← 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

Govind Jha, New Delhi vs. NFAC Delhi, Delhi

In the result, both the Assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3471/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Sh. Nishant Maitin, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 271

parte order was passed by the Id Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC. 3 | P a g e 8. Hence, this appeal against levy of penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the act. 4. In this case assessment was completed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act at the assessed

Govind Jha, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, W 35(5), Delhi

In the result, both the Assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3470/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Sh. Nishant Maitin, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 271

parte order was passed by the Id Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC. 3 | P a g e 8. Hence, this appeal against levy of penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the act. 4. In this case assessment was completed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act at the assessed

Advik Hi Tech Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Dy.Comm..of Incometax, Circle 8, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1344/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 270ASection 270A(10)Section 270A(7)

order, written submission and the cited case laws made by the appellant during the appellate proceedings. The sole issue in this appeal is levy of penalty of Rs.3,27,993/- u/s 270A of the Act. 4.1. The penalty of Rs.3,27,993/- u/s 270A of the Act was levied being ... income u/s 270A of the Act. Therefore, the penalty levied by the AO is hereby confirmed. Thus, the sole issue of levy of penalty hereby dismissed. 5. In result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.” 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the assessee carried

Baba Akhila Sai Jyothi Industries Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 987/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad05 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.987/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Baba Akhila Sai Jyothi Vs. Dy. Cit Industries Private Ltd Circle 1 ( 1 ) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aadcb3413C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate A.V. Raghuram राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 05/12/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated, 6/8/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Of The Learned Cit (A) Is Erroneous Both On Facts & In Law. 2. The Learned Cit (A) Erred In Sustaining The Penalty Of Rs.5,80,424/- Levied By The Assessing Officer U/S 270A Of The I.T. Act, 1961. Page 1 Of 8

For Appellant: Advocate A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 270ASection 270A(6)Section 40A(7)

despite due diligence on the part of the tax professional, the assessee cannot be held guilty of under reporting/misreporting of income, inviting the levy of penalty u/s 270A of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, and following the judgment

Ryan Louis Dcunha, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 35(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5187/MUM/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

short 'the CIT(A)'] dated 16.07.2024 for AY 2010-11. The only issue contending by the assessee in this appeal pertain to levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 2. The assessee is an individual and moved to Muscat since February ... submissions made by the assessee. Subsequently the AO initiated penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and the AO levied a penalty of Rs. 17,51,200/- for concealment of income on the part of the assessee. On further appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the penalty levied

DE vs. Hardha Developers Pvt Ltd., Mumbaivs.ITO 9 (1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 257/MUM/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kiran Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 69ASection 69C

statistical purposes. ITANo.256 & 257/Mum./2020 - Assessee’s Penalty appeal–A.Y.2007-08 35. The only grievance of the assessee in these appeals is against the levy of penalty of Rs. 58,03,540 under section ... interest of Rs. 26,580, the AO vide order dated 01.03.2013 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act levied a penalty of Rs. 58,03,540. On further appeal the CIT(A) confirmed the penalty. For AY 2008-09 the AO levied a penalty

DE vs. Hardha Developers Pvt Ltd., Mumbaivs.ITO 9 (1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 256/MUM/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kiran Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 69ASection 69C

statistical purposes. ITANo.256 & 257/Mum./2020 - Assessee’s Penalty appeal–A.Y.2007-08 35. The only grievance of the assessee in these appeals is against the levy of penalty of Rs. 58,03,540 under section ... interest of Rs. 26,580, the AO vide order dated 01.03.2013 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act levied a penalty of Rs. 58,03,540. On further appeal the CIT(A) confirmed the penalty. For AY 2008-09 the AO levied a penalty

DE vs. Harda Developers P. Ltd, Mumbaivs.ITO 9(1)3, Mumbai

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

ITA 8070/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kiran Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 69ASection 69C

statistical purposes. ITANo.256 & 257/Mum./2020 - Assessee’s Penalty appeal–A.Y.2007-08 35. The only grievance of the assessee in these appeals is against the levy of penalty of Rs. 58,03,540 under section ... interest of Rs. 26,580, the AO vide order dated 01.03.2013 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act levied a penalty of Rs. 58,03,540. On further appeal the CIT(A) confirmed the penalty. For AY 2008-09 the AO levied a penalty

Dev Sharda Developers P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 9(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4727/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kiran Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 69ASection 69C

statistical purposes. ITANo.256 & 257/Mum./2020 - Assessee’s Penalty appeal–A.Y.2007-08 35. The only grievance of the assessee in these appeals is against the levy of penalty of Rs. 58,03,540 under section ... interest of Rs. 26,580, the AO vide order dated 01.03.2013 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act levied a penalty of Rs. 58,03,540. On further appeal the CIT(A) confirmed the penalty. For AY 2008-09 the AO levied a penalty

Siddharth Sharma, Ghaziabad, India vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 3743/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Smt. Renu Jauhri

assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No.3743/Del/2024 [Assessment Year : 2012-13] 10. The assessee has raised following grounds in this appeal against levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act:- 01. “That the impugned action of the Id. CIT(A) of disposing-off the appeal ex- parte ... neither dealt with the matter independently nor had given any findings of his own and by merely referring the order of CIT-A, levied the penalty in most mechanical and automatic manner without bringing any material on records to prove his allegations, coupled with the fact that the order

Siddharth Sharma, Ghaziabad, India vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3), Ghaziabad, India

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

ITA 3742/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Smt. Renu Jauhri

assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No.3743/Del/2024 [Assessment Year : 2012-13] 10. The assessee has raised following grounds in this appeal against levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act:- 01. “That the impugned action of the Id. CIT(A) of disposing-off the appeal ex- parte ... neither dealt with the matter independently nor had given any findings of his own and by merely referring the order of CIT-A, levied the penalty in most mechanical and automatic manner without bringing any material on records to prove his allegations, coupled with the fact that the order

Maynagori C S Shop, Maynaguri vs. CIT Appeals, Income Tax Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre

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

ITA 1152/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No. 928/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Maynagori C.S. Shop,…………………………....Appellant Thana Road, Maynaguri, Jalpaiguri-735224, West Bengal [Pan: Aaofm3110D] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,….....Respondent Circle-1(1), Jalpaiguri, C.R. Building, Race Course Road, Naya Basti, Jalpaiguri-735101, West Bengal -A N D- I.T.A. No. 1152/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Maynagori C.S. Shop,…………………………....Appellant Thana Road, Maynaguri, Jalpaiguri-735224, West Bengal [Pan: Aaofm3110D] -Vs.- Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals),…..Respondent Income Tax Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Appearances By: Shri R.K. Saha, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri A. Kundu, Cit (Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue 1 & Maynagori C.S. Shop

Section 271(1)(c)

statistical purposes. Now we take up the appeal in ITA No. 1152/KOL/2024. 7. 8. In this appeal, the assessee has contested the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, which has been imposed by the ld. Assessing Officer in relation to the quantum addition

Maynagori C S Shop, Maynaguri vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Jalpaiguri

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

ITA 928/KOL/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No. 928/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Maynagori C.S. Shop,…………………………....Appellant Thana Road, Maynaguri, Jalpaiguri-735224, West Bengal [Pan: Aaofm3110D] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,….....Respondent Circle-1(1), Jalpaiguri, C.R. Building, Race Course Road, Naya Basti, Jalpaiguri-735101, West Bengal -A N D- I.T.A. No. 1152/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Maynagori C.S. Shop,…………………………....Appellant Thana Road, Maynaguri, Jalpaiguri-735224, West Bengal [Pan: Aaofm3110D] -Vs.- Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals),…..Respondent Income Tax Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Appearances By: Shri R.K. Saha, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri A. Kundu, Cit (Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue 1 & Maynagori C.S. Shop

Section 271(1)(c)

statistical purposes. Now we take up the appeal in ITA No. 1152/KOL/2024. 7. 8. In this appeal, the assessee has contested the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, which has been imposed by the ld. Assessing Officer in relation to the quantum addition

Income Tax Officer, Race Course Road vs. Cheran Enterprises Private Limited, Arts College Road, Coimbatore

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

ITA 2370/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2366, 2367 & 2370 /Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2015-16 & 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Coimbatore Cheran Enterprises Private Limited, No.78, Cheran Towers, Government Arts College Road, Coimbatore Tamil Nadu-641018 [Pan: Aaccc5150] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By Shri Shreyansh Kumar Kochar, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By Shri Nathala Ravi Babu, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 03.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 04.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : The Appeals Vide Ita No.2366/Chny/2024 For Ay 2015-16 Vide Order Bearing Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1066850730(1) Dated 19.07.2024 & Ita No.2367/Chny/2024 For Ay 2015-16 Vide No.Itba / Nfac / S / 250 /2024-25/1066924539(1) Dated 23.07.2024 & Vide Ita No.2370/Chny/2024 For Ay 2017-18 & Vide Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1066850925 Dated 19.07.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Herein After “Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[Nfac], Delhi. Through The Aforesaid Appeal :- 2 -:

Section 147Section 250Section 5

Court decides upon its ownership...". Thus where the quantum additions stand set aside there wouldn't be any tax on concealed income for levy of penalty. Therefore in the light of above directions to the Ld AO we also set aside the orders of lower authorities

Income Tax Officer, Race Course Road vs. Cheran Enterprises Private Limited, Arts College Road, Coimbatore

ITA 2367/CHNY/2024[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2024
Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)Section 5

ITA No.2366, 2367 & 2370/Chny/2024 - : 2 -: the revenue has challenged orders u/s 250 passed by NFAC, Delhi. Through the aforesaid appeals

Income Tax Officer, Race Course Road vs. Cheran Enterprises Private Limited, Arts College Road, Coimbatore

ITA 2366/CHNY/2024[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2366, 2367 & 2370 /Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2015-16 & 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Coimbatore Cheran Enterprises Private Limited, No.78, Cheran Towers, Government Arts College Road, Coimbatore Tamil Nadu-641018 [Pan: Aaccc5150] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By Shri Shreyansh Kumar Kochar, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By Shri Nathala Ravi Babu, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : The Appeals Vide Ita No.2366/Chny/2024 For Ay 2015-16 Vide Order Bearing Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1066850730(1) Dated 19.07.2024 & Ita No.2367/Chny/2024 For Ay 2015-16 Vide No.Itba / Nfac / S / 250 /2024-25/1066924539(1) Dated 23.07.2024 & Vide Ita No.2370/Chny/2024 For Ay 2017-18 & Vide Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1066850925 Dated 19.07.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Herein After “Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[Nfac], Delhi. Through The Aforesaid Appeal - 2 -:

Section 147Section 250Section 5

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'बी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक

The Lalgudi Sivagnanam Agricultural Producers Co-Op. Mkg. Society Ltd., Tiruchirapalli vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Trichy

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1854/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R.Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

penalty u/s. 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter in short "the Act”) 4. The brief facts are that the AO has levied the penalty u/s.271B of the Act, since the assessee filed the Tax Audit Report [TAR] in Form No.3CB belatedly after the due date ... relevant for AY 2014-15]. Show cause notice was issued before levy of penalty u/s.271B on 26.03.2022 [after almost five (5) years] wherein, according to the AO, the assessee ought to have filed the Audit Report/TAR within the due date as prescribed u/s.44AB of the Act on or before

Dashrath Singh, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward Behror, Behrod

18. As a result, this second mentioned appeal- ITA No

ITA 1197/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Kumar Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary (JCIT), DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

order passed by the AO on 15-05-2019 would reveal that the same does not contain any facts or reasons, whatsoever, for levying of penalty of Rs,98,053/-. Assessing Officer is required to note all relevant facts as to the allegations levelled against the assessee, reply ... aside. SHRI DASHRATH SINGH VS ITO, WARD-BEHROR Result 18. As a result, this second mentioned appeal- ITA No. 1198/JPR/2024- is allowed, and levy of penalty by the AO, and as upheld by Learned CIT(A), is also set aside. 19. However, it is made clear that in case

Rakesh Fatechand Jain, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit (National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2795/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2018-19 Mr. Rakesh Fatechand Jain Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit, National Shop No. 140, Kherwadi Market, Vs E-Assessment Centre, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400051. Delhi Pan: Afjpj 0418 D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kunal D. LunawatFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(2)Section 50CSection 50C(2)

Assessing Officer ['Ld. AO'] for alleged under-reporting. 2.1 The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the levy of penalty u/s 270A in respect of addition made under section 50C without appreciating specific discrepancies in the report of the DVO which were pointed ... assessment as well as appellant proceedings. 2 Rakesh Fatechand Jain A.Y. 2018-19 2.2 The CIT(A) has erred in upholding the levy of penalty u/s 270A rejecting the contention of the appellant that the sale price is the actual price of property and no penalty u/s 270A

Iljin Automotive Private Limited, Kanchipuram vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1834/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1834/Chny/2017 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Iljin Automotive Private Limited Dcit बनाम/ Plot No.B1 & B2, Sipcot Industrial Park Corporate Circle-2(2), Irungattukottai, Sriperumbudur Chennai. Vs. Kanchipuram-602 105. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aaaci-2641-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bagmar (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-11-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bagmar (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 32Section 43ASection 92CSection 92C(3)

Appellant. 5.3 The learned AO has failed to appreciate that a mere disallowance of a claim does not automatically result in levy of penalty. 5.4 The learned AO has failed to appreciate that the Appellant had acted in good faith and with due diligence, and therefore

levy of penalty — 5,057 case laws | BharatTax