← 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

Annapurna Boddu, West Godavari vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1/HYD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 1/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Annapurna Boddu Vs. Assistant. C. I. T. West Godavari Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Ayxpb7323A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S.Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/03/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 10(38)Section 132(4)Section 271(1)(c)

appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 19.07.2022 of the learned CIT (A)-11, Hyderabad, relating to A.Y.2014-15. 2. Levy of penalty of Rs.24,00,000/-by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act which has been confirmed by the learned ... particulars of income are duly disclosed, mere disallowance of a claim or non-acceptance of a claim would not attract levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. 9. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers

Van Oord Dredging and Marine Contractors Bv, Mumbai vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Intl. Tax Circle - 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3365/MUM/2023[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2024

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Van Oord Dredging & Marine Contractors Bv 201, 2Nd Floor, Central Plaza, 166 Cst Road, Kalina, Mumbai-400 098 Pan: Aaach3500M ..... Appellant Vs. Acit Circle 4(3) (2) 16Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai- 400 021 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Jasmin Amalasadvala, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 2Section 234A

education cess, once the aforesaid grounds are decided in favour of the assessee, it has become purely consequential in nature. 11. Lastly, regarding levy of penalty under various sections, in the light of above discussions and our finding, we held that these grounds are premature and to be adjudicated

Shri Popat Karbhari Bhalerao, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Nashik

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1324/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1323 & 1324/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shri Popat Karbhari Bhalerao, The Income Tax Officer, Yeshdei Niwas, Maratha V Ward-2(1), Nashik. Nagar, Near Rajrajeshwari S Mangal Karyalay, Jailroad, Nashik Road, Nashik-422101. Pan: Aaqpb3523N Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26/03/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)[Nfac] For A.Y.2017-18 Dated 02.09.2022 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Emanating From Penalty Order Under Section 270A Of The Act, Dated 30.12.2021. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 147Section 24Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(e)Section 274Section 9

learned CIT-(A) erred in confirming the penalty u/s 270A of Rs.2,60,874 levied by the A.O without appreciating that the said levy of penalty was not justified on facts and in law. 2. The assessee submits that in the reassessment order, the A.O has initiated penalty u/s 270A ... filing incorrect ITRs and this fact was also substantiated by police complaints filed against the said tax consultant subsequently and therefore, the levy of penalty u/s 270A was also not justified on merits. 4. The appellant craves leave to add/ alter/ amend any of the grounds of appeal.” Submission

Shri Popat Karbhari Bhalerao, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward.2(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1323/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1323 & 1324/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shri Popat Karbhari Bhalerao, The Income Tax Officer, Yeshdei Niwas, Maratha V Ward-2(1), Nashik. Nagar, Near Rajrajeshwari S Mangal Karyalay, Jailroad, Nashik Road, Nashik-422101. Pan: Aaqpb3523N Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26/03/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)[Nfac] For A.Y.2017-18 Dated 02.09.2022 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Emanating From Penalty Order Under Section 270A Of The Act, Dated 30.12.2021. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 147Section 24Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(e)Section 274Section 9

learned CIT-(A) erred in confirming the penalty u/s 270A of Rs.2,60,874 levied by the A.O without appreciating that the said levy of penalty was not justified on facts and in law. 2. The assessee submits that in the reassessment order, the A.O has initiated penalty u/s 270A ... filing incorrect ITRs and this fact was also substantiated by police complaints filed against the said tax consultant subsequently and therefore, the levy of penalty u/s 270A was also not justified on merits. 4. The appellant craves leave to add/ alter/ amend any of the grounds of appeal.” Submission

Pattathanam Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Kollam vs. The ITO, Ward 2, Kollam

In the result, the assessee’s appeal and stay petition are dismissed

ITA 352/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Sano. 96/Coch/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Pattathanam Service Co-Op. Income Tax Officer Bank Ltd. Ward -2, Kollam Pattathanam P.O. Vs. Kollam 691021 [Pan: Aacap4888Q] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sabu C.S., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 271BSection 273BSection 274Section 44ASection 80Section 80PSection 80P(1)

appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department [CIT(A)] vide it’s Order dated 13.03.2023, agitating the levy of penalty under section 271B of Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 vide order dated 11/01/2022. The assessee has also filed ... stay petition qua it’s instant appeal. 2. Section 271B of the Act provides for a levy of penalty where an assessee contravenes, without reasonable cause, the provision of s. 44AB of the Act, which provides for furnishing the audit report there-under in the prescribed form, as also

DCIT CC- 3(4), Mumbai vs. Bhawanishankar Harishchandra Sharma, Mumbai

ITA 2764/MUM/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 4Section 50C(2)

under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. However, in appeal preferred by the Assessee against the aforesaid order levying of penalty, vide order, dated 29/03/2018, the CIT(A) deleted the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The present appeal ... calculation of the differential tax liability and also the resultant penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8.8 As regards the levy of penalty on this issue, it is seen that it has been held by various Courts and Tribunals that this cannot be taken as a case

Satanarayana Vajrapu, Miryalguda vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nalgonda

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 119/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Induri Rama Rao & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.119/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Satyanarayana Vs. Income Tax Officer Vajrapu Ward-1 Miryalguda Nalgonda Pan:Abhpv8434F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Shri Satyanarayana Vajrapu – Assessee C.A राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/03/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Shri SatyanarayanaFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(b)

complied with the notices. A show-cause notice u/s 271(1)(b) was issued for calling the explanation/objections of the assessee for levy of penalty. In response to the same, the assessee filed an online reply vide letter dated 24.09.2018 stating that he was pre- occupied with finalization and submission

Bank of India, Butibori, Nagpur vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS, Range-1, Nagpur

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8/NAG/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Pratik Sadrani [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Abhay Marathe [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 194ASection 201(1)Section 246A(1)(c)Section 250Section 253(1)(a)Section 271C

hereinafter] challenging respective orders of National Faceless Appellate Centre [‘NFAC’ hereinafter] passed u/s 250 of the Act dismissing the respective appeals assailed against levy of penalty u/s 271C of the Act, on the ground of limitation. ITAT-Nagpur Page 1 of 6 Bank of India Vs JCIT(TDS) ITA No.003

Bank of India, Nagpur vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS, Range-1, Nagpur

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7/NAG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Pratik Sadrani [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Abhay Marathe [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 194ASection 201(1)Section 246A(1)(c)Section 250Section 253(1)(a)Section 271C

hereinafter] challenging respective orders of National Faceless Appellate Centre [‘NFAC’ hereinafter] passed u/s 250 of the Act dismissing the respective appeals assailed against levy of penalty u/s 271C of the Act, on the ground of limitation. ITAT-Nagpur Page 1 of 6 Bank of India Vs JCIT(TDS) ITA No.003

Bank of India, Dongargaon, Nagpur vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS, Range-1, Nagpur

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6/NAG/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Pratik Sadrani [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Abhay Marathe [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 194ASection 201(1)Section 246A(1)(c)Section 250Section 253(1)(a)Section 271C

hereinafter] challenging respective orders of National Faceless Appellate Centre [‘NFAC’ hereinafter] passed u/s 250 of the Act dismissing the respective appeals assailed against levy of penalty u/s 271C of the Act, on the ground of limitation. ITAT-Nagpur Page 1 of 6 Bank of India Vs JCIT(TDS) ITA No.003

Bank of India, Nagpur vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS, Range-1, Nagpur

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5/NAG/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Pratik Sadrani [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Abhay Marathe [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 194ASection 201(1)Section 246A(1)(c)Section 250Section 253(1)(a)Section 271C

hereinafter] challenging respective orders of National Faceless Appellate Centre [‘NFAC’ hereinafter] passed u/s 250 of the Act dismissing the respective appeals assailed against levy of penalty u/s 271C of the Act, on the ground of limitation. ITAT-Nagpur Page 1 of 6 Bank of India Vs JCIT(TDS) ITA No.003

Bank of India, Dharampeth, Nagpur vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS, Range-1, Nagpur

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4/NAG/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Pratik Sadrani [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Abhay Marathe [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 194ASection 201(1)Section 246A(1)(c)Section 250Section 253(1)(a)Section 271C

hereinafter] challenging respective orders of National Faceless Appellate Centre [‘NFAC’ hereinafter] passed u/s 250 of the Act dismissing the respective appeals assailed against levy of penalty u/s 271C of the Act, on the ground of limitation. ITAT-Nagpur Page 1 of 6 Bank of India Vs JCIT(TDS) ITA No.003

Bank of India, Itwari, Nagpur vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, (TDS) Range-1, Nagpur

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3/NAG/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Pratik Sadrani [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Abhay Marathe [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 194ASection 201(1)Section 246A(1)(c)Section 250Section 253(1)(a)Section 271C

hereinafter] challenging respective orders of National Faceless Appellate Centre [‘NFAC’ hereinafter] passed u/s 250 of the Act dismissing the respective appeals assailed against levy of penalty u/s 271C of the Act, on the ground of limitation. ITAT-Nagpur Page 1 of 6 Bank of India Vs JCIT(TDS) ITA No.003

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

ITA 1066/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 234BSection 271ASection 69

dated 16.11.2023. ITA No.1064/Bang/2023 is emanated from the order of CIT(A) dated 11.8.2023 for the assessment year 2016-17 with regard to levy of penalty u/s 271AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). Since the issue in all these appeals is common in nature, these

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1065/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

dated 16.11.2023. ITA No.1064/Bang/2023 is emanated from the order of CIT(A) dated 11.8.2023 for the assessment year 2016-17 with regard to levy of penalty u/s 271AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). Since the issue in all these appeals is common in nature, these

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1064/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

dated 16.11.2023. ITA No.1064/Bang/2023 is emanated from the order of CIT(A) dated 11.8.2023 for the assessment year 2016-17 with regard to levy of penalty u/s 271AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). Since the issue in all these appeals is common in nature, these

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

ITA 1063/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 234BSection 271ASection 69

dated 16.11.2023. ITA No.1064/Bang/2023 is emanated from the order of CIT(A) dated 11.8.2023 for the assessment year 2016-17 with regard to levy of penalty u/s 271AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). Since the issue in all these appeals is common in nature, these

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1062/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

dated 16.11.2023. ITA No.1064/Bang/2023 is emanated from the order of CIT(A) dated 11.8.2023 for the assessment year 2016-17 with regard to levy of penalty u/s 271AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). Since the issue in all these appeals is common in nature, these

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1061/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

dated 16.11.2023. ITA No.1064/Bang/2023 is emanated from the order of CIT(A) dated 11.8.2023 for the assessment year 2016-17 with regard to levy of penalty u/s 271AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). Since the issue in all these appeals is common in nature, these

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Laxmi Komatireddy, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 297/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 131(1)Section 132Section 153A

defeat the very purpose of Search/Survey operations as they fail to bring the undisclosed income to tax in a sustainable manner leave alone levy of penalty or launching of prosecution. Further, such actions show the Department as a whole and officers concerned in poor light. 2. I am further directed