← All Phrases

“levy of penalty”

PenaltySection 271Section 2715,057 judgments

The decision most relied on for levy of penalty is CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), cited in 2,590 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on levy of penalty

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory
359 ITR 565 · 2013 · High Court
2,590
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.

CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.
322 ITR 158 · 2010 · Supreme Court
2,228
citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income is not automatically leviable if the assessee has made a full disclosure of all particulars and the addition or disallowance arises from a difference of opinion.

Ashok Pai v. CIT
292 ITR 11 · 2007 · Supreme Court
812
citing judgments

“Concealment of particulars of income” and “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” are two distinct offences under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. A penalty cannot be levied under one limb if the show cause notice or basis for penalty specifies the other, as this constitutes a complete variance in the reasons for assuming jurisdiction.

Rashmikant Kundalia v. Union of India
54 Taxmann.com 200 · 2015 · High Court
702
citing judgments

Section 234E, levying late fees for delayed filing of TDS statements under section 200(3), is constitutionally valid and constitutes a compensatory fee, not a punitive penalty. Before treating any person as an assessee-in-default, an opportunity of being heard must be provided.

Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT
291 ITR 519 · 2007 · Supreme Court
565
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if the Assessing Officer fails to strike out the inapplicable limb (concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars) from the standard proforma, indicating non-application of mind. The initial burden of proving concealment or inaccurate particulars rests on the Revenue.

CIT v. Kaushalya
216 ITR 660 · 1995 · High Court
511
citing judgments

A penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is not invalidated by the Assessing Officer's failure to strike off irrelevant portions in the show cause notice, provided the assessee understood the exact charge and suffered no prejudice, indicating an application of mind by the AO.

CIT v. Manu Engg
122 ITR 306 · 1980 · High Court
505
citing judgments

When levying a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), the Assessing Officer must clearly specify whether it is for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. An ambiguous notice or order using "and/or" for these limbs, or a standard proforma without striking irrelevant clauses, indicates non-application of mind and renders the penalty unsustainable.

Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa
83 ITR 26 · 1972 · Supreme Court
502
citing judgments

An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation results from quasi-criminal proceedings. Penalty is not ordinarily imposed unless the party acted deliberately in defiance of law, was guilty of contumacious or dishonest conduct, or acted in conscious disregard of their obligation.

Judgments citing levy of penalty

S S R S Mem Edu Society, South Extension Part-II vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3064/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआयअसं.3064/दिल्ली/2025 (नि.व. 2018-19)

For Appellant: Shri V.K Tulsian, Chartered Accountant (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 270A

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 17.03.2025, for AY 2018-19, confirming levy of penalty u/s.270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act'). 2. Shri V.K Tulsian, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that ... levied penalty of 200% of tax payable on under reported income. He submitted that there is no provision u/s.270A of the Act for levy of penalty of 200% on under reported income. Sub-section (7) to section 270A of the Act empowers the AO to levy penalty in respect

Satish Kumar Arora, Agra vs. Income Tax Officer 1(1)(2), Agra

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 510/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra11 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhsatish Kumar Arora, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 1 Ashok Enclave Dayal Watd-1(1)(2), Bagh, Agra, Up Agra, Up (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aampa0703C Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Sharma, Adv Shri Manuj Sharma, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 11/02/2026

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 271A

only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the learned CIT(A) was justified in confirming the levy of penalty under section 271AAB of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials ... Page 7 & 8 Page 7 & 8 Page 8 & 9 assessment 8 & 9 order at page 5. The dispute before us is the levy of penalty under section 271AAB of the Act in respect of the aforesaid final additions sustained by the Tribunal. From the aforesaid chart, it is evident that

Smt Neha Prasanna Ghotage, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Karwar

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 268/PAN/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 144Section 246ASection 249Section 250Section 253(1)Section 271(1)(c)

statement u/s 131 of the Act it was well within her knowledge. Reinforcing the assessee’s awareness about the framing of assessment and levy of penalty by separate orders, the Ld. Zain further argued that, once it is established so, then the filing of first appeal before

Smt Neha Prasanna Ghotage, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Karwar

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 267/PAN/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 144Section 246ASection 249Section 250Section 253(1)Section 271(1)(c)

statement u/s 131 of the Act it was well within her knowledge. Reinforcing the assessee’s awareness about the framing of assessment and levy of penalty by separate orders, the Ld. Zain further argued that, once it is established so, then the filing of first appeal before

Smt Neha Prasanna Ghotage, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Karwar

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 266/PAN/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 144Section 246ASection 249Section 250Section 253(1)Section 271(1)(c)

statement u/s 131 of the Act it was well within her knowledge. Reinforcing the assessee’s awareness about the framing of assessment and levy of penalty by separate orders, the Ld. Zain further argued that, once it is established so, then the filing of first appeal before

Smt Neha Prasanna Ghotage, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Karwar

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 265/PAN/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 144Section 246ASection 249Section 250Section 253(1)Section 271(1)(c)

statement u/s 131 of the Act it was well within her knowledge. Reinforcing the assessee’s awareness about the framing of assessment and levy of penalty by separate orders, the Ld. Zain further argued that, once it is established so, then the filing of first appeal before

Smt Neha Prasanna Ghotage, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Karwar

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 264/PAN/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 144Section 246ASection 249Section 250Section 253(1)Section 271(1)(c)

statement u/s 131 of the Act it was well within her knowledge. Reinforcing the assessee’s awareness about the framing of assessment and levy of penalty by separate orders, the Ld. Zain further argued that, once it is established so, then the filing of first appeal before

Smt Neha Prasanna Ghotage, Belagavi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2, Belagavi

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 263/PAN/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 144Section 246ASection 249Section 250Section 253(1)Section 271(1)(c)

statement u/s 131 of the Act it was well within her knowledge. Reinforcing the assessee’s awareness about the framing of assessment and levy of penalty by separate orders, the Ld. Zain further argued that, once it is established so, then the filing of first appeal before

Smt Neha Prasanna Ghotage, Belagavi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2, Belagavi

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 262/PAN/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 144Section 246ASection 249Section 250Section 253(1)Section 271(1)(c)

statement u/s 131 of the Act it was well within her knowledge. Reinforcing the assessee’s awareness about the framing of assessment and levy of penalty by separate orders, the Ld. Zain further argued that, once it is established so, then the filing of first appeal before

Smt Neha Prasanna Ghotage, Belagavi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2, Belagavi

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 261/PAN/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 144Section 246ASection 249Section 250Section 253(1)Section 271(1)(c)

statement u/s 131 of the Act it was well within her knowledge. Reinforcing the assessee’s awareness about the framing of assessment and levy of penalty by separate orders, the Ld. Zain further argued that, once it is established so, then the filing of first appeal before

Smt Neha Prasanna Ghotage, Belagavi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2, Belagavi

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 260/PAN/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 144Section 246ASection 249Section 250Section 253(1)Section 271(1)(c)

statement u/s 131 of the Act it was well within her knowledge. Reinforcing the assessee’s awareness about the framing of assessment and levy of penalty by separate orders, the Ld. Zain further argued that, once it is established so, then the filing of first appeal before

Smt Neha Prasanna Ghotage, Belagavi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, 2, Belagavi

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 259/PAN/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 144Section 246ASection 249Section 250Section 253(1)Section 271(1)(c)

statement u/s 131 of the Act it was well within her knowledge. Reinforcing the assessee’s awareness about the framing of assessment and levy of penalty by separate orders, the Ld. Zain further argued that, once it is established so, then the filing of first appeal before

Seva Ram Sahu, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-1(5), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 820/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 820/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). 2. The sole issue challenges the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 1 Seva Ram Sahu vs. ITO, Ward-1(5) Raipur 3. The relevant facts giving rise

State Bank of India Local Head Office Chandigarh, Chandigarh vs. Addl Commissioner of Income Tax(TDS) Chandigarh, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 991/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 10(5)Section 133(6)Section 192Section 271C

penalty proceedings under section 271C of the Act and levied penalty equal to the amount of tax allegedly not deducted. Aggrieved by the levy of penalty, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). 3.2 The Assessing Officer held that the assessee failed to deduct ... imposed. 4. Against the order of the AO the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The CIT(A) upheld the levy of penalty under section 271C of the Act. The CIT(A) observed that it is an admitted fact that no tax was deducted at source

Mumatajabi Yasin Sayyad, Beed vs. CIT(A), Aurangabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2699/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2699 & 2698/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Mumatajabi Yasin Sayyad, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Krantinagar, Patoda, Ward -1(5), Beed-414204 Aurangabad Maharashtra Pan : Codps6590A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Shubham RathiFor Respondent: Shri Eknath Abhang
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

condoned the delay in filing of the appeals and dismissed the appeals against the quantum addition as well as against levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. He prayed for condoning the said delay and affording one more opportunity to go before ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication ... individual has been assessed for A.Y. 2015-16 and addition of Rs.37.00 lakh has been made u/s.69A of the Act followed by levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act at Rs.11,10,000/-. Further, the assessee filed the appeals before ld.CIT(A) against the quantum addition and penalty

Mumatajabi Yasin Sayyad, Beed vs. CIT(A), Aurangabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2698/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2699 & 2698/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Mumatajabi Yasin Sayyad, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Krantinagar, Patoda, Ward -1(5), Beed-414204 Aurangabad Maharashtra Pan : Codps6590A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Shubham RathiFor Respondent: Shri Eknath Abhang
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

condoned the delay in filing of the appeals and dismissed the appeals against the quantum addition as well as against levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. He prayed for condoning the said delay and affording one more opportunity to go before ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication ... individual has been assessed for A.Y. 2015-16 and addition of Rs.37.00 lakh has been made u/s.69A of the Act followed by levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act at Rs.11,10,000/-. Further, the assessee filed the appeals before ld.CIT(A) against the quantum addition and penalty

Yata Ramchander, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1722/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1617 & 1722/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Kesireddy Ravinder Reddy, Uppal, The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad – 500 039. Ward-11(1, Pan Apypk7089Q Vs. Signature Towers, Yata Ramchander, Hyderabad - 500084. Uppal, Hyderabad. Pin -500039. Telangana. Pan Acvpy9822D Telangana. (Appellants) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri Mohd Afzal, Advocate राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 11.02.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Sri Mohd Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 269SSection 271DSection 274Section 275

confirming the order of the JCIT-Range-15, u/s 271D of the IT Act, wherein, an amount of Rs.7,82,500/- is levied as penalty for violation of provision of section 269SS of the IT Act. 3. The learned Commissioner erred in confirming the order u/s 271D ... initiated u/sec.271D of the Act for violation of the provisions of sec.269SS of the Act vide show cause notice dated 16.08.2019. The JCIT levied the penalty of Rs.7,82,500/- 4 ITA.Nos.1617 & 1722/Hyd./2025 u/sec.271D in each case being 50% share in receipt of cash in the transaction

Kesireddy Ravinder Reddy, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1617/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.1617 & 1722/Hyd/2025

For Appellant: Sri Mohd Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 269SSection 271DSection 274Section 275

confirming the order of the JCIT-Range-15, u/s 271D of the IT Act, wherein, an amount of Rs.7,82,500/- is levied as penalty for violation of provision of section 269SS of the IT Act. 3. The learned Commissioner erred in confirming the order u/s 271D ... initiated u/sec.271D of the Act for violation of the provisions of sec.269SS of the Act vide show cause notice dated 16.08.2019. The JCIT levied the penalty of Rs.7,82,500/- u/sec.271D in each case being 50% share in receipt of cash in the transaction of sale of property. The assessee

Myumghwa Automotive India Pvt. Ltd., Kanchipuram vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-4(1), Chennai

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2660/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. Divya Abhishek, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. K. Ilayaraja, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 36(1)(va)

income’ at the rate of 200% on the tax sought to be evaded and thereby a sum of Rs.5,28,800/- was levied as penalty. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) vide Form 35 dated 06.01.2022. Subsequently, notices ... claim of deduction, following one view would not come within the purview of misreporting of income and it cannot lead to levy of penalty. In support of the contention that the claim of PF/ESI is allowable, the assessee relied on the following case:  CIT V. Vinay Cement

Tncp LLP., Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw-1(1), Coimbatore

ITA 2603/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:2602 & 2603/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Tncd Llp, 126, Kg House, Arts College Road, Coimbatore - 641 018. [Pan:Aagft-8799-R] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By Ito, Vs. Non Corporate Ward -1(1), Coimbatore. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.C.I.Τ. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषण की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: आदेश /Order : 20.11.2025 : 11.02.2026 These Appeals Of The Assessee Are Filed Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘Ld.Cit(A)') For The Assessment Year 2018-19, Both Dated 09.07.2025 Against The Assessment Orders Passed By The Ao, Nfac, Delhi, U/S.143 (3) R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act') Dated 20.09.2021 & The Penalty Order Passed By The Ao, Nfac, Delhi, U/S.270A Of The Act Dated 15.01.2022 Respectively. :-2-:

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 23Section 23(1)Section 24Section 270ASection 36(1)(va)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरि, न्यायिक