

ACIT, C-6, Ludhiana vs. M/S Aradhana Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1605/CHANDI/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr.DR
Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

addition of share premium, in the penalty order, the AO held that the assessee had not submitted any explanation as to why penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act may not be imposed on the assessee; that the assessee had merely stated that it had preferred an appeal against ... Demand Notice relating to the assessment order; that hence, in view of delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was being imposed on the assessee. The AO also held that evidently, the assessee had taken a chance by filing wrong

Bappaditya Chakraborty, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-24, Hooghly

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 899/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. Nos.898&899/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Bappaditya Chakraborty……..…..…......................…...……………....Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan: Afupc4296H] Vs. Acit, Circle-24, Hooghly………………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Amuldeep Kaur, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 24, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 31, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are The Two Appeals Preferred By The Assessee, One Is Pertaining To The Quantum Addition & The Other Is Deleting To The Levying Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Both The Appeals Of The Assessee Are Time-Barred By 1395 Days. As Per The Affidavit Of The Assessee Namely Shri Bappaditya Chakrabotry, It Has Been Deposed That The Appeal Orders Of The Cit(A) Were Received By The Assessee On 03.09.2019 & Thereafter The Assessee Approached His Advocate, Keshab Lal Mukherjee, For The

Section 271(1)(c)

appeals preferred by the assessee, one is pertaining to the quantum addition and the other is deleting to the levying of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. Both the appeals of the assessee are time-barred by 1395 days ... authorities on this issue is ordered to be deleted. 10. ITA No.899/Kol/2023 – In this appeal, the assessee has contested the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 11. Since, in view of our order passed in assessee’s appeal vide ITA No.898/Kol/2023, the quantum additions made

Bappaditya Chakraborty, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-24, Hooghly

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 898/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. Nos.898&899/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Bappaditya Chakraborty……..…..…......................…...……………....Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan: Afupc4296H] Vs. Acit, Circle-24, Hooghly………………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Amuldeep Kaur, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 24, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 31, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are The Two Appeals Preferred By The Assessee, One Is Pertaining To The Quantum Addition & The Other Is Deleting To The Levying Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Both The Appeals Of The Assessee Are Time-Barred By 1395 Days. As Per The Affidavit Of The Assessee Namely Shri Bappaditya Chakrabotry, It Has Been Deposed That The Appeal Orders Of The Cit(A) Were Received By The Assessee On 03.09.2019 & Thereafter The Assessee Approached His Advocate, Keshab Lal Mukherjee, For The

Section 271(1)(c)

appeals preferred by the assessee, one is pertaining to the quantum addition and the other is deleting to the levying of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. Both the appeals of the assessee are time-barred by 1395 days ... authorities on this issue is ordered to be deleted. 10. ITA No.899/Kol/2023 – In this appeal, the assessee has contested the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 11. Since, in view of our order passed in assessee’s appeal vide ITA No.898/Kol/2023, the quantum additions made

J. K. Educational Society, Jammu vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Chandigarh

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

ITA 685/CHANDI/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.N. Arora, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

respectively against sustaining of denial of exemption u/s 11 and the third appeal is in respect of sustenance of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y 2009-10. 2. All these cases are heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. With ... Connected to the aforesaid appeal for A.Y 2009-10, in this appeal, the assessee has challenged the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 15. In this regard, we find that the order has been passed ex-parte by the ld CIT(A). During the course

J.K. Educational Society, Jammu & Kashmir vs. DCIT (Exemption)-Circle-1, Chandigarh

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

ITA 428/CHANDI/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.N. Arora, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

respectively against sustaining of denial of exemption u/s 11 and the third appeal is in respect of sustenance of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y 2009-10. 2. All these cases are heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. With ... Connected to the aforesaid appeal for A.Y 2009-10, in this appeal, the assessee has challenged the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 15. In this regard, we find that the order has been passed ex-parte by the ld CIT(A). During the course

J.K.Educational Society, Jammu vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Chandigarh

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

ITA 126/ASR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.N. Arora, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

respectively against sustaining of denial of exemption u/s 11 and the third appeal is in respect of sustenance of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y 2009-10. 2. All these cases are heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. With ... Connected to the aforesaid appeal for A.Y 2009-10, in this appeal, the assessee has challenged the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 15. In this regard, we find that the order has been passed ex-parte by the ld CIT(A). During the course

Himanshu Chimanlal Engineer, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 19 (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3209/MUM/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3209/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3208/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10) Himanshu Chimanlal बिधम/ Assistant Commissioner Engineer Income Tax, 19 (2) Vs. 33 – Chamunda Niwas, B- Piramal Chambers, Wing, 3Rd Floor, Tagore Parel, Mumbai-400012. Road, Santa Cruz (West), Mumbai-400054. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaape0548H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anant N Pai Revenue By: Shri. P D Chougle (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/01/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-34, Mumbai/National Faceless Appeal Center, Delhi (Nfac) [Hereinafter Referred As “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 14.07.2023 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2007-08 & Ay 2009-10. 2. Both Sides Agree That These Appeals Are Penalty Appeals; & Facts As Well As The Penalty Levied Are Similar/Identical In Both Appeals. Therefore, Appeal For The Ay 2007-08 Is Taken As The Lead Case & The Result Of Which Will Be Followed Mutatis Mutandis For The Appeal For Ay 2009-10. A.Y. 2007-08, 2009-10 Himanshu Chimanlal Engineer, Mumbai 3. Coming To Appeal For Ay 2007-08, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Shri Anant N Pai Pointed Out That The Ao Had Levied An Amount Of Rs.5,00,000/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) By Penalty Order Dated 31.03.2014 For Ay. 2007-08 (And Rs. 10,00,000/- For Ay 2009-10). Further According To Him, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Impugned Penalty Levied By The Ao. Before Us The Assessee Has Raised An Addition Ground Of Appeal Wherein Assessee Has Raised The Legal Issue Which Is Reproduced As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Anant N PaiFor Respondent: Shri. P D Chougle (Sr. AR)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

under:- “Additional Ground 1A: - On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs.5,00,000/- when penalty proceedings were initiated by the Ld. Assessing Officer under a notice u/s 274 which

Himanshu Chimanlal Engineer, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 19 (2) Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3208/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3209/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3208/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10) Himanshu Chimanlal बिधम/ Assistant Commissioner Engineer Income Tax, 19 (2) Vs. 33 – Chamunda Niwas, B- Piramal Chambers, Wing, 3Rd Floor, Tagore Parel, Mumbai-400012. Road, Santa Cruz (West), Mumbai-400054. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaape0548H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anant N Pai Revenue By: Shri. P D Chougle (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/01/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-34, Mumbai/National Faceless Appeal Center, Delhi (Nfac) [Hereinafter Referred As “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 14.07.2023 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2007-08 & Ay 2009-10. 2. Both Sides Agree That These Appeals Are Penalty Appeals; & Facts As Well As The Penalty Levied Are Similar/Identical In Both Appeals. Therefore, Appeal For The Ay 2007-08 Is Taken As The Lead Case & The Result Of Which Will Be Followed Mutatis Mutandis For The Appeal For Ay 2009-10. A.Y. 2007-08, 2009-10 Himanshu Chimanlal Engineer, Mumbai 3. Coming To Appeal For Ay 2007-08, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Shri Anant N Pai Pointed Out That The Ao Had Levied An Amount Of Rs.5,00,000/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) By Penalty Order Dated 31.03.2014 For Ay. 2007-08 (And Rs. 10,00,000/- For Ay 2009-10). Further According To Him, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Impugned Penalty Levied By The Ao. Before Us The Assessee Has Raised An Addition Ground Of Appeal Wherein Assessee Has Raised The Legal Issue Which Is Reproduced As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Anant N PaiFor Respondent: Shri. P D Chougle (Sr. AR)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

under:- “Additional Ground 1A: - On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs.5,00,000/- when penalty proceedings were initiated by the Ld. Assessing Officer under a notice u/s 274 which

M. R. Sivakumar, Chennai vs. ACIT, Non Corporate Circle 7(1), Chennai

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 963/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.963/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri M.R. Sivakumar Acit Old No.480 New No.3/480 Non-Corporate Circle-7(1) बनाम 2Nd Avenue, 4Th Sector, Chennai-34. / Vs. West Anna Nagar Extension, Chennai-600 101. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Azhps-2774-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri M. Karunakaran (Advocate)-Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit)- Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 29-01-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29-01-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri M. Karunakaran (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)- Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

/Date of Pronouncement : 29-01-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1.Aggrieved by confirmation of certain penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Rs.12.51 Lacs for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17, the assessee is in further appeal before us. The impugned order has been passed

Titan Laboratories Pvt Ltd, Ghatkopare (E) vs. ACIT-14(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3268/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3268/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Titan Laboratories Pvt. बिधम/ Acit, Circle-14(3)(1) Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Vs. A/01-Gf & A/101 Plot No. Road, Mumbai-400020. 120, Anand Bhavan Road, Spectrum Building, Rb Mehta Marg, Tilak Road, Ghatkopare (E), Mumbai- 400077. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacct0509Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ravindra Poojari Revenue By: Shri P. D. Chougule (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/01/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi Dated 30.08.2023 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee As Discernable From Perusal Of Grounds Of Appeal Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Act (Hereinafter “The Act”) To The Tune Of Rs.14,88,214/-.

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra PoojariFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule (Sr. AR)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

have been spelled out without striking down the in-applicable faults on which assessee has been put on notice for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, we find that assessee was in the dark as to what fault it has committed for which the AO proposed