← 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

Commerzbank Ag, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3426/MUM/2025[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2025AY 2002-03
Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(a)

penalty order itself to be non-est for want of jurisdiction on account of limitation, the remaining grounds on the merits of the levy of penalty become wholly academic and are not adjudicated upon. 12. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 13th November

M/S Nandlal Keshardeo, Ranchi vs. ACIT, Central Circle (1), Ranchi

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

ITA 15/RAN/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi12 Nov 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

cause notice not quoting specific limb of impugned penal provision is invalid as under: "5 Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that before levying the penalty /s 271AAB of the Act Ld. A.0 has to issue notice w/s 274 of the Act, as provided in Section 271AAB ... notice issued to the assessee there is no mention about the various conditions provided u/s 271 AAB of the Act relating to levy of penalty @ 10% or 20% or 30% (as the case may be). Nothing is specified in the notice about Clause-a, b & e of Section 271AAB

Vimal Alloys Pvt Ltd, Mandi Gobindgarh vs. Dc/ACIT, Circle, Gobindgarh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 684/CHANDI/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 684/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Vimal Alloys Pvt. Ltd., The Dc/Acit, V-Saunti, Amloh Road, Vs Circle, Mandi Gobindgarh. Mandi Gobindgarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaacv7801M अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vipen Sethi, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.11.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Vipen Sethi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

dated 29.03.2025 passed for assessment year 2014-15. 2. The grievance of the assessee is that ld.CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the levy of penalty amounting to A.Y.2014-15 2 Rs.16,24,773/- imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act by the ld. Assessing Officer. 3. With

Somnath Ramdas Jadhav, Ahmednagar vs. ITO Ward 2, Ahmednagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 441/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

allowed. ITA No.1092/PUN/2025, Α.Υ. 2013-14 : 15. Since we have already quashed the quantum assessment order which formed the very basis for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the above penalty does not survive. Consequently, the penalty

Somnath Ramdas Jadhav, Ahmednagar vs. ITO, Ward 2, Ahmednagar

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

ITA 440/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

also allowed. ITA No.1092/PUN/2025, A.Y. 2013-14 : 15. Since we have already quashed the quantum assessment order which formed the very basis for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the above penalty does not survive. Consequently, the penalty

Somnath Ramdas Jadhav, Ahmednagar vs. ITO, Ward 2, Ahmednagar

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

ITA 439/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

also allowed. ITA No.1092/PUN/2025, A.Y. 2013-14 : 15. Since we have already quashed the quantum assessment order which formed the very basis for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the above penalty does not survive. Consequently, the penalty

Ramesh Govind Raje, Roha vs. ITO, Ward 1, Panvel

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2083/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2080 & 2083/Pun/2025 Assessment Year 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri SubodhFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar
Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Since we have already restored the issue on quantum addition to the file of ld. JAO, the issue of levy of penalty being consequential to the addition is also restored to the file of ld. JAO. Impugned order is set aside and penalty are also allowed for statistical purposes

Ramesh Govind Raje, Roha vs. ITO, Ward 1, Panvel

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2080/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2080 & 2083/Pun/2025 Assessment Year 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri SubodhFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar
Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Since we have already restored the issue on quantum addition to the file of ld. JAO, the issue of levy of penalty being consequential to the addition is also restored to the file of ld. JAO. Impugned order is set aside and penalty are also allowed for statistical purposes

Vibhav Dilip Metha, Ahilyanagar vs. ITO, Wrd-2, Ahilyanagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2074/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2074/Pun/2025 Assessment Year 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Prasad BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar
Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(b)

Mehta ‘2. That for the A.Y. 2014-15, the learned Assessing Officer of Income Tax, Ward -2. Ahmednagar vide his order dt. 03.09.2022 levied the penalty of Rs. 50,000 u/s 271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act 1961. 3. That the learned CIT(A), Pune 11, vide his appellate ... assessee for not responding to the notices issued during covid-19 pandemic restrictions. Grounds raised on merit against the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act are allowed. 5 Vaibhav Dilip Mehta 8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on this 12th

Somnath Ramdas Jadhav, Ahmednagar vs. ITO Ward 2, Ahmednagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1093/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

allowed. ITA No.1092/PUN/2025, Α.Υ. 2013-14 : 15. Since we have already quashed the quantum assessment order which formed the very basis for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the above penalty does not survive. Consequently, the penalty

Somnath Ramdas Jadhav, Ahmednagar vs. ITO Ward2, Ahmednagar

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

ITA 1092/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

also allowed. ITA No.1092/PUN/2025, A.Y. 2013-14 : 15. Since we have already quashed the quantum assessment order which formed the very basis for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the above penalty does not survive. Consequently, the penalty

Somnath Ramdas Jadhav, Ahmednagar vs. ITO Ward 2, Ahmednagar

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

ITA 1089/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

also allowed. ITA No.1092/PUN/2025, A.Y. 2013-14 : 15. Since we have already quashed the quantum assessment order which formed the very basis for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the above penalty does not survive. Consequently, the penalty

Ujjaini Mahakali Devasthanam, Secunderabad vs. ITO., Exemption Ward-1(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1385/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1382 & 1384/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years 2015-2016 & 2016-2017

For Appellant: Sri KVSSN Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 10Section 147Section 15(1)Section 271BSection 6

./2025 10. We have heard the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee and the learned DR for the Revenue. The Assessing Officer has levied the penalty u/sec.271B of the Act for not getting the books of accounts audited u/sec.44AB of the Act. In view of the facts and circumstances ... appeals against the assessment orders, the impugned orders of the learned CIT(A) are set- aside and the matters arising from levy of penalty u/sec.271B of the Act for the assessment years 2013-2014 to 2016-2017 are remanded to the record of the JCIT (Exemption), Ward-1(3), Hyderabad

Ujjaini Mahakali Devasthanam, Secunderabad vs. ITO., Exemption Ward-1(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1384/HYD/2025[20216-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1382 & 1384/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years 2015-2016 & 2016-2017

For Appellant: Sri KVSSN Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 10Section 147Section 15(1)Section 271BSection 6

./2025 10. We have heard the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee and the learned DR for the Revenue. The Assessing Officer has levied the penalty u/sec.271B of the Act for not getting the books of accounts audited u/sec.44AB of the Act. In view of the facts and circumstances ... appeals against the assessment orders, the impugned orders of the learned CIT(A) are set- aside and the matters arising from levy of penalty u/sec.271B of the Act for the assessment years 2013-2014 to 2016-2017 are remanded to the record of the JCIT (Exemption), Ward-1(3), Hyderabad

Ujjaini Mahakali Devasthanam, Secunderabad vs. ITO., Exemption Ward-1(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1383/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1382 & 1384/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years 2015-2016 & 2016-2017

For Appellant: Sri KVSSN Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 10Section 147Section 15(1)Section 271BSection 6

./2025 10. We have heard the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee and the learned DR for the Revenue. The Assessing Officer has levied the penalty u/sec.271B of the Act for not getting the books of accounts audited u/sec.44AB of the Act. In view of the facts and circumstances ... appeals against the assessment orders, the impugned orders of the learned CIT(A) are set- aside and the matters arising from levy of penalty u/sec.271B of the Act for the assessment years 2013-2014 to 2016-2017 are remanded to the record of the JCIT (Exemption), Ward-1(3), Hyderabad

Ujjaini Mahakali Devasthanam, Secunderabad vs. ITO., Exemption Ward-1(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1382/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1382 & 1384/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years 2015-2016 & 2016-2017

For Appellant: Sri KVSSN Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 10Section 147Section 15(1)Section 271BSection 6

./2025 10. We have heard the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee and the learned DR for the Revenue. The Assessing Officer has levied the penalty u/sec.271B of the Act for not getting the books of accounts audited u/sec.44AB of the Act. In view of the facts and circumstances ... appeals against the assessment orders, the impugned orders of the learned CIT(A) are set- aside and the matters arising from levy of penalty u/sec.271B of the Act for the assessment years 2013-2014 to 2016-2017 are remanded to the record of the JCIT (Exemption), Ward-1(3), Hyderabad

Ujjaini Mahakali Devathanam, Secunderbad vs. ITO., Exemption Ward-1(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1381/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1382 & 1384/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years 2015-2016 & 2016-2017

For Appellant: Sri KVSSN Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 10Section 147Section 15(1)Section 271BSection 6

./2025 10. We have heard the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee and the learned DR for the Revenue. The Assessing Officer has levied the penalty u/sec.271B of the Act for not getting the books of accounts audited u/sec.44AB of the Act. In view of the facts and circumstances ... appeals against the assessment orders, the impugned orders of the learned CIT(A) are set- aside and the matters arising from levy of penalty u/sec.271B of the Act for the assessment years 2013-2014 to 2016-2017 are remanded to the record of the JCIT (Exemption), Ward-1(3), Hyderabad

Ujjaini Mahakali Devasthanam, Secunderabad vs. ITO., Exemption Ward-1(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1380/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1382 & 1384/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years 2015-2016 & 2016-2017

For Appellant: Sri KVSSN Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 10Section 147Section 15(1)Section 271BSection 6

./2025 10. We have heard the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee and the learned DR for the Revenue. The Assessing Officer has levied the penalty u/sec.271B of the Act for not getting the books of accounts audited u/sec.44AB of the Act. In view of the facts and circumstances ... appeals against the assessment orders, the impugned orders of the learned CIT(A) are set- aside and the matters arising from levy of penalty u/sec.271B of the Act for the assessment years 2013-2014 to 2016-2017 are remanded to the record of the JCIT (Exemption), Ward-1(3), Hyderabad

DCIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Central Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5521/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2016-17 Dcit, Circle-2(1)(1), Central Bank Of India, Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, Mumbai Main Office, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400020. Greater Bombay, Mumbai-400023. Pan : Aaacc2498P (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Nitesh Joshi For Revenue : Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 10-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-11-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr.DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(vii)

have been held not applicable, there is no infirmity in the order so passed by the Ld.CIT(A) where he has deleted the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and, therefore, the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) be sustained and the appeal of the Revenue be dismissed ... have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The subject matter of levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is in respect of disallowance of deduction for bad debts written-off amounting to Rs. 14,31,45,93,495/- while computing book profits

Thiruvarur Lions Eye Hospital Trust, Thiruvarur vs. Income Tax Officer, Thiruvarur

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

ITA 2535/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2531 & 2535/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2018-19 M/S. Thiruvarur Lions Eye The Income Tax Officer, Hospital Trust, Vs. Thiruvarur 157, Vandampalai, Kangalanchery Post, Thiruvarur – 610 101. Pan: Aaatt 0632P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri D. Ambarish, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri D. Ambarish, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 10Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 272A(2)(e)

complete disregard for statutory compliance. The assessee has failed to discharge the burden under section 273B. Hence, the Ld. DR submits that the levy of penalty under section 272A(2)(e) is fully justified, being automatic and consequential in nature upon failure to comply with section ... income of the assessee was exempt u/s.10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act, hence, we hold that it is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s.272A(2)(e) of the Act, as it is only a mere technical venial breach committed by the assessee with no loss