← 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

Gauravkumar Manilal Patel, Tapi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2)(7), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 934/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Surat18 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.931 To 934 & 935 To 936/Srt/2024

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

931/SRT/2024 (supra). Since the matter has been restored to the AO for fresh adjudication, there is no basis at all for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. As the penalty order does not survive, the resultant order of CIT(A) is quashed. We make it clear ... purpose. ITA No.932/SRT/2024 (AY:2012-13): 18. Though the appellant has raised five grounds of appeal, they are inter- related and pertain to levy of penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. Since the assessee did not comply with the notices issued

Gauravkumar Manilal Patel, Tapi vs. ITO, Ward 3(2)(7), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 933/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Surat18 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.931 To 934 & 935 To 936/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: (2012-13 & 2013-14) (Physical Hearing) Gauravkumar Manilal Patel, Vs. The Ito, 1, Post: Hathuka, Kanbi Faliya, Tal: Ward – 3(2)(7), Valod, Tapi - 394640 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aogpp5609G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

931/SRT/2024 (supra). Since the matter has been restored to the AO for fresh adjudication, there is no basis at all for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. As the penalty order does not survive, the resultant order of CIT(A) is quashed. We make it clear ... purpose. ITA No.932/SRT/2024 (AY:2012-13): 18. Though the appellant has raised five grounds of appeal, they are inter- related and pertain to levy of penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. Since the assessee did not comply with the notices issued

Gauravkumar Manilal Patel, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 3(2)(7), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 932/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Surat18 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.931 To 934 & 935 To 936/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: (2012-13 & 2013-14) (Physical Hearing) Gauravkumar Manilal Patel, Vs. The Ito, 1, Post: Hathuka, Kanbi Faliya, Tal: Ward – 3(2)(7), Valod, Tapi - 394640 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aogpp5609G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

931/SRT/2024 (supra). Since the matter has been restored to the AO for fresh adjudication, there is no basis at all for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. As the penalty order does not survive, the resultant order of CIT(A) is quashed. We make it clear ... purpose. ITA No.932/SRT/2024 (AY:2012-13): 18. Though the appellant has raised five grounds of appeal, they are inter- related and pertain to levy of penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. Since the assessee did not comply with the notices issued

Gauravkumar Manilal Patel, Tapi vs. ITO, Ward 3(2)(7), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 931/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Surat18 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.931 To 934 & 935 To 936/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: (2012-13 & 2013-14) (Physical Hearing) Gauravkumar Manilal Patel, Vs. The Ito, 1, Post: Hathuka, Kanbi Faliya, Tal: Ward – 3(2)(7), Valod, Tapi - 394640 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aogpp5609G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

931/SRT/2024 (supra). Since the matter has been restored to the AO for fresh adjudication, there is no basis at all for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. As the penalty order does not survive, the resultant order of CIT(A) is quashed. We make it clear ... purpose. ITA No.932/SRT/2024 (AY:2012-13): 18. Though the appellant has raised five grounds of appeal, they are inter- related and pertain to levy of penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. Since the assessee did not comply with the notices issued

Rajendra Shyamkant Shivrame, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 2 (1), Nashik

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 936/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath
Section 147Section 148Section 270A

ground that the assesse had under reported and mis reported his income. In consequence of misreporting without appreciating that the said levy of penalty was not justified in law. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax failed to appreciate that before the Commissioner of Income Tax, the assessee had duly ... form of complaint filed against Tax Consultant before Economic Wing of Police Department etc. were also furnished by the assesse and therefore, the levy of penalty u/s 270A without rebutting the explanation offered by the assesse was not justified in view of provisions of the said Act. 3. The learned

Rajendra Shyamkant Shivrame, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Nashik

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 935/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath
Section 147Section 148Section 270A

ground that the assesse had under reported and mis reported his income. In consequence of misreporting without appreciating that the said levy of penalty was not justified in law. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax failed to appreciate that before the Commissioner of Income Tax, the assessee had duly ... form of complaint filed against Tax Consultant before Economic Wing of Police Department etc. were also furnished by the assesse and therefore, the levy of penalty u/s 270A without rebutting the explanation offered by the assesse was not justified in view of provisions of the said Act. 3. The learned

Santosh Ashokrao Barhanpurkar, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Nashik

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2132/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

ground that the assesse had concealment of income without appreciating that the said levy of penalty was not justified in law. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax failed to appreciate that before the Commissioner of Income Tax, the assesse had duly explained that concealment of income in his case ... form of complaint filed against Tax Consultant before Economic Wing of Police Department etc. were also furnished by the assesse and therefore, the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) without rebutting the explanation offered by the assesse was not justified in view of provisions of the said

Santosh Ashokrao Barhanpurkar, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Nashik

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2131/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2131 & 2132/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Santosh Ashokrao Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Nashik. Barhanpurkar, Flat No.B-8, Deepali Appt., Near Bus Stop Mahatmanagar, Nashik- 422007. Pan: Aawpb8671N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 05.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.02.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 23.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.2131/Pun/2024 For A.Y. 2016-17.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs.36,000/- on the ground that the assesse had concealment of income without appreciating that the said levy of penalty was not justified in law. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax failed to appreciate that before the Commissioner of Income Tax, the assesse ... form of complaint filed against Tax Consultant before Economic Wing of Police Department etc. were also furnished by the assesse and therefore, the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) without rebutting the explanation offered by the assesse was not justified in view of provisions of the said

Hitesh Jayantilal Modi (HUF), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer- Ward 32(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3285/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Hitesh Jayantilal Modi (Huf) Income-Tax Officer- Ward 32(1)(5), B-302, Mahvideh, Near Municipal Kautilya Bhavan, Vs. Garden, Chandavarkar Road, Mumbai. Borivali West, Mumbai-400092. Pan No. Aabhh 3508 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Manoj MundraFor Respondent: 09/12/2024
Section 271(1)(c)

learned CIT(A) erred in 1. Under the facts and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming levying of penalty w/s 271(1(c) of the confirming levying of penalty w/s 271(1(c) of the Income Tax Income ... confirming that the appellant is guilty of furnishing inaccurate confirming that the appellant is guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income liable for levy of penalty us 271(1)(c) of the particulars of income liable for levy of penalty us 271(1)(c) of the particulars of income liable

Dharti Motors Private Limited, Rajkot vs. ACIT, ITO, NFAC, Delhi, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 694/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 694/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Dharti Motors Private Limited Vs. Dcit/ Acit, Nfac, Delhi Shop No. 4, 1St Floor Apple Income Tax Office, Aayakar Bhavan, Complex, Nr. Bank Of Baroda, Race Course Ring Road, Astron Chowk, Tagor Road, Rajkot - 360001 Rajkot – 360002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aafcd2145E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Ankit Anadkat, Ld. Ar, Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/02/2025

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Anadkat, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 269SSection 271DSection 285B

concerned assessment year. The AO observed that since the appellant had violated provisions of section 269ST of the Act, it was liable for levy of penalty u/s 271DA of the Act. Accordingly, show-cause notice for the penalty was issued by the AO on 27.09.2021. However, as the appellant ... same. However, since the appellant remained non-compliant, the AO contended that it has no explanation to offer with respect to levy of penalty u/s 271DA of the Act, and accordingly, penalty of Rs.37,46,000/- was levied on the appellant for default of accepting cash of Rs.37

M/S Baba Builders, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-6(2), Jaipur

ITA 1404/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1394 & 1404/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/s. Baba Builders Flat No. 104, White House, Sector-2 Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur 302 004 स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ALFB 1232 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम Vs. The ITO Ward 6 (2) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assesseeby : Shri P.C.Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by: Shri Safin Nil Parihar, JCIT-D

For Appellant: Shri P.C.Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Safin Nil Parihar, JCIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 270A

marched this appeal on the following grounds:- 1. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs.7,62,200/- u/s 270A of IT Act, 1961. 2. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts

M/S Baba Builders, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-6(2), Jaipur

ITA 1394/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C.Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Safin Nil Parihar, JCIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 270A

marched this appeal on the following grounds:- 1. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs.7,62,200/- u/s 270A of IT Act, 1961. 2. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts

Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(1), Hyderabad vs. North Andhra Utilities Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1013/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.आआआ.आआ /Ita Nos.1012 & 1013/Hyd/2024 (आआआआआआआआ आआआआ/Assessment Year:2018-19) Income Tax Officer, M/S. North Andhra Vs. Ward-16(1), Hyderabad. Utilities Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. Pan:Aaeck0781H (Appellant) (Respondent) आआआआआआआआआआ Shri Ved Jain, Advocate आआआआआआ/Assessee By: आआआआआआ आआआआआआ/Revenue Shri K. Ravi Kiran, Cit-Dr By:: आआआआआआ आआ आआआआआ/Date Of 30/01/2025 Hearing: आआआआआ आआ 14/02/2025 आआआआआ/Pronouncement: आआआआ/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M: These Two Appeals Are Filed By M/S. North Andhra Utilities Pvt. Ltd. (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Both Dated 23.08.2024 For The A.Y. 2018-19. Since Both The Appeals Are Inter-Related, They Are Being Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250(4)Section 271ASection 68

fresh adjudication. Accordingly, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. 5. The appeal in ITA No.1013/Hyd/2024 relates to the levy of penalty u/s. 271AAC of the Act by the Ld. AO on the addition made by the Ld. AO in appeal No.1012/Hyd/2024. We have set aside

Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(1), Hyderabad vs. North Andhra Utilities Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1012/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.आआआ.आआ /Ita Nos.1012 & 1013/Hyd/2024 (आआआआआआआआ आआआआ/Assessment Year:2018-19) Income Tax Officer, M/S. North Andhra Vs. Ward-16(1), Hyderabad. Utilities Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. Pan:Aaeck0781H (Appellant) (Respondent) आआआआआआआआआआ Shri Ved Jain, Advocate आआआआआआ/Assessee By: आआआआआआ आआआआआआ/Revenue Shri K. Ravi Kiran, Cit-Dr By:: आआआआआआ आआ आआआआआ/Date Of 30/01/2025 Hearing: आआआआआ आआ 14/02/2025 आआआआआ/Pronouncement: आआआआ/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M: These Two Appeals Are Filed By M/S. North Andhra Utilities Pvt. Ltd. (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Both Dated 23.08.2024 For The A.Y. 2018-19. Since Both The Appeals Are Inter-Related, They Are Being Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250(4)Section 271ASection 68

fresh adjudication. Accordingly, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. 5. The appeal in ITA No.1013/Hyd/2024 relates to the levy of penalty u/s. 271AAC of the Act by the Ld. AO on the addition made by the Ld. AO in appeal No.1012/Hyd/2024. We have set aside

New Dawath Traders, Thanjavur vs. ITO, Ward 1 Kumbakonam, Kumbakonam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2717/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 270ASection 40A(3)

under-reported income. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) has inter- alia confirmed the action of the AO by observing that immunity [from levy of penalty u/s.270A of the Act] could have been granted only if the assessee had filed Form 68 within one month from the end of the month ... filing of Form 68 is only a technical or venial breach which should not snatch away the substantive right to claim immunity from levy of penalty, which assessee got vested with on fulfillment of substantive conditions mandated in Clause (a) & (b) of sub-section (1) of section u/s.270AA

Nirmal Kumar Agrawal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle - 4, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1224/JPR/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Feb 2025AY 2013-2014
For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

Nirmal Kumar Agrawal vs. DCIT fact that the appeal was not filed came to his knowledge when the show cause notice for levy of penalty was received by the assessee and therefore, that delay was there in the filling the appeal before him. 5.1 The ld. AR of the assessee

National Commodities Management Services Limited (Formerly Known As National Collateral Management Services Limited), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Rang -7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3225/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Karkhanis, And Shri Jay DharodFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35A

Services Ltd. ITA No. 3225/Mum/ 2024 (Assessment Year 2015-16)- Assessee’s appeal 2. This is an appeal by the assessee challenging the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. In addition to the main ground, the assessee vide letter dated 30.12.2024 has raised the following additional ... particulars of income and ultimately passed an order under the said provision imposing penalty of Rs.22,16,430/-. Though, the assessee challenged the levy of penalty by filing an appeal before the First Appellate Authority, however, penalty was confirmed. 5. We have heard the parties and perused the materials

Dy.CIT, Circle-7(1)(1), Mumbai, Incometax Department vs. National Commodities Management Services Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2635/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Karkhanis, And Shri Jay DharodFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35A

Services Ltd. ITA No. 3225/Mum/ 2024 (Assessment Year 2015-16)- Assessee’s appeal 2. This is an appeal by the assessee challenging the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. In addition to the main ground, the assessee vide letter dated 30.12.2024 has raised the following additional ... particulars of income and ultimately passed an order under the said provision imposing penalty of Rs.22,16,430/-. Though, the assessee challenged the levy of penalty by filing an appeal before the First Appellate Authority, however, penalty was confirmed. 5. We have heard the parties and perused the materials

National Commodities Management Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1340/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Karkhanis, And Shri Jay DharodFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35A

Services Ltd. ITA No. 3225/Mum/ 2024 (Assessment Year 2015-16)- Assessee’s appeal 2. This is an appeal by the assessee challenging the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. In addition to the main ground, the assessee vide letter dated 30.12.2024 has raised the following additional ... particulars of income and ultimately passed an order under the said provision imposing penalty of Rs.22,16,430/-. Though, the assessee challenged the levy of penalty by filing an appeal before the First Appellate Authority, however, penalty was confirmed. 5. We have heard the parties and perused the materials

Krishna Gopal Saraf, New Delhi vs. ACIT, CC- 28, New Delhi

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

ITA 4564/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri J. N. Shukla, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 270ASection 270A(9)Section 271ASection 274Section 69Section 69ASection 80P

Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Id. AO’). These two appeals preferred by the assessee are challenging the levy of penalty under section 270A and 271AAC of the Act for the Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available ... having treated the appeals as not maintainable on the ground of delay, further proceeded to adjudicate the issue on merits and upheld the levy of penalty on all counts. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeals before us. Page | 2 ITA Nos. 4564 & 4546/Del/2024 Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti