levy of penalty — 5,057 case laws

Barefoot College International, Kishangarh vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

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

ITA 596/JPR/2023[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Feb 2024AY 2024-2025

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 11(1)(c)Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

within stipulated time period, what consequences will arise. In the Income Tax Act or say any other Act, specific provisions are given regarding levy of penalty, fee, interest, denial of benefit etc. in case some one fails to comply with any provision. However in section 80G of the Income

Sharad Bhaskarrao Gaikwad, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Nashik

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 917/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.917/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sharad Bhaskarrao Gaikwad, The Income Tax T.No.1, Vanai Apartment, V Officer, Gangapur Road, Behind S Nashik. Kulswamini Apart, Nashik – 422005. Pan: Adspg2339R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Miss Abhilasha Sanjay Pawar-Ca, Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 14/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 19/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 02.05.2023 Emanating From Penalty Order Dated 17.02.2022 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Submission Of Ld.Ar : 2. The Ld.Authorised Representative(Ld.Ar) Of The Assessee Filed Written Submission. Vide Written Submission Ld.Ar Invited Our Sharad Bhaskarrao Gaikwad [A] Attention To The Notice Dated 24.03.2021 For A.Y. 2016-17 Issued By Assessing Officer(Ao) Which Was The First Notice With Reference To The Penalty. Ld.Ar In The Written Submission Explained That Nowhere In The Notice Section 271(1)(C) Is Mentioned. Nowhere In The Notice, The Assessing Officer Has Clarified, Whether It Is For Concealment Of Income Or For Filing Inaccurate Particulars.

Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

observed is that penalty proceedings are to be initiated separately. These are words indicative not of an initiation of steps for levy of penalty but only of possible future initiation. On behalf of the department, Sri Mukerjee submitted that the words used in the assessment order should not be construed ... circumstances clearly justify the conclusion of the Tribunal that no action had been initiated in the course of the assessment proceedings for the levy of penalty. The conclusion of the Tribunal is one of fact based on the facts and circumstances of the case with which this court will

M/S. Shanker Fuels Pvt., Kolkata vs. ACIT, C.C-3(1), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1317/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1317/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Shanker Fuels Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 301, Manglam Vs Central Circle -3(1), Kolkata 24, Hemant Basu Sarani Kolkata - 700001 [Pan: Aaecs1106J] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Kiran Chatrapoty, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31/01/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 15/09/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. There Is A Minor Delay In Filing Of This Appeal. In The Larger Interest Of Justice, The Same Is Hereby Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication On Merits. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Despite Issuance Of Notice Nor Is Any Application For Adjournment Placed Before Us. We, Therefore, Deem It Proper To Adjudicate The Appeal & Decide It On Merits Ex-Parte, Qua The Assessee, After Hearing The Ld. D/R. 3. We Have Heard The Ld. D/R & Perused The Material Placed Before Us. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Finding Of The 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Chatrapoty, JCIT, Sr. D/R

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(b)

against the finding of the 2 I.T.A. No. 1317/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Shanker Fuels Pvt. Ltd. ld. CIT(A) confirming the levy of penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act levied by the Assessing Officer for not complying to the notice issued ... instant case has not complied to the statutory notice u/s 142(1) issued by the AO on 10/11/2017, which is the basis for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act, however, ultimately the assessment order has been passed u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer

Madan Mohan Mishra, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)(4), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 795/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri S.L. JainFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

course of the hearing. Accordingly, the same is dismissed as not pressed. 15. The issue arising in ground no. 4 pertains to the levy of penalty, which is premature in nature. Therefore, the same is dismissed. 16. As a result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

Mseb Enngineers Consumer Co-Op Society Ltd, Sangli vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Sangli

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1373/PUN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 1373/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mseb Engineers Consumer Co-Op Society Ltd. 100 Ft. Road, Opp Sarovar Hotel, Vishrambag, Sangli Pan : Aaaam5424D . . . . . . . . अपऩलधर्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. Income Tax Office, Ward-1(1), Sangli . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Mr Sharad Vaze [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

allowed in favour of the assessee. This order was misconceived by the appellant and uploaded the same against pending appeal challenged the impugned levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. There was no intention to misguide the Ld. NFAC and the erroneous communication stemmed out of pure

Manisha Gahlot, Jaipur vs. ACIT Wrad 1(3) Jaipur, Jaipur

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

ITA 683/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Sandep Gosain & Dr. M. L. Meena

For Appellant: Sh. Arun Trivedi, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Monisha Chaudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 44A

Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 15.09.2023 in respect of Assessment Year: 2010-2011 challenging 2 Manisha Gahlot v. ACIT therein confirmation of levy of penalty of Rs.25000/- u/s 271A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in arbitrary manner. 2. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee

DCIT CC 8(2), Mumbai vs. White Feather Films Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 7651/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal a/wFor Respondent: Shri Nayanjyoti Nath (Sr. AR)

Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

transactions were malafide. The Ld. CIT(A) found force in the contention of assessee that there was reasonable cause for non-levy of penalty and taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, he noted that the loans were taken of Rs 1.43 cr in the first place ... Akshay Sarin HUF Rs.6 Lakhs total Rs.1.43 cr new creditors) by passing necessary journal entries in the books of assessee does not warrant levy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act. According to Ld. CIT(A) loan of Rs.1.43 cr was received from original creditors were through “account payee cheque

DCIT Cen Cir 8(2), Mumbai vs. White Feather Films Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 7642/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7642/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7651/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11) Dcit, Central, Circle-8(2) बिधम/ M/S. White Feather Films 6Th Floor, Room No. 658, Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Svp Nagar, Mhada Road, Mumbai-400020. Bungalow No. 91, Four Bungalow, Andheri West, Mumbai-400053. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacw4428R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. Gopal A/W M/S. Neha Paranjpe Revenue By: Shri Nayanjyoti Nath (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/02/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai Dated 20.09.2016 For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Against The Penalty Confirmed By Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Ao) U/S 271E/271D Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal a/wFor Respondent: Shri Nayanjyoti Nath (Sr. AR)

Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

transactions were malafide. The Ld. CIT(A) found force in the contention of assessee that there was reasonable cause for non-levy of penalty and taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, he noted that the loans were taken of Rs 1.43 cr in the first place ... Akshay Sarin HUF Rs.6 Lakhs total Rs.1.43 cr new creditors) by passing necessary journal entries in the books of assessee does not warrant levy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act. According to Ld. CIT(A) loan of Rs.1.43 cr was received from original creditors were through “account payee cheque

Atn Infratech Private Limted, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Delhi

In the result, these other

ITA 951/DEL/2023[2015-16 (24Q,Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaatn Infratech Private Limited Vs. Acit Lg-11, E-57, West Vinod Nagar, Circle 1(1), Opp. Tarang Apartments, New Delhi. I.P. Extension, New Delhi. Pan No.Aaica3030D (Appellant) (Respondent) Atn Infratech Private Limited Vs. Acit Lg-11, E-57, West Vinod Nagar, Circle 1(1), Opp. Tarang Apartments, New Delhi. I.P. Extension, New Delhi. Pan No.Aaica3030D (Appellant) (Respondent) Atn Infratech Private Limited Vs. Acit Lg-11, E-57, West Vinod Nagar, Circle 1(1), Opp. Tarang Apartments, New Delhi. I.P. Extension, New Delhi. Pan No.Aaica3030D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 234E