← 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

Shiva Preservation Private Limited, Etawah vs. ITO, Ward 2(2)(5), Etawah

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 318/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Shiva Preservation Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, Kaist, Jawantnagar, Etawah, Ward-2(2)(5), Uttar Pradesh -206245 Etawah (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaecs3418D Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Malhotra, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement /11/2025

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Malhotra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 274Section 68

only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Learned CITA was justified in confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c ) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 4. I have heard the rival submissions and perused ... Manjunath Cotton and Ginning Factory(supra) and the other decisions of different High Courts, the ITAT rightly held that the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c ) of the Act in the case of the assessee was not valid. 24. We are unable to find any error having been

Sri Tripurari Mohan Prasad, Patna vs. DCIT, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 99/PAT/2023[1991-92]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Nov 2025AY 1991-92

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Md. A. H. Chowdhary, CIT (DR)
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

have considered the rival submissions and perused material available on the record. We find that all these appeals are filed against the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. As the quantum appeals are pending before the learned CIT (A), all the penalty appeals should

Sri Tripurari Mohan Prasad, Patna vs. DCIT, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 97/PAT/2023[1989-90]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Nov 2025AY 1989-90

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Md. A. H. Chowdhary, CIT (DR)
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

have considered the rival submissions and perused material available on the record. We find that all these appeals are filed against the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. As the quantum appeals are pending before the learned CIT (A), all the penalty appeals should

Sri Tripurari Mohan Prasad, Patna vs. DCIT, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 96/PAT/2023[1988-89]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Nov 2025AY 1988-89

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Md. A. H. Chowdhary, CIT (DR)
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

have considered the rival submissions and perused material available on the record. We find that all these appeals are filed against the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. As the quantum appeals are pending before the learned CIT (A), all the penalty appeals should

Sri Tripurari Mohan Prasad, Patna vs. DCIT, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 95/PAT/2023[1987-88]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Nov 2025AY 1987-88

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Md. A. H. Chowdhary, CIT (DR)
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

have considered the rival submissions and perused material available on the record. We find that all these appeals are filed against the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. As the quantum appeals are pending before the learned CIT (A), all the penalty appeals should

Sri Tripurari Mohan Prasad, Patna vs. DCIT, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 94/PAT/2023[1986-87]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Nov 2025AY 1986-87

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Md. A. H. Chowdhary, CIT (DR)
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

have considered the rival submissions and perused material available on the record. We find that all these appeals are filed against the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. As the quantum appeals are pending before the learned CIT (A), all the penalty appeals should

M/S. Mastrin Pharmaceuticals (Pvt.) Ltd., Patna vs. DCIT, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 93/PAT/2023[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Nov 2025AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Md. A. H. Chowdhary, CIT (DR)
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

have considered the rival submissions and perused material available on the record. We find that all these appeals are filed against the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. As the quantum appeals are pending before the learned CIT (A), all the penalty appeals should

M/S. Mastrin Pharmaceuticals (Pvt.) Ltd., Patna vs. DCIT, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 91/PAT/2023[1991-92]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Nov 2025AY 1991-92

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Md. A. H. Chowdhary, CIT (DR)
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

have considered the rival submissions and perused material available on the record. We find that all these appeals are filed against the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. As the quantum appeals are pending before the learned CIT (A), all the penalty appeals should

M/S. Mastrin Pharmaceuticals (Pvt.) Ltd., Patna vs. DCIT, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 89/PAT/2023[1989-90]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Nov 2025AY 1989-90

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Md. A. H. Chowdhary, CIT (DR)
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

have considered the rival submissions and perused material available on the record. We find that all these appeals are filed against the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. As the quantum appeals are pending before the learned CIT (A), all the penalty appeals should

M/S. Mastrin Pharmaceuticals (Pvt.) Ltd., Patna vs. DCIT, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 88/PAT/2023[1988-89]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Nov 2025AY 1988-89

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Md. A. H. Chowdhary, CIT (DR)
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

have considered the rival submissions and perused material available on the record. We find that all these appeals are filed against the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. As the quantum appeals are pending before the learned CIT (A), all the penalty appeals should

M/S. Mastrin Pharmaceuticals (Pvt.) Ltd., Patna vs. DCIT, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 87/PAT/2023[1987-88]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Nov 2025AY 1987-88

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Md. A. H. Chowdhary, CIT (DR)
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

have considered the rival submissions and perused material available on the record. We find that all these appeals are filed against the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. As the quantum appeals are pending before the learned CIT (A), all the penalty appeals should

M/S. Mastrin Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd., Patna vs. DCIT, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 86/PAT/2023[1986-87]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Nov 2025AY 1986-87

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Md. A. H. Chowdhary, CIT (DR)
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

have considered the rival submissions and perused material available on the record. We find that all these appeals are filed against the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. As the quantum appeals are pending before the learned CIT (A), all the penalty appeals should

Sri Tripurari Mohan Prasad, Patna vs. DCIT, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 101/PAT/2023[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Nov 2025AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Md. A. H. Chowdhary, CIT (DR)
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

have considered the rival submissions and perused material available on the record. We find that all these appeals are filed against the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. As the quantum appeals are pending before the learned CIT (A), all the penalty appeals should

Sri Tripurari Mohan Prasad, Patna vs. DCIT, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 100/PAT/2023[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Nov 2025AY 1992-93

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Md. A. H. Chowdhary, CIT (DR)
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

have considered the rival submissions and perused material available on the record. We find that all these appeals are filed against the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. As the quantum appeals are pending before the learned CIT (A), all the penalty appeals should

Prathapa Chandra Menon, Ambalappuzha vs. Assistant Commissioner, Aayakar Bhawan, Alleppey

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 767/COCH/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Nov 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Hon’Ble Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.767/Coch/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Prathapa Chandra Menon, The Asst. Commissioner Of Menon Mar Madom, Vs. Income Tax, Ambalapuzha Fast Edb.O, Alappuzha. Ambalappuzha, Alappuzha – 688 561. Pan: Cmzpm 2672R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Snr A.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ():

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr A.R
Section 271F

confirming imposition of penalty u/s.271F of the Income tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ in short). 2. The assessee has raised several grounds challenging the levy of penalty u/s 271F. In essence, the grievance of the assessee is that the penalty has been wrongly levied despite the fact that the assessee ... Considering the above facts and the settled legal position that penalty cannot be levied where there is reasonable cause, we hold that the levy of penalty u/s Prathapa Chandra Menon. :- 4 -: 271F in the present case is not justified. Accordingly, the penalty of Rs. 5,000 levied u/s 271F

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Bhopal vs. Madhya Pradesh Police Housing Corporation Limited, Bhopal

In the result, these appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 402/IND/2025[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

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

given relief qua the additions deleted. On a careful reading of section 271(1)(c), we observe that the levy of penalty as well calculation-formula of the penalty contemplated therein is linked with the addition made in assessment-order. If the addition itself does not subsist, neither the levy

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Bhopal vs. Madhya Pradesh Police Housing Corporation Limited, Bhopal

In the result, these appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 401/IND/2025[2011]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

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

given relief qua the additions deleted. On a careful reading of section 271(1)(c), we observe that the levy of penalty as well calculation-formula of the penalty contemplated therein is linked with the addition made in assessment-order. If the addition itself does not subsist, neither the levy

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Bhopal vs. Madhya Pradesh Police Housing Corporation Limited, Bhopal

In the result, these appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 400/IND/2025[2010]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

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

given relief qua the additions deleted. On a careful reading of section 271(1)(c), we observe that the levy of penalty as well calculation-formula of the penalty contemplated therein is linked with the addition made in assessment-order. If the addition itself does not subsist, neither the levy

Arvind Kumar Jain, Bhopal vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-1), Bhopal

ITA 325/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 10Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT

Keshav Kumar Nachani, Indore vs. DCIT-1(1), Indore

ITA 162/IND/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Virgo Marketing (P.) Ltd. [2008] 171 Taxman 156, has held that levy of penalty has to be clear as to the limb for which it is levied and the position being unclear penalty is not sustainable. Therefore, when the Assessing Officer