← 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

Kaushik Pravinchandra Gohel, Bhavnagar vs. The Assessing Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

ITA 693/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri B. R. Popat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

into the instant facts and the totality of circumstances, we are of the considered view that it is a fit case for non-levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act looking into the instant facts, since the assessee had been assured by the Renukamata Society that ... time to time. Accordingly, looking into the instant facts, we are of the considered view that it is a fit case for deleting levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 27. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy

Kaushik Pravinchandra Gohel, Bhavnagar vs. The Assessing Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

ITA 692/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri B. R. Popat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

into the instant facts and the totality of circumstances, we are of the considered view that it is a fit case for non-levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act looking into the instant facts, since the assessee had been assured by the Renukamata Society that ... time to time. Accordingly, looking into the instant facts, we are of the considered view that it is a fit case for deleting levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 27. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy

Kaushik Pravinchandra Gohel, Bhavnagar vs. The Assessing Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

ITA 691/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri B. R. Popat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

into the instant facts and the totality of circumstances, we are of the considered view that it is a fit case for non-levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act looking into the instant facts, since the assessee had been assured by the Renukamata Society that ... time to time. Accordingly, looking into the instant facts, we are of the considered view that it is a fit case for deleting levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 27. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy

Kaushik Pravinchandra Gohel, Bhavnagar vs. The Assessing Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

ITA 690/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri B. R. Popat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

into the instant facts and the totality of circumstances, we are of the considered view that it is a fit case for non-levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act looking into the instant facts, since the assessee had been assured by the Renukamata Society that ... time to time. Accordingly, looking into the instant facts, we are of the considered view that it is a fit case for deleting levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 27. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy

Chandravadan Desai, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-7(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

ITA 674/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 674/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Chandravadan Desai Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2), Sb Tower, 3Rd Floor Vs Kolkata 37, Shakespeare Sarani Circus Avenue S.O. Kolkata - 700017 [Pan : Aabdh5812Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akkal Dudhewala, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (In Short ‘Ld. First Appellate Authority’) Dt. 09/05/2023 Which Is Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’), Dt. 30/12/2016 Relevant To Assessment Year 2014-15 Framed By Acit, Circle-32, Kolkata. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Lower Authorities Inspite Of Being Aware That Chandravadan Desai Huf Had Been Partitioned & Had Ceased To Exist Upon Its Partition On The 26Th Day Of March 2014 & The Impugned Penalty Order Passed By The Ao In The Name Of Chandravadan Desai Huf, A Non-Existent Person Was Invalid & Therefore The Order Deserves To Be Cancelled.

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Rs.2,47,33,142/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealing the particulars of income. The assessee has challenged the levy of penalty before the ld. CIT(A) but failed to succeed. 3.1. Now, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising various legal grounds challenging

Ravindra Madhukar Kharche, Nagpur vs. ACIT Circle, Chandrapur

The appeal of the assessee stands ALLOWED

ITA 228/NAG/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 Apr 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Virtually From Itat, Pune) आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 228/Nag/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Ravindra Madhukar Kharche, 602, Nilgiri Himalaya Empire, Phulmati Layout, Badikheda, Nagpur. Pan: Ackpk1961E . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr Abay Marathe [Ld. DR’]
Section 10(10)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(8)

settle dispute in favour of the assessee, for the reasons the assessee came in present appeal on a solitary ground that the levy of penalty is devoid of facts, merits of the case and without considering the bonafied mistake in claiming enhanced ceiling. ITAT-Nagpur Page 2 of 6 Ravindra ... with assessment. In the penalty proceedings there were indifferent in dealing with the matter. 8. Having considered facts and circumstance of the case, levy of penalty in this case in our considered view was not warranted for the reasons that; (i) admittedly for part of the service the appellant

Suresh Kumar Bachiraju, Kukatpally vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 177/HYD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.177/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Suresh Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer Bachiraju, Ward 11(1) Kukatapally Hyderabad Pan:Afkpb6727Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate Kiran Manohar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/04/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/04/2024

For Appellant: Advocate Kiran ManoharFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 50C

appeared nor filed any details. Therefore, the learned CIT (A) disposed off the appeal filed by the assessee ex-parte and upheld the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income. 4. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) the assessee is in appeal before

Ulagnatha Nadar Shanmugakani Kumar, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward- 19(6), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 37/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.37/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Ulaganatha Nadar Ito Shanmugakani Krishna Kumar Non-Corporate Ward-19(6), बनाम/ Vs. 4, V.V. Koil Street, Saidapet, Chennai. Chennai-600 015. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Alhpk-5868-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Sree Lakshmi Valli (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar (Jcit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16-04-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16-04-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Ms. Sree Lakshmi Valli (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 272A(1)(d)

deem it fit to grant another opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the issue of levy of penalty stand restored back to the file of Ld. AO for de novo adjudication after affording opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee

Rohit Baswani, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-32(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6739/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganeshrohit Baswani, Vs. Acit, E-335, Lgf, East Of Circle-32(1), Kailash, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Acjpb5842J

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Ahuja, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the act in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused

ITO-24(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Ronak Marbles Industries, Andheri Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2881/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Bleito-24(3)(1) V. Ronak Marbles Industries Primal Chamber, Room No. 616 C/14 Dalai Industries Estate Parel, Lalbaug, Mumbai- 400012 Veer Desai Road, Versova Road Mumbai - 400058 Pan: Aaafr2351R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri M. Subramanian Department Represented By : Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”). 3. The roots for the levy of penalty lie in the assessment order dated 21.02.2014 framed under section 143(3) of the Act in which the Assessing Officer made the addition

Shrikant Gajanan Vyavahare, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Nashik

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 916/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.915 & 916/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shrikant Gajanan Vyavahare, The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.06, S.No.16/3/1, V Nashik. Samarth Bungla, Near S Modakeshwar Mandir, Modakeshwar Nagar, Kamatwade, Nashik – 422010. Pan: Aakpv1138N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Miss Abhilasha Sanjay Pawar – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 14/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Both Dated 15.02.2023, Emanating From Penalty Order Under Section 270A Of The Act Dated 19.01.2022 & 20.01.2022 For A.Y.2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively. Since Issue Involved Is

Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(10)

270A of Rs. 50,299/- on the ground that the assesses has furnish inaccurate particulars of Income without appreciating that the said levy of penalty was not justified in law. 2. The learned CIT failed to appreciate that before the CIT, the assesses had duly explained that reporting of income ... form of complaint filed against Tax Consultant before Economic Wing of Police Department etc. were also furnished by the assesses and therefore, the levy of penalty u/s 270A without rebutting the explanation offered by the assesses was not justified in view of provisions of the said Act. 3. The learned

Shrikant Gajanan Vyavahare, Kamatwade vs. Income Tax Officer, Nashik

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 915/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.915 & 916/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shrikant Gajanan Vyavahare, The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.06, S.No.16/3/1, V Nashik. Samarth Bungla, Near S Modakeshwar Mandir, Modakeshwar Nagar, Kamatwade, Nashik – 422010. Pan: Aakpv1138N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Miss Abhilasha Sanjay Pawar – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 14/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Both Dated 15.02.2023, Emanating From Penalty Order Under Section 270A Of The Act Dated 19.01.2022 & 20.01.2022 For A.Y.2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively. Since Issue Involved Is

Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(10)

270A of Rs. 50,299/- on the ground that the assesses has furnish inaccurate particulars of Income without appreciating that the said levy of penalty was not justified in law. 2. The learned CIT failed to appreciate that before the CIT, the assesses had duly explained that reporting of income ... form of complaint filed against Tax Consultant before Economic Wing of Police Department etc. were also furnished by the assesses and therefore, the levy of penalty u/s 270A without rebutting the explanation offered by the assesses was not justified in view of provisions of the said Act. 3. The learned

Akar Laminators Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 600/AHD/2023[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2001-02

Bench: This Tribunal & The Case Was Set-Aside Vide Order Dated 01.08.2014 In Ita No. 858 & 927/Ahd/2005 & Accordingly Assessment Was Finalized U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Act & The Total Loss Was Determined At (-) Rs.22,47,26,293/- After Making Following Additions/Disallowances:

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Post to the AO. However the AO without considering the above reply filed by the assessee, passed exparte order dated 28-07-2016 levying minimum penalty of Rs.1,09,35,080/-. 3.1. Aggrieved against the Penalty order, the assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A), NAFC and filed detailed Written ... Submissions which are reproduced in the appellate order. However the Ld CIT[A] confirmed the levy of Penalty made by the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, as the assessee failed to appear for the video conference hearing given on 02-06-2023. 4. Aggrieved against

Dharmenbhai Mahendrabhai Sutaria, HUF, Ahmedabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 253/AHD/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

For Appellant: Ms Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

others A.Y. 2009-10 3 The only issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in 2. confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for Rs. 22,10,100/- only. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee ... assessee has concealed the particular of additional income of Rs. 65 lacs offered during the proceedings under section 153A of the Act and levied the penalty of Rs. 22,09,350/- being 100% of the amount of tax sought to be evaded. 5. On appeal by the assessee, the learned

Dharmenbhai Mahendrabhai Sutaria, Ahmedabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 252/AHD/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

For Appellant: Ms Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

others A.Y. 2009-10 3 The only issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in 2. confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for Rs. 22,10,100/- only. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee ... assessee has concealed the particular of additional income of Rs. 65 lacs offered during the proceedings under section 153A of the Act and levied the penalty of Rs. 22,09,350/- being 100% of the amount of tax sought to be evaded. 5. On appeal by the assessee, the learned

Dharmenbhai Mahendrabhai Sutaria, Ahmedabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 251/AHD/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

For Appellant: Ms Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

others A.Y. 2009-10 3 The only issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in 2. confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for Rs. 22,10,100/- only. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee ... assessee has concealed the particular of additional income of Rs. 65 lacs offered during the proceedings under section 153A of the Act and levied the penalty of Rs. 22,09,350/- being 100% of the amount of tax sought to be evaded. 5. On appeal by the assessee, the learned

Neel Kanth Gum and Chemicals, Jhunjhunu vs. ACIT, Circle Jhunjhunu, Income Tax Office, Jhunjhunu

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

ITA 805/JPR/2023[A.Y. 2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Apr 2024

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 801Section 80I

year 2012-13 wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. The ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining levy of penalty of Rs.16,64,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act levied on reduction in deduction u/s 80IB of the Act by avoiding ... identical facts even in assessee’s own cases. 2. Without prejudice to Ground No. 1, ld.CIT(A) has erred in law in sustaining levy of penalty of Rs.16,64,000/- under section 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act which was initiated by show cause notice dated

Mahesh Kudaravalli, Tenali vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tenali

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 230/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.230/Viz/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2017-18) Mahesh Kudaravalli, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Tenali. Ward-1, Pan: Bbppk 3773 H Tenali. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधईकीतधरीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27/03/2024 घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Date Of : 04/04/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Pers. Balakrishnan:

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 273BSection 274Section 69A

orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. The core issue involved in the grounds raised by the assessee is with respect to validity of levy of penalty U/s. 271D on account of receipt of cash in relation to transfer of immovable property by the assessee attracting the provisions of section 269SS

Finesse International Design Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT Central Range-1, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2561/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Siddharth Bhimsingh Meena, Sr. DR
Section 132ASection 250Section 269SSection 271D

submissions filed on behalf of the Appellant Company.” 2 Finesse International Design Pvt. Ltd. 3. The grounds of appeal are related to levy of penalty u/s 271DA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on cash receipts of Rs.2,00,000/- by the assessee. Penalty order u/s 271D

Jairaj Singh Solanki, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 2(4), Jaipur

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

ITA 153/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Mar 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 272ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 273B

Sole grievance of the assessee raised in the grounds of 2 ITA No. 153/JPR/2024 Jairaj Singh Solanki vs. ITO appeal is against the levy of penalty of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act levied by the Assessing Officer for not complying to the notice ... with another show cause notice for which the assessee was not at all aware and thus prayed that the assessee deserves immunity from levy of penalty by virtue of section 273B of the Act. 4. On the other hand, Departmental Representative vehemently supported the order