← 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

Amitsingh Vrajrajsingh Bhadoriya, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 261/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumarshri T.R Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri BP Srivastav, Sr.DR
Section 69A

Income Tax (Appeal)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi vide order dated 30.01.2023 for the Assessment Year 2019-20 involving quantum addition and levy of penalty. 2. The Assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- (1) Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in dismissing appeal

Bhagawan Ram Sharma, Sikkim vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(1), Gangtok, Sikkim

In the result, these three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2080/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Feb 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) also it is recorded in para 4.1 at page 2 of the impugned order that the assessee did not make any fruitful compliance before him and thereafter, the addition made was confirmed by not condoning the delay in filing of appeal.

Section 10Section 144Section 250Section 271ASection 272Section 272A(1)(d)Section 69Section 69A

2079/Kol/2024, penalty u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act was levied since in quantum the three additions (supra) attracted the said provision for the levy of penalty. In this case also, since the assessee did not make any compliance before the Ld. CIT(A) hence the matter was decided against ... Regarding ITA No. 2080/Kol/2024 arise from the order u/s 272(A(1)(d) of the Act. The Ld. AO seen to have levy of penalty for non- attendance. This penalty was confirmed on account of the fact that there was no compliance to the notices issued

Bhagawan Ram Sharma, Sikkim vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(1), Gangtok

In the result, these three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2079/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Feb 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) also it is recorded in para 4.1 at page 2 of the impugned order that the assessee did not make any fruitful compliance before him and thereafter, the addition made was confirmed by not condoning the delay in filing of appeal.

Section 10Section 144Section 250Section 271ASection 272Section 272A(1)(d)Section 69Section 69A

2079/Kol/2024, penalty u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act was levied since in quantum the three additions (supra) attracted the said provision for the levy of penalty. In this case also, since the assessee did not make any compliance before the Ld. CIT(A) hence the matter was decided against ... Regarding ITA No. 2080/Kol/2024 arise from the order u/s 272(A(1)(d) of the Act. The Ld. AO seen to have levy of penalty for non- attendance. This penalty was confirmed on account of the fact that there was no compliance to the notices issued

Bhagawan Ram Sharma, Sikkim vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(1), Gangtok

In the result, these three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2078/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Feb 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) also it is recorded in para 4.1 at page 2 of the impugned order that the assessee did not make any fruitful compliance before him and thereafter, the addition made was confirmed by not condoning the delay in filing of appeal.

Section 10Section 144Section 250Section 271ASection 272Section 272A(1)(d)Section 69Section 69A

2079/Kol/2024, penalty u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act was levied since in quantum the three additions (supra) attracted the said provision for the levy of penalty. In this case also, since the assessee did not make any compliance before the Ld. CIT(A) hence the matter was decided against ... Regarding ITA No. 2080/Kol/2024 arise from the order u/s 272(A(1)(d) of the Act. The Ld. AO seen to have levy of penalty for non- attendance. This penalty was confirmed on account of the fact that there was no compliance to the notices issued

M/S Silver Oaks Township Ltd., Bathinda vs. DCIT-CC-III, Ludhiana

ITA 183/CHANDI/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 183/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Silver Oaks Township Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-Iii, Ltd., बनाम Ludhiana 163, Urban Estate, Phase Ii, Bhatinda 151001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aajcs3445B अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02.01.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03 .02.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

under:- 939-Chd-2018 M/s Silver Oaks Township Ltd, Bhatinda 2 1. That the Ld. CI(A), Ludhiana has erred in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs.7,39,283/-, which have been imposed in contravention to the provisions of section

Rakesh Kumar Jain, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 362/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.361/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Madhu Devi V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(1) C.R. Building, 1St Floor Annex #27-23-66, Chetla Bazar M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Governorpet, Vijayawada – 520002 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aelpj0707L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.362/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Rakesh Kumar Jain V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(1) C.R. Building, 1St Floor Annex D.No. 27-12-35, Chetla Bazar M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Governorpet, Vijayawada – 520002 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Astps2713B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 269SSection 271D

response, assessee filed her reply. After perusing the reply of the assessee, Ld. AO being not convinced with her submissions proceeded to levy the penalty of Rs.46,54,622/- for contravening the provisions of section 269SS of the Act, under 271D of the Act. Page No. 3 I.T.A.No.361/VIZ/2024 Madhu ... NFAC and the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to recognize that there was a reasonable cause and the lower authorities neglected to consider the levy of penalty from the perspective of section 273B of the IT Act. 5. For these and other reasons that are to be urged at the time

Madhu Devi, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 361/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 269SSection 271D

response, assessee filed her reply. After perusing the reply of the assessee, Ld. AO being not convinced with her submissions proceeded to levy the penalty of Rs.46,54,622/- for contravening the provisions of section 269SS of the Act, under 271D of the Act. Page No. 3 LT.A.No.361/VIZ/2024 Madhu ... NFAC and the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to recognize that there was a reasonable cause and the lower authorities neglected to consider the levy of penalty from the perspective of section 273B of the IT Act. 5. For these and other reasons that are to be urged at the time

Sushil Kumar Agarwal, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Central Circle - 2(2), Kolkata

ITA 1408/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2025AY 2013-2014
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 271A

imposed penalty @ 10% on the suo moto income offered by the assessee u/s 271AAB of the Act. Being aggrieved against the said levy of penalty, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on 27.04.2015, however, during the pendency of the appeal before

Future Gaming and Hotel Services P Ltd, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Coimbatore

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 950/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.950/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S. Future Gaming & Hotel Acit बनाम/ Services Private Limited Central Circle-2, 54, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore. Vs. Gn Mills Post, Coimbatore-641 029. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-9751-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : S/Shri S. Sridhar & N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) - Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Cit-Dr A/W Ms. Anitha (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-01-2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: S/Shri S. Sridhar & N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) - LdFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -Ld. CIT-DR a/w Ms. Anitha (Addl. CIT) – Ld.
Section 153ASection 271A

Assessment Year is contrary to law, fact and in circumstances of the case. 2. The CIT (Appeals) - 20, Chennai erred in confirming the levy of penalty to the tune of Rs.3,42,00,000/- in terms of Section 271AAB of the Act relating to the additional income offered/accepted ... computation of the taxable total income in the search assessment order dated 17.07.2021 and further ought to have appreciated that the levy of penalty under Section 271AAB of the Act on various facets was wrong, incorrect, invalid, erroneous, unjustified and not sustainable both on facts

Income Tax Officer 5 (2)(1), Mumbai vs. Iora Diamonds Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 6397/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh DeshmukhFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

respect of aforesaid addition of INR.2,19,292/- sustained by the CIT(A)/Tribunal. The appeal preferred by the Assessee against aforesaid levy of penalty was allowed by the CIT(A), vide order dated 17/10/2024. Being aggrieved, the Revenue has now preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal

Income Tax Officer - 5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Iora Diamonds Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 6396/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh DeshmukhFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

respect of aforesaid addition of INR.2,19,292/- sustained by the CIT(A)/Tribunal. The appeal preferred by the Assessee against aforesaid levy of penalty was allowed by the CIT(A), vide order dated 17/10/2024. Being aggrieved, the Revenue has now preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal

Income Tax Officer - 5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Iora Diamonds Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 6395/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh DeshmukhFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

respect of aforesaid addition of INR.2,19,292/- sustained by the CIT(A)/Tribunal. The appeal preferred by the Assessee against aforesaid levy of penalty was allowed by the CIT(A), vide order dated 17/10/2024. Being aggrieved, the Revenue has now preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal

Capacite Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT/DCIT Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

ITA 6316/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI AMRJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 271ASection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

271AAB of the Act for the Assessment Year 2020-2021. 2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : Ground of Appeal No.1: Levy of penalty on Disallowance of Employees contribution towards PF and ESIC is bad in law: Assessment Year 2021-2022 a) The Learned Assessing Officer has erred ... contribution towards PF and ESIC u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) and the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming such levy of penalty. b) The appellant contends that the disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) is purely a legal and debatable issue

Capacite Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT/DCIT Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

ITA 6308/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMRJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani
Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “Ground of Appeal No.1: Levy of penalty on Disallowance of Employees contribution towards PF and ESIC is bad in law: Assessment Year 2016-2017 a) The Learned Assessing Officer has erred in levying penalty on addition ... contribution towards PF and ESIC u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) and the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming such levy of penalty. b) The appellant contends that the disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) is purely a legal and debatable issue

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax( International Taxation)-3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Oxford University Press, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5742/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Asst. Cit (International M/S Oxford University Press, Taxation)-3(2)(2), 22 Workspace 2Nd Floor, 1/22 Asaf Vs. R. No. 615, Sixth Floor, Ali Road, Daryaganj Central, Delhi, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Delhi-110002. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaaco 3279 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rahul CharkhaFor Respondent: 28/01/2025
Section 1Section 2(42)Section 271(1)(c)

case and in Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the levying of penalty for law, Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the levying of penalty law, Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the levying of penalty furnishing inaccurate ... case and in hether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the levying of penalty for law, Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the levying of penalty for law, Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the levying of penalty

Falguni S. Mehta, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1603/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra P. Sinha

For Respondent: Shri S K Agal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

against the quantum additions made by the Assessing Officer. 4. In the penalty appeal u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, the AO levied the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, @ 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. 5. In appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the penalty with ... response, the Ld. DR placed reliance on the observations made by the AO and the Ld.CIT(A) in their respective orders confirming the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. It will be useful

Infoanalytica Consulting Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the penalty u/s

ITA 1592/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(2)Section 270A(8)Section 270A(9)Section 40

erred in not considering the submission of the Appellant and in upholding the penalty order of the Assessing Officer and hence the levy of penalty u/s.270A is liable to be quashed. Infoanalytica Consuling Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2017-18 - 2– 3. The Appellant craves to add, amend, alter, delete ... Counsel for the assessee submitted that looking into the instant facts it is not a case of mis-reporting of income attracting levy of penalty @ 200% u/s.270A(8) of the Act, since the assessee’s case is not following in any of the specific instances of mis-reporting of income

Ivtl Infoview Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-II(2), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2916/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2916/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Ivtl Infoview Technologies Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, No.2/319, 3F, Corporate Circle Ii(2) Vishranthi Melaram Towers, Chennai 600 034. Oggiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 600 097. [Pan: Aaaci 7550A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. S. Vidhya, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Pushpa Hemachand, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Ms. S. Vidhya, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Pushpa Hemachand, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

observing as under: “7. In the Mittal Steel case (supra), the proviso to s. 201 was under consideration. The said proviso empowers levy of penalty if the TDS deduction is not effected for any valid reason. However, s.201(1A) is a distinct provision to levy interest for delayed remittance

Deccan Minerals Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5829/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275(1)(c)

Delhi in relation to penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) for the A.Y.2015-16. 2. In various grounds of appeal assessee has challenged the levy of penalty of ₹ 31,34,607/- and also challenged the impugned penalty order passed by the ld. Assessing Officer dated 04/09/2021 that it is barred

Mr. Shekhar Dadarkar, Prop. M/S. S.D Construction, Mumbai vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax 31(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3340/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Thakudesai, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh – Sr. D/R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 36

pertaining to AY 2008-09. 2. The solitary grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs. 3,52,380/-. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee