“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

Naresh Kumar, Haryana vs. ITO Charkhi Dadri, Haryana

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 122/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) and filed detailed submissions before him. After considering the details submissions, the Ld. CIT(A) sustained the penalty levied by Assessing Officer.

Section 271BSection 271DSection 44A

penalty proceedings, several notices were issued to the assessee but no response from the assessee side, accordingly, the Assessing Officer proceeded to levy of penalty of Rs.85,236/- is ½ of the turnover, which is less than Rs.1,50,000/-. Therefore, penalty of Rs.85,236/- was levied u/s 271D ... Penalty Order has been passed without jurisdiction 3. That it is not mandatory, but a discretionary power conferred upon the AO to levy the penalty under Section 271B of the Act. That the penalty under Section 271B is neither automatic nor obligatory. 4. That the appellant has not file

Hindustan Marble & Granite, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1091/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyhindustan Marble & Granite Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Regd. Office: No.5, Lalbagh- Cr Building, Queens Rod Hosur Road, Wilson Garden Vs. Bengaluru 560001 Bangalore 560027 Pan – Aaafh8437Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By: Shri V. Parithivel, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.08.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M.

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 282

scrutiny assessment is to ascertain the true and correct income and not to confer the admission made on estimation basis and hence levying the penalty on such incorrect assessment is also equally incorrect. 10. The Ld. AO erred in passing the penalty for mere change in the methodology ... requirement to change the consistently adopted method of accounting all of a sudden from weighted average method consequently under the circumstances, levying the penalty is patently incorrect. 12. The learned AO has not made out any case to bring out how there is "undisclosed Income" as per section 271AAB

Inder Pal Singh Legal Heir of Deceased Satnam Singh 171789, Street No.8, Guru Teg Bahadur Jagraon, Punjab vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Jagraon, Punjab

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

ITA 43/CHANDI/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Aug 2024AY 2018-2019

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

For Appellant: Shri Kushal Chopra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 250Section 253Section 269SSection 271Section 271DSection 274

contravention of provisions of Sect. 269ST of the Act. 9. From the above discussion, 1 am satisfied that it is justified to levy the penalty u/s, 271 DA of the Act of Rs. 1,04,00,000/- Which is equal to amount received, by the assessee in cash ... That the Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi has erred in passing the ex-parte order and confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271 DA to the tune of Rs. 1,04,00,000/- on account of alleged violation of section 269ST. 2. That no proper

Parshv Housing, Bhopal vs. ITO NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 280/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore12 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniparshv Housing Ito, Nfac S 16 Gurukripa Plaza Zone Ii Delhi Mp Nagar Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aapfp1746B Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.08.2024

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

sustainable and liable to be set aside and the matter may be remanded to the record of the AO for reconsideration of levy of penalty after the outcome of the quantum appeal pending before the CIT(A). 3. On the other hand, Ld. DR has raised no objection ... impugned order of CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is remanded to the record of the AO for re-adjudication of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) after considering outcome of the quantum appeal pending before the CIT(A). 5. In the result, the appeal

Samuel Paul Dhinakaran, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-3(1), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed

ITA 1177/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1176/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Smt. Evangeline Paul Dhinakaran Dcit बनाम/ #7, Jeevarathinam Nagar, Adyar, Central Circle-3(1) Vs. Chennai-600 020. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aajpd-2491-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1177/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Shri Samuel Paul Dhinakaran Dcit बनाम/ #7, Jeevarathinam Nagar, Adyar, Central Circle-3(1) Vs. Chennai-600 020. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Atspd-8564-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita (Addl.Cit) -Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01-08-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12-08-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita (Addl.CIT) -Ld. Sr. DR

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 270ASection 270A(3)(i)Section 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(a)

underreporting or misreporting of income identified during the assessment proceedings. 3. The CIT(A) failed to note that the question of levy of penalty u/s 270A does not arise when no addition was made based on any incriminating material found during the search. 4. The CIT(A) erred in holding ... assessee, taking the same view, we delete the impugned penalty. In our considered opinion, this is not a fit case for levy of penalty. Therefore, we delete the same and allow the appeal of the assessee. 8. Both the appeals stand allowed. Order pronounced on 12th August

Evangeline Paul Dhinakaran, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-3(1), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed

ITA 1176/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita (Addl.CIT) -Ld. Sr. DR

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 270ASection 270A(3)(i)Section 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(a)

Prakash Madhav Kolhe, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Nashik

In the result, both appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 687/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.686 & 687/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Prakash Madhav Kolhe, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 3, Shri Shilpa At Radha Sona, Ward-2(1), Nashik. Iti Ambad Link Road, Kamatwada, Nashik-422010. Pan: Aclpk4828P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Smt. Abhilasha Pawar – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09/08/2024 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] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act For A.Y.2017-18 & A.Y.2018-19 Both Dated 27.02.2024 Emanating From Penalty Orders Under Section 270A Of The Act. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee For A.Y.2017-18 Are As Under :

Section 249(2)Section 250Section 270A

ground that the assesse had misreporting his income by Rs. 1,50,918/- in consequence of misreporting without appreciating that the said levy of penalty was not justified in law. 2. The learned CIT failed to appreciate that before the A.O., the assesse had duly explained that under reporting ... form of complaint filed against Tax Consultant before Economic Wing of Police Department etc. were also furnished by the assesse and therefore, the levy of penalty u/s 270Awithout rebutting the explanation offered by the assesse was not justified in view of provisions of the said Act. 3. The learned

Prakash Madhav Kolhe, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 2(1) Nashik, Nashik

In the result, both appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 686/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Section 249(2)Section 250Section 270A

Kapil Alcotech LLP, Aurangabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 1, Aurangabad

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

ITA 557/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri K P DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(1)Section 68Section 69C

grounds of appeal No.1 to 3 and 14 being general, are dismissed. The grounds of appeal No.13 which is related to levy of penalty u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act being mandatory and consequential in nature, is dismissed. 6. So far as the ground No.4 is concerned

Ajju Chakradhar, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(4), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 57/VIZ/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 57/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ajju Chakradhar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-5(4), Pan: Aglpc9710C Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 08/08/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

levied? In the absence of any response from the assessee, the Ld. AO observed that it is a fit case for levy of penalty U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act relatable to the addition of Rs. 6,95,250/- upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). Thus ... levied by the Assessing Officer U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that the levy of penalty is not justified as the appellant neither concealed the particulars of income nor furnished in accurate particulars of income. Any other ground

Babu Lal Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 5(1), Jaipur

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 356/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C(1)

Income tax Act 1961. In view of above. I am satisfied that it is a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. The quantum of penalty levy in the present case is computed as under-:- S.N. Particulars Amount

Srinaga, Ramanagara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ramanagara

In the result, both the appeals field by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1112/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S

Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271ESection 27ISection 2b

such an order is liable to be quashed. 3. In any case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs. 5,75,000/- of the Act u/s 271D of the Act on the ground that the appellant has violated the provisions of section 269SS ... such an order is liable to be quashed. 3. In any case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs. 5,75,000/- of the Act u/s 271E of the Act on the ground that the appellant has violated the provisions of section 269T

DCIT, Central Circle - 7(1), Mumbai vs. Maneesh Pharmaceuticals Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 964/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Maneesh Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Tax, Vs. 29-33, Ancillary Industrial Central Circle – 7(1), Plots, Near M Ward, Mumbai Govandi, Mumbai – 400 043 (Pan : Aaacm3635Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Jaypraksh Bairagra, Ca Revenue : Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit, Dr

For Appellant: Shri Jaypraksh Bairagra, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT, DR

Section 10BSection 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

ITAT, Mumbai in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 2545/Mum/2022 dated 17.01.2023, whereby the matter was remanded on the issue of levy of penalty in relation to deduction claimed by the assessee u/s.10B of the Act, for adjudication on merits since on the earlier occasion, the levy of penalty ... respect of transfer pricing adjustment. However, the matter was remanded back to the file of ld. CIT(A) on the issue of levy of penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in relation to deduction claimed u/s.10B of the Act, for adjudication on merits. Specific direction given by the Coordinate

Sarat Gopal Boppana, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 635/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.635/Hyd/2022 & Sa No.49/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Sarat Gopal Boppana Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 2(3) Pan:Afcpb8083K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/08/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR

Section 131Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

153A, but additional income declared by the assessee fall under deemed concealment and thus, opined that it is a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Thus, rejected the explanation of the assessee and levied penalty of Rs.62,08,225/- being ... Explanation 5A, it fall under deemed concealment and penalty is leviable. The Assessing Officer after considering the relevant fact has rightly levied the penalty and thus, the order of the learned CIT (A) in sustaining the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer should be upheld. 10. We have heard both

Anita Yogish Pai, Kannur vs. NFAC, Kannur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed "

ITA 287/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Waseem Ahmedr Assessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Anita Yogish Pai, Vs. Ito, Kcp13, 200A M/S. N. S. Pai Petroleum, Ward –1 & Tps, Keezhur, Iritty, Kannur. Kannur – 670 703, Kerala. Pan : Anypp 6710 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri. Jayaganesh, Dr(Itat) Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.08.2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Jayaganesh, DR(ITAT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271BSection 275Section 44A

medical certificate produced by the assessee before the AO and also has not participated before first appellate authority and hence the levy of penalty is to be confirmed. In our opinion, in case the assessment has been framed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 23.11.2018, wherein returned income ... that once audit report has been made available before the AO, when the assessment proceedings were completed, then, there is no reason for levy of penalty. 8. In this view of the matter and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that reasons

Harshal Suresh Karvir, Palghar vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 4477/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Harshal Suresh Karvir National Faceless Assessment Centre 2Nd Floor, E Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru 397, Sutar Ali, Chinchani, Vs. Palghar, Palghar-401 503 Stadium, Delhi

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chogule

Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69

also initiated penalty proceeding for concealment of income. The ld. A.O. vide order dated 15.12.2021 passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act levied a penalty of Rs.3,13,774/- being 100% on the tax sought to be evaded by the assessee. 5. Aggrieved the assessee was in appeal before ... Delhi High Court in the case of Virgo Marketing P. Ltd., reported in 171 Taxman 156. has held that levy of penalty has to be clear as to the limb for which it is levied and the position being unclear penalty is not sustainable. Therefore, when the Assessing Officer proposes

Nova Promoters and Finlease Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3173/DEL/2014[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2024AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Ms.Madhumita Roynova Promoters & Vs. Ito, Ward 13(3) Finlease Pvt. Ltd. Ito Building, I.P. Estate 7, Kapil Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi – 34

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anshul

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Finlease Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, Ward 13(3) parte on the presumption that assessee is not interested to proceed with the matter. 3. Levy of penalty of Rs.46,85,932/- made by the ld. AO further confirmed by the First Appellate Authority is under challenge before us. 4. The brief ... absence of any further material produced even during the penalty proceedings, he concluded that it was a fit case for levy of penalty. In the assessment order, it was mentioned that in the month of January, 2003, summons were issued to various loan creditors and nobody responded to the summons

Turimella Vasu Babu, Adoni vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Adoni

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

ITA 644/HYD/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Aug 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 643/Hyd/2024 & 644/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: Adv.Manjula, appeared for Adv.Shaik Jeelani BashaFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V P Pavan Kumar, DR

Section 271(1)(c)

assessee, the delay is condoned. I have perused the order of the learned CIT(A) in the appeal of the assessee against levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Learned CIT(A) dismissed this appeal for non-prosecution by the assessee by applying the ratio ... quantum appeal is restored to the file of the learned CIT(A), the order of learned CIT(A) in the appeal against the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is also set aside and the same is restored to the file of the learned

Turimella Vasu Babu, Adoni vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Adoni

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

ITA 643/HYD/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Aug 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 643/Hyd/2024 & 644/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: Adv.Manjula, appeared for Adv.Shaik Jeelani BashaFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V P Pavan Kumar, DR

Section 271(1)(c)

Multanmull Kishanlal & Sons, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 40, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 991/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Aug 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 23Section 270A

Officer applied the said provision. However, in our view, it is not 3 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Multanmull Kishanlal & Sons a case of levy of penalty under section 270A of the Income Tax Act and the same is accordingly deleted. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands