← 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)

Shri Jashandeep Singh Sidhu, Bathinda vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(3), Bathinda

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

ITA 310/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar20 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 144Section 144aSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

310/Asr/2019for ground no. 6 and 7 are allowed for statistical purposes. 12. In this appeal, the issue is related to penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The quantum appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No. 310/Asr/2019 was remitted back to the I.T.A. No. 310/Asr/2019 11 & ITA No.11/Asr/2023 Assessment Year

Hasmukhbhai Dahyabhai Patel, Vapi vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Vapi Circle, Vapi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 115/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), DR. A. L. SAINI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr- DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: “1. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming penalty u/s 271(1)(c) taking concealed income at Rs.2,81,36,170/- ignoring submission and bona fide of the appellant. 2. Ld. CIT(A) erred ... issued and duly served on the assessee on 20.03.2019, the assessee was requested to show cause as to why an order levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, should not be passed in his case. In response to the show cause notice dated 18.03.2019, the assessee has submitted

Smt. Dipalben Manish Patel, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Raipur

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed in terms of our observations above

ITA 215/RPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 215/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Dipalben Manish Patel 4-502, Near Maharashtra Mandal, Choubey Colony, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Alupp3271B

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

That under the facts & the law, the Ld. CIT (A) further erred in confirming the Order of learned AO levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) at Rs.1,90,000/- though the Appellant on her own, to avoid litigation, offered the exempted long term capital gain on sale of shares u/s ... therefore, the assessee had remained divested of an opportunity to put forth in her defense a clear explanation that no such penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was called for in her case. The ld. AR, in support of his contention above had relied on the judgment

DCIT-CC-27, New Delhi vs. Anshika Consultants Pvt Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 35/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.” Cross Objection

Section 115JSection 136(6)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 68

from investment made in promotee company, there is no reason why such investment should be excluded while computing disallowance under rule 8D. Penalty U/s 271(1)(c) is being initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5.7 In view of the above discussion, average amount of investment is computed

Shivom Vidyapeeth Shikshan Samiti, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemetion 2, Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 261/RPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.261/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shivom Vidyapeeth Shikshan Samiti V Income Tax Officer 214, Shivom Vihar Raipur-492 013 S Exemption-2 Chhattisgarh Raipur Pan: Aahts 6464M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri G.S. Agrawal & Shubham Agarwal, Cas राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 08/08/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 26.10.2022 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For Ay 2015-16, Instituted Against The Penalty Order By Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Dated 28.06.2018. The Grounds Of The Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. That Under The Facts & The Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Confirming The Order Of Penalty Levied By The Ld. Ao U/S 271(1)(C) At Rs.2,40,630/- Rejecting The Explanation. Prayed That Provisions Of Sec.271(1)(C) Are Not Applicable, Penalty Levied At Rs.2,40,630/- Kindly Be Cancelled. 2. That Under The Facts & The Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Further Erred In Confirming The Penalty Levied At Rs. 2,40,630/- U/S 271(1)(C) By The Ld. Ao, Though The Ld. Ao Did Not Allow Opportunity To The Appellant As To For Which Default, Penalty Proceedings Were Initiated. Prayed To Cancel The Penalty.

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Agrawal & ShubhamFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 57

That under the facts & the law, the Ld. CIT (A) further erred in confirming the Order of Ld. AO levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) at Rs. 2,40,630/- though the Return of Income was filed on 09.09.2016 whereas registration u/s 12A was granted to the Appellant vide Order ... u/s. 10(23C) (iii ad) of the Act claimed by the appellant as per the return of income. Accordingly, the AO levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the addition of Rs.11,47,592/- considering the concealment of income by the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer

M/S Eternal Heart Care Centre & Research Institute Pvt. Ltd., 3A, Jagatpura Road, Near Jawahar Circle, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 263/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Parwal, CA &For Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 271A

revising the order does not arise. In the instant case, though the AO recorded his finding in the order for initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c), he issued the notice u/s 271AAB(1A). Admittedly there is no order in so far as penalty proceedings are concerned. Once there ... Ahmedabad) (Trib.) Once the assessment is concluded, the CIT becomes functus officio as regards initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Non initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) while framing assessment is not a good ground for invoking revisional powers u/s 263. Section 271(1)(c) read

Ashok Kumar Singh, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-2(2), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed in terms of our observations above

ITA 150/RPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 150/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Ashok Kumar Singh P-10, Rishab Green City, Pulgaon, Durg-491 001 (C.G) Pan : Bcfps1394K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-2(2), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

therefore, the assessee had remained divested of an opportunity to put forth in his defense a clear explanation that no such penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was called for in his case. The ld. AR, in support of his contention above had relied on certain judicial pronouncements, as under ... submitted that now when the assessee, in compliance with the SCN, dated 31.12.2017, had submitted that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was called for in his hands; therefore, it was beyond comprehension that as to on what basis he could after that claim that

Raj Kishore Prasad, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3, Valsad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 146/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.146/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Hearing) Raj Kishore Prasad, Vs. The Ito, 201, 2Nd Floor, Devashish Complex, Ward-3, Nr. Regenta Central Antarim Hotel, Valsad Off Cg Road, Ahmedabad "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aitpp0535A (Assessee) (Respondent)

Section 10(5)Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

income, on the part of the assessee. I also note that Penalty order did not specify the particular limb under which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is levied. The para 4 of the penalty order dated 15/03/2018 wherein the Assessing Officer has mentioned as under. “4. Considering the facts

M/S Rameshkumar Vyas, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 26(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1978/MUM/2023[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar.)
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234Section 271(1)(c)

confirming the above additions. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer erred in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and charging interest u/s 234. • The appellant reserve rights to add alter or delete any portion of this appeal before its conclusion. • This

Shri Kiranjit Singh, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4 (3), Amritsar

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

ITA 216/ASR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Ratinder Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 30.05.2023 for Assessment Year: 2010-2011 wherein he has challenged 2 Kiranjit Singh v. ITO confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is illegal, arbitrary, bad in law and contrary to the facts of the case

Cobol Technologies Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-18, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 698/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Kr. Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

been filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-27, New Delhi dated 16.01.2023. 2. The Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act of Rs.4,19,240/- on account of addition made u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect ... sundry creditors for the F.Y. 2013-14. The penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before us. 3. We have also gone through the notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 issued

ACIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Int. Taxation, New Delhi vs. Raytheon Company, Gurgaon

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue for the

ITA 441/DEL/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1383 To 1392/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Yeasrs:2004-05 To 2006-07, 2008-09 To 2011-12 & 2014-15 To 2016-17 बनाम Dcit, Raytheon Company Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. 870, Winter Steet, Int. Taxation, Waltham-Ma 02451, Room No. 416, Foreign Usa, 4Th Floor, E-2 Block, Usa. Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadcr3511P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.441/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2007-08 बनाम Acit, Raytheon Company Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. C/O Srbc & Associates Int. Taxation, Llp, Golf View Corporate Room No. 416, Tower-B, Sector-42, 4Th Floor, E-2 Block, Sector Road, Gurgaon, Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, Haryana. J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadcr3511P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

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

Union of India in WP No. 57865/2015 dated 11.06.2019 submits that even after MAP proceedings there is no bar in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the Assessing Officer in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c ... Company the assessee submits that there is no concealment of income or furnishing all inaccurate particulars by the assessee which warrant any penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Heard rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. 5. We observe that the assessee in all these

DCIT, Circle 3(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi vs. Raytheon Company, United State

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue for the

ITA 1392/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1383 To 1392/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Yeasrs:2004-05 To 2006-07, 2008-09 To 2011-12 & 2014-15 To 2016-17 बनाम Dcit, Raytheon Company Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. 870, Winter Steet, Int. Taxation, Waltham-Ma 02451, Room No. 416, Foreign Usa, 4Th Floor, E-2 Block, Usa. Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadcr3511P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.441/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2007-08 बनाम Acit, Raytheon Company Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. C/O Srbc & Associates Int. Taxation, Llp, Golf View Corporate Room No. 416, Tower-B, Sector-42, 4Th Floor, E-2 Block, Sector Road, Gurgaon, Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, Haryana. J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadcr3511P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

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

Union of India in WP No. 57865/2015 dated 11.06.2019 submits that even after MAP proceedings there is no bar in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the Assessing Officer in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c ... Company the assessee submits that there is no concealment of income or furnishing all inaccurate particulars by the assessee which warrant any penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Heard rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. 5. We observe that the assessee in all these

DCIT, Circle 3(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi vs. Raytheon Company, United State

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue for the

ITA 1391/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1383 To 1392/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Yeasrs:2004-05 To 2006-07, 2008-09 To 2011-12 & 2014-15 To 2016-17 बनाम Dcit, Raytheon Company Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. 870, Winter Steet, Int. Taxation, Waltham-Ma 02451, Room No. 416, Foreign Usa, 4Th Floor, E-2 Block, Usa. Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadcr3511P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.441/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2007-08 बनाम Acit, Raytheon Company Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. C/O Srbc & Associates Int. Taxation, Llp, Golf View Corporate Room No. 416, Tower-B, Sector-42, 4Th Floor, E-2 Block, Sector Road, Gurgaon, Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, Haryana. J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadcr3511P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

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

Union of India in WP No. 57865/2015 dated 11.06.2019 submits that even after MAP proceedings there is no bar in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the Assessing Officer in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c ... Company the assessee submits that there is no concealment of income or furnishing all inaccurate particulars by the assessee which warrant any penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Heard rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. 5. We observe that the assessee in all these

DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Int. Taxation, New Delhi vs. Raytheon Company, United States

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue for the

ITA 1390/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1383 To 1392/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Yeasrs:2004-05 To 2006-07, 2008-09 To 2011-12 & 2014-15 To 2016-17 बनाम Dcit, Raytheon Company Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. 870, Winter Steet, Int. Taxation, Waltham-Ma 02451, Room No. 416, Foreign Usa, 4Th Floor, E-2 Block, Usa. Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadcr3511P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.441/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2007-08 बनाम Acit, Raytheon Company Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. C/O Srbc & Associates Int. Taxation, Llp, Golf View Corporate Room No. 416, Tower-B, Sector-42, 4Th Floor, E-2 Block, Sector Road, Gurgaon, Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, Haryana. J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadcr3511P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

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

Union of India in WP No. 57865/2015 dated 11.06.2019 submits that even after MAP proceedings there is no bar in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the Assessing Officer in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c ... Company the assessee submits that there is no concealment of income or furnishing all inaccurate particulars by the assessee which warrant any penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Heard rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. 5. We observe that the assessee in all these

DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Int. Taxation, New Delhi vs. Raytheon Company, United States

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue for the

ITA 1389/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1383 To 1392/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Yeasrs:2004-05 To 2006-07, 2008-09 To 2011-12 & 2014-15 To 2016-17 बनाम Dcit, Raytheon Company Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. 870, Winter Steet, Int. Taxation, Waltham-Ma 02451, Room No. 416, Foreign Usa, 4Th Floor, E-2 Block, Usa. Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadcr3511P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.441/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2007-08 बनाम Acit, Raytheon Company Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. C/O Srbc & Associates Int. Taxation, Llp, Golf View Corporate Room No. 416, Tower-B, Sector-42, 4Th Floor, E-2 Block, Sector Road, Gurgaon, Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, Haryana. J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadcr3511P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

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

Union of India in WP No. 57865/2015 dated 11.06.2019 submits that even after MAP proceedings there is no bar in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the Assessing Officer in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c ... Company the assessee submits that there is no concealment of income or furnishing all inaccurate particulars by the assessee which warrant any penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Heard rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. 5. We observe that the assessee in all these

DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1) Int. Taxation, New Delhi vs. Raytheon Company, United States

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue for the

ITA 1388/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1383 To 1392/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Yeasrs:2004-05 To 2006-07, 2008-09 To 2011-12 & 2014-15 To 2016-17 बनाम Dcit, Raytheon Company Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. 870, Winter Steet, Int. Taxation, Waltham-Ma 02451, Room No. 416, Foreign Usa, 4Th Floor, E-2 Block, Usa. Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadcr3511P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.441/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2007-08 बनाम Acit, Raytheon Company Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. C/O Srbc & Associates Int. Taxation, Llp, Golf View Corporate Room No. 416, Tower-B, Sector-42, 4Th Floor, E-2 Block, Sector Road, Gurgaon, Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, Haryana. J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadcr3511P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

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

Union of India in WP No. 57865/2015 dated 11.06.2019 submits that even after MAP proceedings there is no bar in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the Assessing Officer in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c ... Company the assessee submits that there is no concealment of income or furnishing all inaccurate particulars by the assessee which warrant any penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Heard rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. 5. We observe that the assessee in all these

DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Int. Taxation, New Delhi vs. Raytheon Company, United States

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue for the

ITA 1387/DEL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1383 To 1392/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Yeasrs:2004-05 To 2006-07, 2008-09 To 2011-12 & 2014-15 To 2016-17 बनाम Dcit, Raytheon Company Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. 870, Winter Steet, Int. Taxation, Waltham-Ma 02451, Room No. 416, Foreign Usa, 4Th Floor, E-2 Block, Usa. Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadcr3511P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.441/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2007-08 बनाम Acit, Raytheon Company Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. C/O Srbc & Associates Int. Taxation, Llp, Golf View Corporate Room No. 416, Tower-B, Sector-42, 4Th Floor, E-2 Block, Sector Road, Gurgaon, Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, Haryana. J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadcr3511P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

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

Union of India in WP No. 57865/2015 dated 11.06.2019 submits that even after MAP proceedings there is no bar in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the Assessing Officer in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c ... Company the assessee submits that there is no concealment of income or furnishing all inaccurate particulars by the assessee which warrant any penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Heard rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. 5. We observe that the assessee in all these

DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1) Int. Taxation, New Delhi vs. Raytheon Company, United States

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue for the

ITA 1386/DEL/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1383 To 1392/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Yeasrs:2004-05 To 2006-07, 2008-09 To 2011-12 & 2014-15 To 2016-17 बनाम Dcit, Raytheon Company Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. 870, Winter Steet, Int. Taxation, Waltham-Ma 02451, Room No. 416, Foreign Usa, 4Th Floor, E-2 Block, Usa. Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadcr3511P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.441/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2007-08 बनाम Acit, Raytheon Company Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. C/O Srbc & Associates Int. Taxation, Llp, Golf View Corporate Room No. 416, Tower-B, Sector-42, 4Th Floor, E-2 Block, Sector Road, Gurgaon, Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, Haryana. J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadcr3511P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

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

Union of India in WP No. 57865/2015 dated 11.06.2019 submits that even after MAP proceedings there is no bar in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the Assessing Officer in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c ... Company the assessee submits that there is no concealment of income or furnishing all inaccurate particulars by the assessee which warrant any penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Heard rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. 5. We observe that the assessee in all these

DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Int. Taxation, New Delhi vs. Raytheon Company, United States

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue for the

ITA 1385/DEL/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1383 To 1392/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Yeasrs:2004-05 To 2006-07, 2008-09 To 2011-12 & 2014-15 To 2016-17 बनाम Dcit, Raytheon Company Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. 870, Winter Steet, Int. Taxation, Waltham-Ma 02451, Room No. 416, Foreign Usa, 4Th Floor, E-2 Block, Usa. Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadcr3511P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.441/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2007-08 बनाम Acit, Raytheon Company Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. C/O Srbc & Associates Int. Taxation, Llp, Golf View Corporate Room No. 416, Tower-B, Sector-42, 4Th Floor, E-2 Block, Sector Road, Gurgaon, Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, Haryana. J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadcr3511P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

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

Union of India in WP No. 57865/2015 dated 11.06.2019 submits that even after MAP proceedings there is no bar in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the Assessing Officer in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c ... Company the assessee submits that there is no concealment of income or furnishing all inaccurate particulars by the assessee which warrant any penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Heard rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. 5. We observe that the assessee in all these