“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

Mamta Mehta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 31(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1237/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Mr. Bhupendra Shah.ARFor Respondent: Mr. Tejinder Pal Singh Anand.DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271BSection 274Section 44A

1237/Mum/2022 & 1861/Mum/2021 Mamta Sundeep Mehta, Mumbai. penalty is not obligation and cannot be automatic. The A.O. was not satisfied with the explanations and levied a penalty Rs.65,795/- and passed the order U/sec271B of the Act dated 28-06-2019. 4. Aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee has filed ... Whereas the CIT(A) considered the grounds of appeal, submissions of the assessee and findings of the penalty proceedings but has confirmed the levy of penalty and dismissed the assessee appeal. Aggrieved by the CIT(A)order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal

Mr Mayur P. Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO-20(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2619/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2619/Mum/2022 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Ito 20(2)(2) Mr. Mayur P. Jain, बनाम/ 212, 2Nd Floor, Piramal 1170, Chaitya Tower Shivdas Marg, Mazgaon, Chambers, Lalbaug Vs. Mumbai-400 010 Parel, Mumbai-400 012 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aegpj1871E (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Devendra B. Harnesha, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ashish Kumar, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 28.12.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 28.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 17.08.2022, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Relation To Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) For Ay 2012-13. 2

For Appellant: Shri Devendra BFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Ld

Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for AY 2012-13. 2 I.T.A. No. 2619/Mum/2022 Mr. Mayur P. Jain 2. Assessee is aggrieved by levy of penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- made by AO and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A). 3. The facts in brief are that AO noted that

Shri Rajesh Ramchandra Dake, Panvel vs. Dy CIT CC-1, Mumbai

ITA 2/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 02 & 04/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2012-13) Dcit, Cen. Cir-1, Shri Rajesh 6Th Floor, R. No. 10, A- Ramchandra Dake, बनाम/ B/2, Usha Prabha Chs, Wing, Ashar It Park, Ram Ganesh Gadkari Raoda No. 16-Z, Wagle Vs. Indl. Estate Marg, Prabhu Ali, Thane-400 604 Panvel – 410206, स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Afqpd1100D (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay V. Deshmukh, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 28.12.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 28.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Consolidated Order Of Even Date 19.09.2019, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-11, Pune In Relation To Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) For Ay 2010-11 & 2012-13. 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay V

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order. 3. In both the appeals, assessee is aggrieved by levy of penalty of Rs. 7,41,986/- for AY 2010-11 and Rs. 20,96,744/- for AY 2012-13 on account of addition made ... proceedings was initiated without making specific averment that the appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income, and therefore, the levy of penalty is void ab initio, is rejected. He further submitted that such order is contrary to the order of Hon’ble Bombay High Court

M/S Harshvardhan International, Mumbai vs. Asstt. C.I.T.-20(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2595/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. Harshavardhan Vs. Acit – 20(1) International Piramal Chambers, 1St Floor, Sunshine Mumbai – 400012. Plaza, Naigaum Cross Road, Dadar (E), Mumbai – 400014. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaefh3134J Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Ms.Mrugakshi K Joshi.Ar Revenue By : Mr.Tejinder Pal Singh Anand.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) – Delhi / Cit(A) U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Ms.Mrugakshi K Joshi.ARFor Respondent: Mr.Tejinder Pal Singh Anand.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

ascertained. Ground No. 3: PENALTY u/s. 271(1)(c) of Rs. 4,00,000/- 1. The learned AO and CIT(A) erred in levying a penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) with respect to the claim made by the Assessee on account of depreciation on land, on the ground that ... findings of scrutiny assessment and explanations of the assessee and was not satisfied with the explanations as dealt in the penalty order and levied a penalty of Rs. 4 lakhs and passed the order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 12.06.2017. 4.Aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Toshiba Johnson Elevators India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 488/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Akhtar Ansari, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. M.P. Lohia, CA &

Section 12ASection 138Section 250Section 271GSection 273BSection 92C

penalty u/s 271G stating that TPO has not made any TP adjustment and thus penalty cannot be upheld and thereby erroneously linking levy of penalty u/s 271G with that of TP adjustment for which separate penalty is provided for." Order of Ld. CIT (A) dated 21.12.2021 was received by Revenue ... response to this reminder, assessee filed its explanation dated 17.09.2019. AO was not convinced with the explanations/submissions made by the assessee and levied a penalty of Rs. 1,71,01,350/- under section 271G of the Act @ 2% of International Transactions worth Rs. 85,50,67,549/-. Aggrieved with this

Hitesh Jitendra Parikh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-5(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2370/MUM/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Biren Gabhawala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)Section 271(1)

booking of the Flat and the capital asset that was transferred was the right to the flat. 3. Your appellant prays that the levy of penalty u/s 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act on your appellant being unwarranted, unjustified and unlawful may kindly be deleted.” 2. Briefly stated

Babita Devi Kanoria, Raniganj vs. I.T.O., Ward-3(1), Asansol

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 54/KOL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 54/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-2011 Babita Devi Kajoria,..............................Appellant W/O. Unesh Kr. Kajoria, Jagannath Garden, Nsb Road, P.O. Raniganj-713347, Burdwan, West Bengal [Pan: Anfpk0759G] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,..............................Respondent Ward-3(1), Asansol, Income Tax Department, Parmar Building, 54, G.T. Road, Upper Chelidanga, P.O. Asansol-713305, Paschim Burdwan (Wb) Appearances By: Shri Aayush Gupta, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit (D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 15, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 22, 2022 O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz):- The Assessee Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Asansol Dated 18.11.2019 Passed For A.Y. 2010-11. 1 Assessment Year: 2010-2011 Babita Devi Kajoria, Raniganj 2. The Assessee Has Taken Three Grounds Of Appeal, But Her Grievances Revolve Around A Single Issue, Namely Ld. Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.3,09,766/-, Which Was Imposed By The Ld. Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C).

Section 133(6)Section 14Section 144Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

cannot express our opinion about that in the present proceedings, but we can take cognizance of this fact for absolving the assessee from levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 8 Assessment Year: 2010-2011 Babita Devi Kajoria, Raniganj 13. In view

Shri. Poonmaram K. Prajapati, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(2)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 1953/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshri Poonam Vs. Ito – 19(2)(5) K.Prajapati Matrumandir, Room 81/83, Room No. 14, 4 No. 210, Tardeo, Kumbharwada, Prabhu Mumbai – 400007. Shri Rammandir Marg, Mumbai – 400004. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agmpp5641C Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr. P.M Gang.Ar Respondent By : Mr. B. Bagchi.Dr

For Appellant: Mr. P.M Gang.ARFor Respondent: Mr. B. Bagchi.DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

passed the order u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act on 12.03.2015. 3. Subsequently, the AO has issued notice for levy of penalty but there was no compliance to notice by the assessee in penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The A.O. found that the assessee ... considered the grounds of appeal and provisions of the Act and confirmed the action of the A.O in levy of penalty and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal with the Hon’ble Tribunal. 5. At the time of hearing

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Mahavir Build Estate Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1405/MUM/2022[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2022AY 2009-2010

For Appellant: Shri Gunajjan KakkadFor Respondent: Shri Nishant Somaiya

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

from various sister concerns through journal entries (i.e., otherwise than by way of account payee cheques/draft). Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made reference for levy of penalty under Section 271D of the Act for violation of the provisions of Section 269SS of the Act in respect of the following transaction, vide ... Though the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Triumph International Finance (supra.) relates to levy of penalty u/s.271D of the Act for violation of the provisions of Section 289SS of the Act, considering the fact that the provisions of Section 269T

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle3-(3), Hyderabad vs. Mechineni Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 56/HYD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year:2015-16 Dy. C.I.T. Vs. Mechineni Projects (P) Central Circle 3(3) Ltd, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaecp4421H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/12/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.9.2020 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2015-16. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee, A Company (Formerly Known As Pbr Projects Pvt. Ltd) Engaged In The Business Of Construction Of Residential & Commercial Buildings, Originally Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y 2015-16 On 31.03.2017 Admitting A Total Income Of Rs.1,16,090/-. A Search & Seizure Operation U/S 132 Of The I.T. Act Wase Conducted In M/S. Raghuram & Trishala Group On 21.11.2017 & Warrant In The Case Of M/S. Mechineni Projects (P) Ltd I.E., The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, DR

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

Sushil Kumar Paul, Siliguri vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-2, Siliguri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2274/KOL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2016-17 Sushil Kumar Paul Acit, Circle-2, Siliguri. C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Vs. Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700 069. (Pan: Akfpp 4837 K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Siliguri Dated 23.08.2019 For A.Y. 2016-17. The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “I. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs. 23,70,000/- Imposed By The Ao By Wrongly Invoking The Provisions Of Section 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act.

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, DR

Section 271A

have perused the penalty order, grounds of appeal and the submission made by the appellant. The only ground of appeal is against levy of penalty u/s 271AAB of the I.T. Act, 1961 of Rs. 23,70,000/-. The Ld. A.O. has levied penalty of Rs. 23,70,000/- u/s 271AAB ... Ravi Mathur vs DCIT (TS-8004-ITAT-2018(Jaipur)-O) (CL-131-155).” 5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that before levying the penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act, the ld. AO has to issue noticed u/s 274 of the Act as provided in section 271AAB

M/S Manisha Construction Compnay, Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT, Circle-26 (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2570/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri M.Balaganeshmanisha Constuction Vs. Asst.Cit, Circle -26(1), Mumabi Company, Room No.408, Aayakar Bhavan 10, Chartered House, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Ground Floor, Dr C.H. Street, Near Dolours Church, Mumbai-400 002 Pan/Gir No. Aabfm4710G (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

only 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 respect of addition sustained in respect of bogus purchases on an estimated basis. 3. None appeared on behalf ... sustained addition made on account of bogus purchases on an estimated basis. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the levy of penalty despite the fact that the addition has been ultimately sustained only on an estimated basis by estimating the profit percentage embedded in the disputed purchases

Air India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4467/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 4467, 4518 & 4544/Mum/2018 (A.Y: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal.ARFor Respondent: Smt Sailaja Rai, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250Section 44A

delayed payment of TDS. Further the Ld.AR mentioned that interest is not in the nature of penalty as there are separate provisions for levy of penalty for default of T.D.S. under I.T. Act 1961. The interest is compensatory in nature and it is for use of the funds

ACIT Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai vs. Late Shri Trikamji A Chatwani, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1757/MUM/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit, Central Circle – Vs. Late Shri Trikamji A 1(2)Room No. 906, 9Th Chatwani Floor, Annexe Bldg, 6Th Floor, Citi Point, Pratistha Bhavan, Telli Galli, Andheri Church Gate, (E), Mumbai – 400069 Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaapc4783G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.H.N.Singh.Dr Respondent By : Mr.Satish Mody.Ar Date Of Hearing 18.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Mr.H.N.Singh.DRFor Respondent: Mr.Satish Mody.AR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

r.w.s 153A of the Act dated 30.03.2014. 4. Subsequently the AO has initiated penalty proceedings and issued show cause notice for levying of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Whereas the AO has dealt on the issues of scrutiny proceedings. The assessee has filed reply to the show ... satisfied with the compliances and explanations filed by the assessee and applied the provisions of Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied a penalty of Rs. 2,69,38,815/- and passed the order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 28.11.2014. 5. Aggrieved by the penalty

Air India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4544/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 4467, 4518 & 4544/Mum/2018 (A.Y: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal.ARFor Respondent: Smt Sailaja Rai, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250Section 44A

Air India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4518/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 4467, 4518 & 4544/Mum/2018 (A.Y: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal.ARFor Respondent: Smt Sailaja Rai, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250Section 44A

DCIT 5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Air India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4486/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 4467, 4518 & 4544/Mum/2018 (A.Y: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal.ARFor Respondent: Smt Sailaja Rai, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250Section 44A

DCIT 5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Air India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4485/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 4467, 4518 & 4544/Mum/2018 (A.Y: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal.ARFor Respondent: Smt Sailaja Rai, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250Section 44A

Rajan Kalimuthu, Chennai vs. CIT, Chennai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 336/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar (Advocate) &For Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 54

arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai [CIT(A)] dated 24-03-2022 confirming levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). 2. This is second round of appeal, since the issue was restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) by Tribunal ... Simply because the additions were accepted by the assessee and not challenged any further would not be a good enough reason to levy the penalty as held by Delhi Tribunal in Rai Industrial Power Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA 4862/Del/2013). The case before us is a case of bona-fide

Karunakara Sanjay Panikar, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (International Taxation), Circle-2(1), Bengaluru

ITA 382/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CA

Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In the absence of specific ground for levy of penalty, the entire proceedings become bad in law and therefore, the order passed is liable to be quashed. 5.1 Without prejudice, the learned CIT(A) having initiated the penalty for both ... levied on erroneous appreciation of facts and wrong application of law requires to be cancelled. 5.4 In any case and without prejudice, the levy of penalty is erroneous and excessive and is therefore liable to be deleted. 6. In view of the above and on other grounds to be adduced