← 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

Reshma Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-18(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee in all the years are allowed

ITA 539/MUM/2023[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri. Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.535,536,537,538 & 539/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year 2004-05,2005-06,2007- 08,2008-09 & 2009-10) Reshma Enterprises Income Tax Officer 18(3)(2) Mumbai, Mumbai, बिधम/ Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, Earnesh 282, Kilachand Mansion, Vs. House Nariman Point Mumbai- Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai- 400081 400002 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aaafr7937B (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Mohammed Anas Siddique प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mahita Nair Sr. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 03.05.2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 04.05.2023

For Appellant: Mohammed Anas SiddiqueFor Respondent: Mahita Nair Sr. AR
Section 147Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

A.Ys: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10. The common issue involved in all the appeals his levy of penalty u/s. 2 I.T.A. No. 535,536,537,538,539/Mum/2023 RESHMA ENTERPRISES 271(1)(c) on estimated gross profit of 5% on alleged un proved purchases. The penalties ... addition made to the returned income tantamount to concealment of any facts or submission or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income to warrant levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. Hence the penalty proceeding initiated may please be annulled." 6. However, this explanation

Reshma Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-18(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee in all the years are allowed

ITA 538/MUM/2023[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2023AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri. Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.535,536,537,538 & 539/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year 2004-05,2005-06,2007- 08,2008-09 & 2009-10) Reshma Enterprises Income Tax Officer 18(3)(2) Mumbai, Mumbai, बिधम/ Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, Earnesh 282, Kilachand Mansion, Vs. House Nariman Point Mumbai- Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai- 400081 400002 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aaafr7937B (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Mohammed Anas Siddique प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mahita Nair Sr. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 03.05.2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 04.05.2023

For Appellant: Mohammed Anas SiddiqueFor Respondent: Mahita Nair Sr. AR
Section 147Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

A.Ys: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10. The common issue involved in all the appeals his levy of penalty u/s. 2 I.T.A. No. 535,536,537,538,539/Mum/2023 RESHMA ENTERPRISES 271(1)(c) on estimated gross profit of 5% on alleged un proved purchases. The penalties ... addition made to the returned income tantamount to concealment of any facts or submission or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income to warrant levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. Hence the penalty proceeding initiated may please be annulled." 6. However, this explanation

Reshma Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-18(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee in all the years are allowed

ITA 537/MUM/2023[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2023AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri. Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.535,536,537,538 & 539/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year 2004-05,2005-06,2007- 08,2008-09 & 2009-10) Reshma Enterprises Income Tax Officer 18(3)(2) Mumbai, Mumbai, बिधम/ Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, Earnesh 282, Kilachand Mansion, Vs. House Nariman Point Mumbai- Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai- 400081 400002 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aaafr7937B (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Mohammed Anas Siddique प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mahita Nair Sr. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 03.05.2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 04.05.2023

For Appellant: Mohammed Anas SiddiqueFor Respondent: Mahita Nair Sr. AR
Section 147Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

A.Ys: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10. The common issue involved in all the appeals his levy of penalty u/s. 2 I.T.A. No. 535,536,537,538,539/Mum/2023 RESHMA ENTERPRISES 271(1)(c) on estimated gross profit of 5% on alleged un proved purchases. The penalties ... addition made to the returned income tantamount to concealment of any facts or submission or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income to warrant levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. Hence the penalty proceeding initiated may please be annulled." 6. However, this explanation

Reshma Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-18(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee in all the years are allowed

ITA 536/MUM/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri. Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.535,536,537,538 & 539/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year 2004-05,2005-06,2007- 08,2008-09 & 2009-10) Reshma Enterprises Income Tax Officer 18(3)(2) Mumbai, Mumbai, बिधम/ Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, Earnesh 282, Kilachand Mansion, Vs. House Nariman Point Mumbai- Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai- 400081 400002 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aaafr7937B (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Mohammed Anas Siddique प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mahita Nair Sr. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 03.05.2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 04.05.2023

For Appellant: Mohammed Anas SiddiqueFor Respondent: Mahita Nair Sr. AR
Section 147Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

A.Ys: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10. The common issue involved in all the appeals his levy of penalty u/s. 2 I.T.A. No. 535,536,537,538,539/Mum/2023 RESHMA ENTERPRISES 271(1)(c) on estimated gross profit of 5% on alleged un proved purchases. The penalties ... addition made to the returned income tantamount to concealment of any facts or submission or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income to warrant levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. Hence the penalty proceeding initiated may please be annulled." 6. However, this explanation

Reshma Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 18(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee in all the years are allowed

ITA 535/MUM/2023[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2023AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri. Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.535,536,537,538 & 539/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year 2004-05,2005-06,2007- 08,2008-09 & 2009-10) Reshma Enterprises Income Tax Officer 18(3)(2) Mumbai, Mumbai, बिधम/ Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, Earnesh 282, Kilachand Mansion, Vs. House Nariman Point Mumbai- Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai- 400081 400002 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aaafr7937B (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Mohammed Anas Siddique प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mahita Nair Sr. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 03.05.2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 04.05.2023

For Appellant: Mohammed Anas SiddiqueFor Respondent: Mahita Nair Sr. AR
Section 147Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

A.Ys: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10. The common issue involved in all the appeals his levy of penalty u/s. 2 I.T.A. No. 535,536,537,538,539/Mum/2023 RESHMA ENTERPRISES 271(1)(c) on estimated gross profit of 5% on alleged un proved purchases. The penalties ... addition made to the returned income tantamount to concealment of any facts or submission or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income to warrant levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. Hence the penalty proceeding initiated may please be annulled." 6. However, this explanation