← 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

Jindal Padding Private Limited, Village Mannpura, Tehsil Nalag vs. Income Tax Officer Parwano, Parwano

ITA 100/CHANDI/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

should not be levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. After hearing the assessee, the ld. AO levied minimum penalty of Rs.12,36,000/-. The order ITA 100/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2010-11 3 under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act imposing penalty of Rs.12,36,000/- bearing No. ITBA/PNL/F/271 ... dated 04.08.2014 on which reliance is placed wherein following is held : 5. The issue relating to levy of penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act where tax was paid on the basis of book profits determined under Section 115JB of the Act was considered by the Delhi High

Satwinder Kaur, Sangrur vs. ITO, Ward, Sangrur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 301/CHANDI/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Dec 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi dt. 16/03/2023 pertaining to Assessment Year 2012-13 wherein the limited issue relates to levy of penalty amounting to Rs. 30,000/- under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 2. None has appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment ... submitted that there is complete non compliance to various notices issued by the AO and therefore it is a fit case for levy of penalty and which has been rightly confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 6. After hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the material available on the record

Prasad Ashokchand Kunkulol, Aurangabad vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Aurangabad

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

ITA 337/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.336 & 337/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 250(6)Section 271DSection 68

otherwise required for reasonable cause. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 10. The appeal is against the levy of penalty u/s.271D of the Act. Considering the fact that assessee could not place ld.CIT(A)/NFAC for denovo adjudication with similar directions given

Prasad Ashokchand Kunkulol, Aurangabad vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Aurangabad

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

ITA 336/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.336 & 337/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 250(6)Section 271DSection 68

otherwise required for reasonable cause. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 10. The appeal is against the levy of penalty u/s.271D of the Act. Considering the fact that assessee could not place ld.CIT(A)/NFAC for denovo adjudication with similar directions given

Prakashbapu Patil Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd, Sangli vs. ACIT, Circle- Sangli, Sangli

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1328/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1325& 1328/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Prakashbapu Patil Gramin V The Acit, Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat S Circle-Sangli. Sanstha Ltd., Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd., Savali Miraj, Sangli – 416410. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaaap1616N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare – Ar Revenue By Shri Rajesh Gawali – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16; Dated 05.04.2024 & 10.04.2024 Respectively; Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Since The Issue Involved Is Common

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

assessee for A.Y.2014-15 has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming levy of penalty of Rs.1,04,129/- u/s 271(1)(c) in respect of income which is eligible for deduction u/s 80P. 2. The learned ... erred in law and on facts in confirming levy of penalty of Rs.1,04,129/- u/s 271(1)(c) without appreciating that the claim u/s 80P is a sustainable based on the legal precedent and did not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. The appellant craves leave

Prakashbapu Patil Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd, Sangli vs. ACIT Circle Sangli, Sangli

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1325/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1325& 1328/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Prakashbapu Patil Gramin V The Acit, Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat S Circle-Sangli. Sanstha Ltd., Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd., Savali Miraj, Sangli – 416410. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaaap1616N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare – Ar Revenue By Shri Rajesh Gawali – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16; Dated 05.04.2024 & 10.04.2024 Respectively; Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Since The Issue Involved Is Common

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

assessee for A.Y.2014-15 has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming levy of penalty of Rs.1,04,129/- u/s 271(1)(c) in respect of income which is eligible for deduction u/s 80P. 2. The learned ... erred in law and on facts in confirming levy of penalty of Rs.1,04,129/- u/s 271(1)(c) without appreciating that the claim u/s 80P is a sustainable based on the legal precedent and did not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. The appellant craves leave

Prasad Dipakrao Belorkar, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward-1, Yavvatmal

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 326/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Kumar TitarmareFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(1)Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

dated 16/03/2022, under section 271D of the Act, levying penalty of ` 5,08,000. 4. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) upheld the levy of penalty by dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee, the observations of the learned CIT(A) are as follows:– “14.0 I have perused the provisions

Vijaykumar Shreevishnu Toshniwal, Akola vs. ITO Ward-3, Akola

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

ITA 313/NAG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 250Section 271B

271B of I.T. Act 1961 at Rs.60,080/- without there being any business receipt of Rs. 1,20,16,000/-. 7. The levy of penalty u/s 271B at Rs.60,080/- is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 3. When this appeal was taken up for hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee

Bhavya Marketing, Chennai vs. The ACIT, Corporate Circle-2(4), Chennai

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

ITA 1069/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1069/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 M/S. Bhavya Marketing, The Assistant Commissioner 2/7, Amman Koil Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Metha Nagar, Corporate Circle 2(4), Chennai – 600 029. Chennai. Pan: Aaufa 4751A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2024

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 144Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

Without prejudice to the above, 5.1 The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing officer in levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of Rs.3,93,50,124/- based on the addition made in the assessment order on the difference between income per return ... which the assessee’s firm has already submitted its response dated 13.12.2024. In this background, we are of the opinion that the levy of penalty by the AO and disposal of matter by the CIT(A) is pre-mature. Hence, we restore the order imposing penalty to the files

Rakesh Ganapathy, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(3), Bangalore

ITA 887/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

liable to penalty of Rs.14,64,000/- assessment year 2017-18, on the facts and circumstances of the case. for the 3. The levy of penalty under section 269SS of the Act is against the intention of the legislature for which the provision was introduced, on the facts and circumstances ... case. 4. The CIT(A) is not justified in upholding the levy of penalty under section 269SS of the Act where there was reasonable cause as envisaged under section 273B of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The authorities below have failed to appreciate that

Deejay Stocks Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-4(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4761/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Smt Renu Jauhri[Assessment Year: 2014-15] & [Assessment Year: 2016-17] Deejay Stocks Dcit 4(2)(1) Private Limited Erstwhile Dcit 401, Shangrilla Apt., 12(2)(2), L. T. Road, Aayakar Bhava, Borivali (West), Vs. Maharishi Karve Mumbai- 400092. Road, Pan: Aadc6404H Mumbai- 400020. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

sufficient time for the assessee to appear for hearing. The assessee neither appeared nor sought any adjournment, therefore, the Ld.AO was right in levying of penalty for non-compliance with the statutory ITA No.4760 & 4761/MUM/2024 Deejay Stocks Private Limited notices issued under sections ... part of the assessee to respond to the noticed issued by the Ld.AO during assessment proceeding. However, the Legislature provides for immunity from levy of penalty wherever there was a reasonable cause for not complying with the provisions of the Income-tax Act. In other words, section 273B provides

Deejay Stocks Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 4(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4760/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Smt Renu Jauhri[Assessment Year: 2014-15] & [Assessment Year: 2016-17] Deejay Stocks Dcit 4(2)(1) Private Limited Erstwhile Dcit 401, Shangrilla Apt., 12(2)(2), L. T. Road, Aayakar Bhava, Borivali (West), Vs. Maharishi Karve Mumbai- 400092. Road, Pan: Aadc6404H Mumbai- 400020. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

sufficient time for the assessee to appear for hearing. The assessee neither appeared nor sought any adjournment, therefore, the Ld.AO was right in levying of penalty for non-compliance with the statutory ITA No.4760 & 4761/MUM/2024 Deejay Stocks Private Limited notices issued under sections ... part of the assessee to respond to the noticed issued by the Ld.AO during assessment proceeding. However, the Legislature provides for immunity from levy of penalty wherever there was a reasonable cause for not complying with the provisions of the Income-tax Act. In other words, section 273B provides

DCIT, Jhabndewalan Extention, New Delhi vs. Reliance Ritu Kumar Pvt Ltd(Earlier Known As Ritika Pvt Ltd.), Sager Apartment, Tilak Marg

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 97/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 269SSection 271D

lakhs or above included in the figures quoted a para 7.3.2, have already been considered by the AO for the purpose of levy of penalty in table at para no.7.1.1 of the penalty order as has been noted above. In this regard, it is noticed from the data submitted before

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-04, Delhi, Jhandewalan, New Delhi vs. Reliance Ritu Kumar Pvt Ltd (Earlier Known As Ritika Pvt Ltd), Sagar Apartment Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 84/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 269SSection 271D

lakhs or above included in the figures quoted a para 7.3.2, have already been considered by the AO for the purpose of levy of penalty in table at para no.7.1.1 of the penalty order as has been noted above. In this regard, it is noticed from the data submitted before

ITO, Ward-1, Palanpur vs. Gelot Agri Exports, Palanpur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, while that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 225/AHD/2024[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Dec 2024

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2018-19 Ito, Ward-1 Vs. Gelot Agri Exports Palanpur, Banaskantha At 13, Aditya Complex Gujarat. Opp: Jalaram Temple Deesa 385 535. Pan : Aapfg 5455 N Assessment Year : 2018-19 Gelot Agri Exports Vs. Ito, Ward-1 At 13, Aditya Complex Palanpur, Banaskantha Opp: Jalaram Temple Gujarat. Deesa 385 535. Pan : Aapfg 5455 N

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 270ASection 270A(1)Section 270A(8)Section 40

Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) ITA No.1739 and 225/Ahd/2024 2 pertaining Assessment Year 2018-19 confirming the levy of penalty under section 270A of the Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that in the assessment framed on the assessee ... section (1) of section 143 of the Act. Interpreting this provision literally, the assessee’s case appears to be a fit case for levy of penalty for under reporting of the income as its income assessed is greater than the income determined in the return processed under section

Gelot Agri Exports, Deesa vs. ITO WD 1 Palanpur, Banaskantha

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, while that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1739/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2018-19 Ito, Ward-1 Vs. Gelot Agri Exports Palanpur, Banaskantha At 13, Aditya Complex Gujarat. Opp: Jalaram Temple Deesa 385 535. Pan : Aapfg 5455 N Assessment Year : 2018-19 Gelot Agri Exports Vs. Ito, Ward-1 At 13, Aditya Complex Palanpur, Banaskantha Opp: Jalaram Temple Gujarat. Deesa 385 535. Pan : Aapfg 5455 N

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 270ASection 270A(1)Section 270A(8)Section 40

Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) ITA No.1739 and 225/Ahd/2024 2 pertaining Assessment Year 2018-19 confirming the levy of penalty under section 270A of the Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that in the assessment framed on the assessee ... section (1) of section 143 of the Act. Interpreting this provision literally, the assessee’s case appears to be a fit case for levy of penalty for under reporting of the income as its income assessed is greater than the income determined in the return processed under section

Roopanand Ramachandran, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Chennai

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

ITA 2180/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2180/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Roopanand Ramachandran, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 307, Lloyds Road, Non Corporate Ward 12(2), Royapettah, Chennai 600 014. Greams Road Chennai 600 006. [Pan:Aaipr3151P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Dhanasekaran, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C. Murugresan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.06.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Challenging Exparte Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Against Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri V. Dhanasekaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C. Murugresan, Addl. CIT
Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2011-12 challenging exparte order of the ld. CIT(A) against levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. 2. At the outset, the ld. AR Shri V. Dhanasekaran, Advocate ... interest of justice, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act along with quantum addition after considering the documentary evidences as may be filed by the assessee in accordance

Indian Chronicle Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal ofthe assessee is allowed

ITA 1275/AHD/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Dec 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1275/Ahd/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Indian Chronicle Ltd. बनाम/ Ito Gujarat Samacharbhavan, Ward4(3), Ahmedabad Vs. Khanpur,Ahmedabad - 380001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaci0793H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & अपीलाथ" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.R. Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondentby: Date Of Hearing 28/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 254(2)Section 271(1)(c)

imposition of penalty had travelled up to ITAT and the ITAT vide order ITA No.1275/Ahd/2012 dated 09.02.2017 had adjudicated the issue of levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and confirmed the penalty in respect of concealment of MAT income. 3. The assessee had filed a miscellaneous ... clear mistake in the order of the ITAT, while holding the assessee to have not established its bona fides for escaping the levy of penalty, on ground no.2 raised by the assessee.” The order passed by the ITAT in ITA No.1275/Ahd/2012 was recalled for de novo adjudication of Ground

Balarampur College, Balarampur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 629/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 20Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)

Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for AY 2020-21. 2. The assessee in this appeal has contested the levy of penalty u/s. 272A(1)(d) of the Act of Rs.40,000/- for non compliance of notices issued

Selvaraj Arputharaj, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-I, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

ITA 2031/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2029/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2030/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2031/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri R.Anish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

appellant any further. There after the Ld. AO proceeded with pending penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) and after considering assesee’s reply levied a penalty of Rs. 4,01,027/-. 5.0 We have heard the rival submissions in the light of material available on records. Before us the Ld.Counsel ... contemporaneous statute. We are therefore of the view that penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) 25.10.2019 survives. As regards the merits of the levy of penalty we are of the view that as the quantum addition on undisclosed rental income has not been contested ITA No. 2029, 2030 & 2031/Chny/2024