← 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

Shri Jitendra Majithia, Jam Khambhaliya vs. The NFAC Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 181/RJT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sagar Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 250Section 271BSection 44A

upheld the decision of AO and failed to consider that penalty provision of section 271B does not empower the AO to mandatorily levy the penalty as there is discretion to 40 to waive the penalty looking into the facts of the case and the same is ignored ... Appeals) has erred in passing order u/s 250 of the Act, dated 30.03.2023 since Ld. CIT (A) has failed to note that AO levied the penalty for a mistake which is technical in nature not only that the accounts provided in the assessment proceeding is not defected and income

Janani Exports, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2, Surat

In the result, all seven appeals filed by the assessee (in ITA Nos

ITA 405/SRT/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

assessee has co-operated and order u/s 153A has been passed which Learned CIT(A) has not taken into consideration. Hence, the impugned levy of Penalty of Rs.10000/- as made by the learned AO and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) in the hands of the assessee

Janani Exports, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2, Surat

In the result, all seven appeals filed by the assessee (in ITA Nos

ITA 404/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

assessee has co-operated and order u/s 153A has been passed which Learned CIT(A) has not taken into consideration. Hence, the impugned levy of Penalty of Rs.10000/- as made by the learned AO and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) in the hands of the assessee

Janani Exports, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2, Surat

In the result, all seven appeals filed by the assessee (in ITA Nos

ITA 403/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

assessee has co-operated and order u/s 153A has been passed which Learned CIT(A) has not taken into consideration. Hence, the impugned levy of Penalty of Rs.10000/- as made by the learned AO and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) in the hands of the assessee

Janani Exports, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2, Surat

In the result, all seven appeals filed by the assessee (in ITA Nos

ITA 402/SRT/2023[2016-17 (Quarter-1)-(24Q)]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Aug 2023

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

assessee has co-operated and order u/s 153A has been passed which Learned CIT(A) has not taken into consideration. Hence, the impugned levy of Penalty of Rs.10000/- as made by the learned AO and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) in the hands of the assessee

Janani Exports, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2, Surat

In the result, all seven appeals filed by the assessee (in ITA Nos

ITA 401/SRT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

assessee has co-operated and order u/s 153A has been passed which Learned CIT(A) has not taken into consideration. Hence, the impugned levy of Penalty of Rs.10000/- as made by the learned AO and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) in the hands of the assessee

Janani Exports, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2, Surat

In the result, all seven appeals filed by the assessee (in ITA Nos

ITA 400/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

assessee has co-operated and order u/s 153A has been passed which Learned CIT(A) has not taken into consideration. Hence, the impugned levy of Penalty of Rs.10000/- as made by the learned AO and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) in the hands of the assessee

Janani Exports, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2, Surat

In the result, all seven appeals filed by the assessee (in ITA Nos

ITA 399/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

assessee has co-operated and order u/s 153A has been passed which Learned CIT(A) has not taken into consideration. Hence, the impugned levy of Penalty of Rs.10000/- as made by the learned AO and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) in the hands of the assessee

Shri Chandraprabh Charitable Sanstha, Jaipur vs. ITO, Exemption Ward 1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 364/JPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 363 & 364/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2019-20 Shri Chandraprabh Charitable Sanstha, Shree Digamber Jain Mandir Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward-01, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAGTS 7441 B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.), Shri Ruchika Sogani (Adv.) jk

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.) &For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 57

result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.” 4.1 In ITA No. 364/JP/2023, aggrieved from the order of the Assessing Officer for levy of penalty, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. A propose to the grounds so raised the relevant finding ... result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 363/JP/2023 is partly allowed. 10. The appeal in ITA No. 364/JP/2023 is related to the levy of penalty of Rs.1,15,247/- u/s 270A of the Act for which as we have considered the plea of the assessee that the income which

Shri Chandraprabh Charitable Sanstha, Jaipur vs. ITO, Exemption Ward 1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 363/JPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 363 & 364/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2019-20 Shri Chandraprabh Charitable Sanstha, Shree Digamber Jain Mandir Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward-01, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAGTS 7441 B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.), Shri Ruchika Sogani (Adv.) jk

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.) &For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 57

result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.” 4.1 In ITA No. 364/JP/2023, aggrieved from the order of the Assessing Officer for levy of penalty, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. A propose to the grounds so raised the relevant finding ... result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 363/JP/2023 is partly allowed. 10. The appeal in ITA No. 364/JP/2023 is related to the levy of penalty of Rs.1,15,247/- u/s 270A of the Act for which as we have considered the plea of the assessee that the income which

Rajesh Kalra, Hanumangarh Town vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Bikaner

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

ITA 37/JODH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoterajesh Kalra, Vs. Dcit, Circle – 1, Prop. M/S. Zodiac Bikaner – 334001, Imaging & Diagnostic Rajasthan. Centre, Hanumangarh -335513, Rajasthan. Pan/Gir No. : Akapk9599E Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Prerana Choudhary, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/ Cit(A) & Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Prerana Choudhary
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

specific Rajesh Kalra, Hanumangarh. objections. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeal. The assessee has filed the appeal challenging the levy of penalty U/sec271(1)(C) of the Act. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of providing services ... assessee has filed the detailed submissions referred at Page 1 of the order but the AO was not satisfied with the explanations and levied a penalty of Rs.66,950/- and passed the order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 06-11-2020. 5. Aggrieved by the penalty order

Shri Prakash Modi, Jodhpur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Jodhpur

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

ITA 25/JODH/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteprakash Chand Modi Vs. Acit, Cir-1, D-128, Shastrinagar, Jodhpur, Jodhpur-342003, Rajasthan. Rajasthan. Rpan/Gir No. : Adqpm6554J Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri Amit Kothari, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Nidhi Nair, Jcit -Dr Date Of Hearing 14.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/S 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Nair, JCIT -DR
Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

U/sec 142(1) of the Act in the assesseement proceedings and there was no compliance. And the A.O has initiated penalty proceedings and levied a penalty of Rs,10,000/- and passed the order u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act dated 11-10-2018. 3. Aggrieved by the penalty ... interested and decided the appeal based on the information available on record. Whereas the assessee has raised grounds of appeal challenging the levy of penalty by the A.O and there could be various reasons for non appearance which cannot be overruled. Therefore, considering the principles of natural justice shall provide

Maruti Trading Co, Jagaatsinghpur vs. ITO Ward Paradeep, Paradeep

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 213/CTK/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack16 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialassessment Year : 2015-16 Maruti Trading Co., Maruti Trading Co., Panisalia, Vs. Ito, Ward, Paradeep. Ito, Ward, Paradeep. Jagatsinghpur. Jagatsinghpur. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aalfm 3677 L (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty P.R.Mohanty, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/0 /08/2023 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P.R.MohantyFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

NFAC, Delhi Delhi dated 29.3.2023 in Appeal No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1051568864(1) for the assessment year for the assessment year 2015- 16 confirming the levy of penalty 16 confirming the levy of penalty of Rs.32,420/- under section 271(1)(c) of under section ... penalty order u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. It was the submission that the Assessing Officer in page 2 of his order levying the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) himself has recognized that it is not proper to impose penalty in respect of addition of Rs.97,961/- but has proceeded

Manish Kumar Mali, Bhilwara vs. ITO, Ward-5, Bhilwara

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

ITA 26/JODH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur16 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripotemanish Kumar Mali Vs. Ito, Ward-5, 31/306, Shivaji Bhilwara, Mohalla Nehru Road, Rajasthan. Bhilwara-311001, Rajasthan. Pan/Gir No. : Awcpm2698A Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Prerana Choudhary, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing 16.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 271B & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Prerana Choudhary
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271B

various dates there is no compliances and the reasonable cause was not explained and Manish Kumar Mali, Bhilwara. finally the AO has levied a penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- and passed the order u/s 271B of the Act. Dated 15-06-2019. 4. Aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee ... opinion that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal and dismissed the appeal ex-parte confirming the action of the levy of penalty by the assessing officer. The Ld. CIT(A) has issued the notices of hearing referred at Page 2 Para 5 of the order, but there

DCIT, Circle- 1, Ltu, New Delhi vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1749/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Usassessment Year: 2011-12 The Oriental Insurance Co. Dcit, Circle-1 Ltd. A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, Vs Ltu, New Delhi New Delhi Pan No.Aaact0627R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-1 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltu, New Delhi Vs. Ltd. A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi Pan No.Aaact0627R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271Section 32

disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. The common grievance in both these appeals relates to the levy of penalty u/s.271 (1)(c) of the Act. 3. The roots for the levy of penalty lie in the assessment order dated 13.01.2014 framed u/s.143 ... been set aside to the files of the AO, therefore, to this extent the AO is directed to decide the issue of levy of penalty after deciding the quantum. 7. Since all other additions have been deleted we do not find any merit in the levy of penalty

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 1, Ltu, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1411/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Usassessment Year: 2011-12 The Oriental Insurance Co. Dcit, Circle-1 Ltd. A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, Vs Ltu, New Delhi New Delhi Pan No.Aaact0627R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-1 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltu, New Delhi Vs. Ltd. A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi Pan No.Aaact0627R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271Section 32

disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. The common grievance in both these appeals relates to the levy of penalty u/s.271 (1)(c) of the Act. 3. The roots for the levy of penalty lie in the assessment order dated 13.01.2014 framed u/s.143 ... been set aside to the files of the AO, therefore, to this extent the AO is directed to decide the issue of levy of penalty after deciding the quantum. 7. Since all other additions have been deleted we do not find any merit in the levy of penalty

Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Bhasera, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur

ITA 126/RPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271B

125/RPR/2022 2012-13 | 18.04.2022 | 09.09.2015 11_| 126/RPR/2022 2013-14 | 21.03.2022 | 02.05.2016 2. The issues involved in the present appeals are pertaining to levy of penalty u/s.271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), and disallowance u/s.80P of the Act. First, we are taking the appeals having common ... issue pertaining to levy of penalty u/s.271B of the Act. ITA Nos.108, 109, 110, 118, 125 & 126/RPR/2022: 3. We shall take up the appeal in ITA No.108/RPR/2022 for the AY 2012- 13 as the lead matter, and the order therein passed, shall be applied ITA Nos.108-113, 116-118, 125 & 126/RPR/2022

Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Champajhar, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur

ITA 125/RPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271B

125/RPR/2022 2012-13 | 18.04.2022 | 09.09.2015 11_| 126/RPR/2022 2013-14 | 21.03.2022 | 02.05.2016 2. The issues involved in the present appeals are pertaining to levy of penalty u/s.271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), and disallowance u/s.80P of the Act. First, we are taking the appeals having common ... issue pertaining to levy of penalty u/s.271B of the Act. ITA Nos.108, 109, 110, 118, 125 & 126/RPR/2022: 3. We shall take up the appeal in ITA No.108/RPR/2022 for the AY 2012- 13 as the lead matter, and the order therein passed, shall be applied ITA Nos.108-113, 116-118, 125 & 126/RPR/2022

Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Manikchouri, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur

ITA 118/RPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271B

125/RPR/2022 2012-13 | 18.04.2022 | 09.09.2015 11_| 126/RPR/2022 2013-14 | 21.03.2022 | 02.05.2016 2. The issues involved in the present appeals are pertaining to levy of penalty u/s.271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), and disallowance u/s.80P of the Act. First, we are taking the appeals having common ... issue pertaining to levy of penalty u/s.271B of the Act. ITA Nos.108, 109, 110, 118, 125 & 126/RPR/2022: 3. We shall take up the appeal in ITA No.108/RPR/2022 for the AY 2012- 13 as the lead matter, and the order therein passed, shall be applied ITA Nos.108-113, 116-118, 125 & 126/RPR/2022

Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Manikchhouri, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur

ITA 117/RPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271B

125/RPR/2022 2012-13 | 18.04.2022 | 09.09.2015 11_| 126/RPR/2022 2013-14 | 21.03.2022 | 02.05.2016 2. The issues involved in the present appeals are pertaining to levy of penalty u/s.271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), and disallowance u/s.80P of the Act. First, we are taking the appeals having common ... issue pertaining to levy of penalty u/s.271B of the Act. ITA Nos.108, 109, 110, 118, 125 & 126/RPR/2022: 3. We shall take up the appeal in ITA No.108/RPR/2022 for the AY 2012- 13 as the lead matter, and the order therein passed, shall be applied ITA Nos.108-113, 116-118, 125 & 126/RPR/2022