← 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

Karuppannan Thulasimani, Erode vs. ITO, Ward –(1) Erode, Erode

In the result, appeals ITA Nos

ITA 2448/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2441/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2442/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2443/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2444/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2445/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2446/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 7. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2447/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 8. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2448/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Karuppanan Thulasimani Ito बनाम/ 23C, Ganapathy Nagar, Ward-1(1), Mariyamman Kovil Street, Erode. Vs. Periyasemur, Erode-638 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Admpt-5801-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) Erode -Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Kavitha (Addl.Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-11-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20-11-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) Erode -Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha (Addl.CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

same are maintained. When the books are not maintained, the question of getting them audited would not arise. As a natural corollary, the levy of penalty for non-maintenance of books could be justified but levy of penalty for not getting the books of accounts would be unfair ... followed by various benches of the Tribunal including the cited decision of Chennai Tribunal as referred to by Ld. AR. Therefore, we confirm levy of penalty u/s 271A but delete penalty as levied u/s 271B, in all the years. The appeals stand disposed- off accordingly. 6. In the result, appeals

Karuppannan Thulasimani, Erode vs. ITO, Ward –(1) Erode, Erode

In the result, appeals ITA Nos

ITA 2447/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2441/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2442/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2443/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2444/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2445/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2446/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 7. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2447/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 8. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2448/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Karuppanan Thulasimani Ito बनाम/ 23C, Ganapathy Nagar, Ward-1(1), Mariyamman Kovil Street, Erode. Vs. Periyasemur, Erode-638 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Admpt-5801-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) Erode -Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Kavitha (Addl.Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-11-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20-11-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) Erode -Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha (Addl.CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

same are maintained. When the books are not maintained, the question of getting them audited would not arise. As a natural corollary, the levy of penalty for non-maintenance of books could be justified but levy of penalty for not getting the books of accounts would be unfair ... followed by various benches of the Tribunal including the cited decision of Chennai Tribunal as referred to by Ld. AR. Therefore, we confirm levy of penalty u/s 271A but delete penalty as levied u/s 271B, in all the years. The appeals stand disposed- off accordingly. 6. In the result, appeals

Karuppannan Thulasimani, Erode vs. ITO, Ward –(1) Erode, Erode

In the result, appeals ITA Nos

ITA 2446/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2441/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2442/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2443/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2444/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2445/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2446/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 7. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2447/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 8. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2448/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Karuppanan Thulasimani Ito बनाम/ 23C, Ganapathy Nagar, Ward-1(1), Mariyamman Kovil Street, Erode. Vs. Periyasemur, Erode-638 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Admpt-5801-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) Erode -Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Kavitha (Addl.Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-11-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20-11-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) Erode -Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha (Addl.CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

same are maintained. When the books are not maintained, the question of getting them audited would not arise. As a natural corollary, the levy of penalty for non-maintenance of books could be justified but levy of penalty for not getting the books of accounts would be unfair ... followed by various benches of the Tribunal including the cited decision of Chennai Tribunal as referred to by Ld. AR. Therefore, we confirm levy of penalty u/s 271A but delete penalty as levied u/s 271B, in all the years. The appeals stand disposed- off accordingly. 6. In the result, appeals

Karuppannan Thulasimani, Erode vs. ITO, Ward –(1) Erode, Erode

In the result, appeals ITA Nos

ITA 2445/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2441/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2442/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2443/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2444/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2445/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2446/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 7. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2447/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 8. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2448/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Karuppanan Thulasimani Ito बनाम/ 23C, Ganapathy Nagar, Ward-1(1), Mariyamman Kovil Street, Erode. Vs. Periyasemur, Erode-638 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Admpt-5801-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) Erode -Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Kavitha (Addl.Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-11-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20-11-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) Erode -Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha (Addl.CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

same are maintained. When the books are not maintained, the question of getting them audited would not arise. As a natural corollary, the levy of penalty for non-maintenance of books could be justified but levy of penalty for not getting the books of accounts would be unfair ... followed by various benches of the Tribunal including the cited decision of Chennai Tribunal as referred to by Ld. AR. Therefore, we confirm levy of penalty u/s 271A but delete penalty as levied u/s 271B, in all the years. The appeals stand disposed- off accordingly. 6. In the result, appeals

Karuppannan Thulasimani, Erode vs. ITO, Ward –(1) Erode, Erode

In the result, appeals ITA Nos

ITA 2444/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2441/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2442/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2443/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2444/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2445/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2446/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 7. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2447/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 8. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2448/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Karuppanan Thulasimani Ito बनाम/ 23C, Ganapathy Nagar, Ward-1(1), Mariyamman Kovil Street, Erode. Vs. Periyasemur, Erode-638 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Admpt-5801-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) Erode -Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Kavitha (Addl.Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-11-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20-11-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) Erode -Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha (Addl.CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

same are maintained. When the books are not maintained, the question of getting them audited would not arise. As a natural corollary, the levy of penalty for non-maintenance of books could be justified but levy of penalty for not getting the books of accounts would be unfair ... followed by various benches of the Tribunal including the cited decision of Chennai Tribunal as referred to by Ld. AR. Therefore, we confirm levy of penalty u/s 271A but delete penalty as levied u/s 271B, in all the years. The appeals stand disposed- off accordingly. 6. In the result, appeals

Karuppannan Thulasimani, Erode vs. ITO, Ward –(1) Erode, Erode

In the result, appeals ITA Nos

ITA 2443/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2441/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2442/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2443/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2444/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2445/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2446/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 7. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2447/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 8. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2448/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Karuppanan Thulasimani Ito बनाम/ 23C, Ganapathy Nagar, Ward-1(1), Mariyamman Kovil Street, Erode. Vs. Periyasemur, Erode-638 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Admpt-5801-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) Erode -Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Kavitha (Addl.Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-11-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20-11-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) Erode -Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha (Addl.CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

same are maintained. When the books are not maintained, the question of getting them audited would not arise. As a natural corollary, the levy of penalty for non-maintenance of books could be justified but levy of penalty for not getting the books of accounts would be unfair ... followed by various benches of the Tribunal including the cited decision of Chennai Tribunal as referred to by Ld. AR. Therefore, we confirm levy of penalty u/s 271A but delete penalty as levied u/s 271B, in all the years. The appeals stand disposed- off accordingly. 6. In the result, appeals

Karuppannan Thulasimani, Erode vs. ITO, Ward –(1) Erode, Erode

In the result, appeals ITA Nos

ITA 2442/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2441/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2442/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2443/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2444/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2445/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2446/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 7. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2447/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 8. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2448/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Karuppanan Thulasimani Ito बनाम/ 23C, Ganapathy Nagar, Ward-1(1), Mariyamman Kovil Street, Erode. Vs. Periyasemur, Erode-638 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Admpt-5801-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) Erode -Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Kavitha (Addl.Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-11-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20-11-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) Erode -Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha (Addl.CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

same are maintained. When the books are not maintained, the question of getting them audited would not arise. As a natural corollary, the levy of penalty for non-maintenance of books could be justified but levy of penalty for not getting the books of accounts would be unfair ... followed by various benches of the Tribunal including the cited decision of Chennai Tribunal as referred to by Ld. AR. Therefore, we confirm levy of penalty u/s 271A but delete penalty as levied u/s 271B, in all the years. The appeals stand disposed- off accordingly. 6. In the result, appeals

Karuppannan Thulasimani, Erode vs. ITO, Ward –(1) Erode, Erode

In the result, appeals ITA Nos

ITA 2441/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2441/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2442/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2443/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2444/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2445/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2446/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 7. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2447/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 8. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2448/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Karuppanan Thulasimani Ito बनाम/ 23C, Ganapathy Nagar, Ward-1(1), Mariyamman Kovil Street, Erode. Vs. Periyasemur, Erode-638 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Admpt-5801-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) Erode -Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Kavitha (Addl.Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-11-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20-11-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) Erode -Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha (Addl.CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

same are maintained. When the books are not maintained, the question of getting them audited would not arise. As a natural corollary, the levy of penalty for non-maintenance of books could be justified but levy of penalty for not getting the books of accounts would be unfair ... followed by various benches of the Tribunal including the cited decision of Chennai Tribunal as referred to by Ld. AR. Therefore, we confirm levy of penalty u/s 271A but delete penalty as levied u/s 271B, in all the years. The appeals stand disposed- off accordingly. 6. In the result, appeals

R.V.Raajah, Chennai vs. CIT(Appeals)-18, Chennai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 115/CHNY/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.115/Chny/2021 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri R.V.Raajah Acit बनाम/ #97/2A, Harini Avenue, Central Circle-3(2) Velachery Main Road, Chennai. Vs. Guindy, Chennai-600 032. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adnpr-4751-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Subramanian (Ca) - Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms.R. Anita (Addl.Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-08-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-11-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri R. Subramanian (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anita (Addl.CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 18-11-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aggrieved by levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Rs.30.88 Lacs for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13, the assessee is in further appeal before us. The impugned order has been ... assessee assailed levy of any penalty on various grounds and relied on various judicial decisions, Ld. CIT(A) rejected the same and levied impugned penalty of Rs.30.88 Lacs for concealment of income vide impugned order dated 24-03-2021. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. Our findings

Del Monte Foods Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 9(1), New Delhi

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1749/DEL/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1749/िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2007-08) Del Monte Foods P. Ltd., Bharti Crescent 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Phase Ii, New Delhi 110070 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacf-8488-N बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Circle 9(1), Cr Building, New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Anil Bhalla, Chartered Accountant "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 18/11/2024 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 18/11/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 27.02.2024, For Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. Shri Anil Bhalla, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submits That During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings The Assessing Officer (Ao) Had Made Addition On Account Of Advances Written Off Amounting To Rs.3,20,34,757/- & Had Initiated

For Appellant: Shri Anil Bhalla, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee. He submitted that in the assessment order itself the AO had specified the definite charge for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and the penalty has been levied on the same charge vide order dated 30.07.2019. 4. Both sides ... notice issued u/s. 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act dated 31.12.2009 at page 78 of the paper book and subsequent notice for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 07.06.2019 at page 79 of the paper book are defective, hence, invalid. No penalty can be levied