levy of penalty — 5,057 case laws

Balaji Impex, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5207/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The assessee is aggrieved by the levy of penalty amounting to ₹6,30,000/-, which arises from two disallowances firstly, on account of the gross profit addition 2 Balaji Impex made on alleged ... present case being one of ad hoc estimation, founded neither on detection of undisclosed income nor on discovery of any fictitious transaction, the levy of penalty cannot be sustained. The penalty on this issue is, therefore, directed to be deleted. 5. The next issue pertains to the disallowance of interest

Sanjay Popatlal Jain, Mumbai vs. Circle 19 (3) Mumbai (Mum-C-169-1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5189/MUM/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Shri Ashish JainFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

assessee has challenged the sustenance of addition of Rs. 41,81,752/- under the head “Short Term Capital Gains” as well as levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟). 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee filed ... deciding the same afresh as per law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. 6. Consequently, the matter relating to levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is also set aside to the file of the AO. 7. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee

Sanjay Popatlal Jain, Mumbai vs. Circle 19 (3) Mumbai (Mum-C-169-1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5188/MUM/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Shri Ashish JainFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

assessee has challenged the sustenance of addition of Rs. 41,81,752/- under the head “Short Term Capital Gains” as well as levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟). 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee filed ... deciding the same afresh as per law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. 6. Consequently, the matter relating to levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is also set aside to the file of the AO. 7. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee

DCIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4634/MUM/2023[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Farrokh V. Irani, Adv. &

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 44

also submitted that bonafide claim by the assessee on payment basis which is denied to be allowed cannot be a ground for a levy of penalty. The ld AR also made a detailed written submission with regard to the disallowances upheld by the Tribunal based on which the penalty ... that there is no unjust treatment under the Act of the assessee engaged in Insurance business. 7. Now coming to the issue of levy of penalty for the reason that the Tribunal in assessee's own case has upheld the orders of the lower authorities. Penalty under section

Deepak Communication, Ajit Nagar vs. Assessing Officer, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3076/DEL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.3076/िद"ी/2025 (िन.व. 2017-18) Deepak Communication, Gali No.4, Ajit Nagar, Gandhi Nagar, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Delhi 110031 Pan: Aamfd-3905-A बनाम Vs. Assessing Officer, Ward-60(6), ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/Appellant By : None "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 31/07/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 27/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against An Ex-Parte Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 08.09.2023, For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Solitary Issue, In The Present Appeal By The Assessee Is Against Levy Of Penalty U/S.271Aac(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Amounting To Rs.1,04,674/-. The Assesssee Had Deposited Cash Amounting To Rs.13,55,000/- During Demonetization Period I.E. Between 09.11.2016 To 30.12.2016 In His Bank Account Maintained With Yes Bank Ltd. Krishna Nagar Delhi, Account No. 226190000295. The Return Of Income Was Filed

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271ASection 274Section 69A

dated 08.09.2023, for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The solitary issue, in the present appeal by the assessee is against levy of penalty u/s.271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) amounting to Rs.1,04,674/-. The assesssee had deposited cash amounting to Rs.13

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Shri Pramod Chordia, Alwarpet

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2139/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:2138&2139/Chny/2025 यनिाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2021-22 Assistant Commissioner Of Shri Pramod Chordia Income Tax, Vs. No.112, St. Marys Road, Vidya Central Circle-2(1), Theertha Nagar, Alwarpet, Chennai. Chennai-600 018. [Pan:Aahpp0442L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr.D.Anand, Advocate प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Revenue By : Mr.C.P.Solomon, Jcit

For Appellant: Mr.D.Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.C.P.Solomon, JCIT

Section 139Section 271A

classified as "undisclosed income" but the Assessing Officer has to demonstrate how the income impugned is to be treated as "undisclosed income for levy of penalty u/s 271AAB and in extrapolating the same when that was not there or intended in the provision itself ie 271AAB ... reported his income. The Ld.CIT(A) by placing reliance on various decisions of Hon’ble High Courts and Tribunal had cancelled the levy of penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act on the point of defective show cause notice itself. The relevant observations of the Ld.CIT(A) in this regard

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Shri Pramod Chordia, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2138/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:2138&2139/Chny/2025 यनिाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2021-22 Assistant Commissioner Of Shri Pramod Chordia Income Tax, Vs. No.112, St. Marys Road, Vidya Central Circle-2(1), Theertha Nagar, Alwarpet, Chennai. Chennai-600 018. [Pan:Aahpp0442L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr.D.Anand, Advocate प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Revenue By : Mr.C.P.Solomon, Jcit

For Appellant: Mr.D.Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.C.P.Solomon, JCIT

Section 139Section 271A

classified as "undisclosed income" but the Assessing Officer has to demonstrate how the income impugned is to be treated as "undisclosed income for levy of penalty u/s 271AAB and in extrapolating the same when that was not there or intended in the provision itself ie 271AAB ... reported his income. The Ld.CIT(A) by placing reliance on various decisions of Hon’ble High Courts and Tribunal had cancelled the levy of penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act on the point of defective show cause notice itself. The relevant observations of the Ld.CIT(A) in this regard

N. Vijay Kumar, ACIT, Chennai vs. Rajah Muthiah Chettiar Charitable and Educational Trust, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue & CO of assessee are

ITA 2097/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr. Arjunraj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Saujanya Ranjan, IRS

Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 9

since he found the AO failed to put the assessee on notice of the specific fault, which he intended to proceed for levy of penalty u/s.270A of the Act. In other words, the Ld.CIT(A) found that no specific charge has been framed against the assessee in first show-cause ... which limb/clause of sub-section (9) of section 270A of the Act has been attracted in the facts of the case, to deserve levy of penalty and how the ingredient of sub-section (9) of Section 270A is satisfied. Therefore, show-cause notice proposing penalty is found to be vague

M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, Tirupur vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Chennai

In the result, captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1999/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1996 To 1999/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2021-22 V. M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, The Dcit, 6, Sabari Street, Central Circle-3(3), Binny Compound, Chennai. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Abgfs 4243 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 132Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)(e)

business of manufacturing of jewels & retail trade of diamonds & other jewellery and the only common issue for adjudication is regarding the levy of penalty u/s.270A on additions ITA Nos.1996 to 1999 /Chny/2025 (AYs 2018-19 to 2021-22) M/s. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels :: 2 :: made in respect of gross profit towards ... orders passed u/s.270A, the assessee preferred appeals before the ld.CIT(A) who vide orders u/s.250 dismissed the appeals of the assessee, confirming the levy of penalty u/s.270A. 5. At the outset, the Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) submitted that the assessee has filed appeals against the penalty orders challenging ITA Nos.1996

M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, Tirupur vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Chennai

In the result, captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1998/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1996 To 1999/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2021-22 V. M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, The Dcit, 6, Sabari Street, Central Circle-3(3), Binny Compound, Chennai. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Abgfs 4243 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 132Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)(e)

business of manufacturing of jewels & retail trade of diamonds & other jewellery and the only common issue for adjudication is regarding the levy of penalty u/s.270A on additions ITA Nos.1996 to 1999 /Chny/2025 (AYs 2018-19 to 2021-22) M/s. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels :: 2 :: made in respect of gross profit towards ... orders passed u/s.270A, the assessee preferred appeals before the ld.CIT(A) who vide orders u/s.250 dismissed the appeals of the assessee, confirming the levy of penalty u/s.270A. 5. At the outset, the Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) submitted that the assessee has filed appeals against the penalty orders challenging ITA Nos.1996

M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, Tirupur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(3), Chennai

In the result, captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1997/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1996 To 1999/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2021-22 V. M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, The Dcit, 6, Sabari Street, Central Circle-3(3), Binny Compound, Chennai. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Abgfs 4243 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 132Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)(e)

business of manufacturing of jewels & retail trade of diamonds & other jewellery and the only common issue for adjudication is regarding the levy of penalty u/s.270A on additions ITA Nos.1996 to 1999 /Chny/2025 (AYs 2018-19 to 2021-22) M/s. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels :: 2 :: made in respect of gross profit towards ... orders passed u/s.270A, the assessee preferred appeals before the ld.CIT(A) who vide orders u/s.250 dismissed the appeals of the assessee, confirming the levy of penalty u/s.270A. 5. At the outset, the Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) submitted that the assessee has filed appeals against the penalty orders challenging ITA Nos.1996

M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, Tirupur vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Chennai

In the result, captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1996/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1996 To 1999/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2021-22 V. M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, The Dcit, 6, Sabari Street, Central Circle-3(3), Binny Compound, Chennai. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Abgfs 4243 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 132Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)(e)

business of manufacturing of jewels & retail trade of diamonds & other jewellery and the only common issue for adjudication is regarding the levy of penalty u/s.270A on additions ITA Nos.1996 to 1999 /Chny/2025 (AYs 2018-19 to 2021-22) M/s. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels :: 2 :: made in respect of gross profit towards ... orders passed u/s.270A, the assessee preferred appeals before the ld.CIT(A) who vide orders u/s.250 dismissed the appeals of the assessee, confirming the levy of penalty u/s.270A. 5. At the outset, the Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) submitted that the assessee has filed appeals against the penalty orders challenging ITA Nos.1996

Syed Irfan Gulab Jan Pasha, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 1095/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Thamba Mahendra, JCIT-DR

Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69ASection 7

before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the penalty. As against the said order, the present appeal has been filed challenging the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR argued that the notice u/s. 148 dated 30/03/2019

Syed Irfan Gulab Jan Pasha, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 1094/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Thamba Mahendra, JCIT-DR

Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69ASection 7

before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the penalty. As against the said order, the present appeal has been filed challenging the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR argued that the notice u/s. 148 dated 30/03/2019

Parasuraman, Cuddalore vs. Assessing Officer, Cuddalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2093/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:2093/Chny/2025 यनिाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2022-23 Parasuraman, Income Tax Officer, No.155/2, Middle Street, Vs. Ward-2, Kadampuliyur & Post, Cuddalore. Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu-607 103. [Pan:Clqpp6548F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/Appellant By : None प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Revenue By : Mr.C.P.Solomon, Jcit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 21.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh, Am : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Nfac, Delhi, (In Short Ld.Cit(A) For The Assessment Year 2022-23, Vide Order Dated 23.06.2025. 2.0 The 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 271B Of The Act In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Instant Case.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr.C.P.Solomon, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

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 271B of the act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. ITA. No:2093/Chny/2025 3.0 None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite issuance ... income in the penalty proceedings, does not adhere to the canons of law. We hold that this is not a fit case for levy of penalty as assessee is not required to get his accounts audited u/s. 44AB of the Act as the commission has not exceeded the threshold limit