← 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

Gujarat Urban Development Co. Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. The Dy.CIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 2158/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Gupta1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.2157/Ahd/2025 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.2158/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Gujarat Urban Development The Dy.Cit, बनाम/ Co.Ltd. Gandhinagar Circle V/S. Karmayogi Bhavan It Office Block-1, Udhyog Bhavan B 1 Wing, Ground Floor Sector-11 Sector-10A Gandhinagar – 382 010 Gandhinagar – 382 010 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabcg 1330 R (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) ()* यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Ms. Ukti Shah, Ars Revenue By : Shri Alpesh Parmar, Cit-Dr & Shri Arvind R. Kumbhare Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/012026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/01/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg:

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate and Ms. Ukti Shah, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR and Shri Arvind R. Kumbhare Sr.DR
Section 234BSection 250Section 270A

reference.” ITA Nos.2157 & 2158/Ahd/2025 Gujarat Urban Development Co.Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst. Year : 2018-19 7. The assessee, in this appeal, has agitated the levy of penalty u/s.272A of the Act on account of non-compliance of the notices issued by the Assessing Officer (AO). 8. At the outset

Gujarat Urban Development Co. Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. The Dy.CIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 2157/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Gupta1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.2157/Ahd/2025 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.2158/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Gujarat Urban Development The Dy.Cit, बनाम/ Co.Ltd. Gandhinagar Circle V/S. Karmayogi Bhavan It Office Block-1, Udhyog Bhavan B 1 Wing, Ground Floor Sector-11 Sector-10A Gandhinagar – 382 010 Gandhinagar – 382 010 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabcg 1330 R (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) ()* यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Ms. Ukti Shah, Ars Revenue By : Shri Alpesh Parmar, Cit-Dr & Shri Arvind R. Kumbhare Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/012026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/01/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg:

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate and Ms. Ukti Shah, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR and Shri Arvind R. Kumbhare Sr.DR
Section 234BSection 250Section 270A

reference.” ITA Nos.2157 & 2158/Ahd/2025 Gujarat Urban Development Co.Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst. Year : 2018-19 7. The assessee, in this appeal, has agitated the levy of penalty u/s.272A of the Act on account of non-compliance of the notices issued by the Assessing Officer (AO). 8. At the outset

Soni Somani Infrastructure, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1, Pune

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

ITA 2458/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2458/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Soni Somani Infrastructure, Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Solapur. 560/31, South Sadar Bazar, Vinayak Nagar, Solapur- 413003. Pan : Abvfs4209B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Shriniwas G. Bhutada Shri Vishnu D. Bhutada Revenue By : Smt. Sailee Dhole Date Of Hearing : 08.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.08.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “Based On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Appellant Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Under Section 253(1)(A) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The 'Act'), Against The Order Dated 27Th Aug 2025 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Order') Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- Nfac

For Appellant: Shri Shriniwas G. BhutadaFor Respondent: Smt. Sailee Dhole
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)

provisions for expenditure were actually incurred in subsequent financial years and such actual expenditure were never disallowed in subsequent year/s results the levy of penalty unjustified and warranted. 3) The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. The appellant ... dated 27.08.2025 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. That during the course of further examination of records and on legal advice, the appellant

Premji Bhurlal Gala, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Rang 24(1), Mumbai

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 6596/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Prusethassessment Year: 2016-17 Premji Bhurlal Gala Addl. Cit Range 24(1), B-301, Water Ford, Cd Mumbai Barfiwala Road Juhu Fally Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Vs. Andheri West, Mumbai - 43, G Block, Bandra Kurla 400058 Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal & Satish Kumar, Ld. A. Rs. Revenue By : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.01.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.09.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2016-17. 2. In The Instant Case, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Act, On The Basis Of Search & Survey Action Under Section 132 Of The Act Carried Out In The Case Of M/S. Evergreen Enterprises, Wherein The Statement Of The Partner In M/S. Evergreen Enterprises, Mr. Nilesh Bharani Was Recorded Under Section 132(4) Of The Act, Unearthing An Undisclosed Activity, 2 Premji Bhurlal Gala

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal & SatishFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, SR. D.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 269SSection 271Section 271D

Premji Bhurlal Gala 10. The Assessing Officer thus ultimately, on being satisfied that this is a fit case for levy of penalty under Section 271D, levied a penalty of Rs. 64,25,000/- under such section. 11. The Assessee being aggrieved challenged the said penalty being imposed by the Assessing ... cash loan from M/s. Evergreen Enterprises or Mr. Nilesh Bharani or any of his related entities and requested stay on penalty proceedings since levy of penalty is dependent on addition of Income which itself is disputed and appealed against which is pending with Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

Raajendran Indira Raajendran, Chennai vs. ITO, Corp Ward.2(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years 2018-19 & 2019-20 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3559/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3554, 3555 & 3556/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 3557, 3558 & 3559/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Raajendran Indira Raajendran, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Z 189, 5Th Street, Anna Nagar, Corporate Ward 2(3), Chennai 600 040. Chennai. [Pan:Aaapi2683M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri H. Yeshwanthkumar, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sbr Kumar Laghimsetti, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2026 : आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi:

For Appellant: Shri H. Yeshwanthkumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri SBR Kumar Laghimsetti, Addl. CIT
Section 2Section 270ASection 271A

Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20 towards quantum addition as well as levy of penalty under section 271AAC(1) and section 2 I.T.A. Nos.3554 to 3559/Chny/25 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] for both the assessment ... quantum addition are allowed for statistical purposes. I.T.A. Nos. 3554 and 3556/Chny/2025 for AY 2018-19 5. The assessee also preferred appeals against levy of penalty under sections 271AAC(1) and 270A of the Act in ITA Nos. 3554 and 3556/Chny/2025 respectively. Since we direct

Raajendran Indira Raajendran, Chennai vs. ITO, Corp. Ward-2(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years 2018-19 & 2019-20 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3558/CHNY/2025[2019--20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3554, 3555 & 3556/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 3557, 3558 & 3559/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Raajendran Indira Raajendran, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Z 189, 5Th Street, Anna Nagar, Corporate Ward 2(3), Chennai 600 040. Chennai. [Pan:Aaapi2683M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri H. Yeshwanthkumar, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sbr Kumar Laghimsetti, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2026 : आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi:

For Appellant: Shri H. Yeshwanthkumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri SBR Kumar Laghimsetti, Addl. CIT
Section 2Section 270ASection 271A

Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20 towards quantum addition as well as levy of penalty under section 271AAC(1) and section 2 I.T.A. Nos.3554 to 3559/Chny/25 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] for both the assessment ... quantum addition are allowed for statistical purposes. I.T.A. Nos. 3554 and 3556/Chny/2025 for AY 2018-19 5. The assessee also preferred appeals against levy of penalty under sections 271AAC(1) and 270A of the Act in ITA Nos. 3554 and 3556/Chny/2025 respectively. Since we direct

Raajendran Indira Raajendran, Chennai vs. ITO, Corp. Ward-2(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years 2018-19 & 2019-20 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3557/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3554, 3555 & 3556/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 3557, 3558 & 3559/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Raajendran Indira Raajendran, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Z 189, 5Th Street, Anna Nagar, Corporate Ward 2(3), Chennai 600 040. Chennai. [Pan:Aaapi2683M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri H. Yeshwanthkumar, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sbr Kumar Laghimsetti, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2026 : आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi:

For Appellant: Shri H. Yeshwanthkumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri SBR Kumar Laghimsetti, Addl. CIT
Section 2Section 270ASection 271A

Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20 towards quantum addition as well as levy of penalty under section 271AAC(1) and section 2 I.T.A. Nos.3554 to 3559/Chny/25 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] for both the assessment ... quantum addition are allowed for statistical purposes. I.T.A. Nos. 3554 and 3556/Chny/2025 for AY 2018-19 5. The assessee also preferred appeals against levy of penalty under sections 271AAC(1) and 270A of the Act in ITA Nos. 3554 and 3556/Chny/2025 respectively. Since we direct

Raajendran Indira Raajendran, Chennai vs. ITO, Corp. Ward-2(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years 2018-19 & 2019-20 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3556/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3554, 3555 & 3556/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 3557, 3558 & 3559/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Raajendran Indira Raajendran, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Z 189, 5Th Street, Anna Nagar, Corporate Ward 2(3), Chennai 600 040. Chennai. [Pan:Aaapi2683M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri H. Yeshwanthkumar, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sbr Kumar Laghimsetti, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2026 : आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi:

For Appellant: Shri H. Yeshwanthkumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri SBR Kumar Laghimsetti, Addl. CIT
Section 2Section 270ASection 271A

Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20 towards quantum addition as well as levy of penalty under section 271AAC(1) and section 2 I.T.A. Nos.3554 to 3559/Chny/25 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] for both the assessment ... quantum addition are allowed for statistical purposes. I.T.A. Nos. 3554 and 3556/Chny/2025 for AY 2018-19 5. The assessee also preferred appeals against levy of penalty under sections 271AAC(1) and 270A of the Act in ITA Nos. 3554 and 3556/Chny/2025 respectively. Since we direct

Raajendran Indira Raajendran, Chennai vs. ITO, Corp. Ward-2(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years 2018-19 & 2019-20 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3555/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3554, 3555 & 3556/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 3557, 3558 & 3559/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Raajendran Indira Raajendran, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Z 189, 5Th Street, Anna Nagar, Corporate Ward 2(3), Chennai 600 040. Chennai. [Pan:Aaapi2683M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri H. Yeshwanthkumar, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sbr Kumar Laghimsetti, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2026 : आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi:

For Appellant: Shri H. Yeshwanthkumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri SBR Kumar Laghimsetti, Addl. CIT
Section 2Section 270ASection 271A

Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20 towards quantum addition as well as levy of penalty under section 271AAC(1) and section 2 I.T.A. Nos.3554 to 3559/Chny/25 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] for both the assessment ... quantum addition are allowed for statistical purposes. I.T.A. Nos. 3554 and 3556/Chny/2025 for AY 2018-19 5. The assessee also preferred appeals against levy of penalty under sections 271AAC(1) and 270A of the Act in ITA Nos. 3554 and 3556/Chny/2025 respectively. Since we direct