← 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

Silver & Art Palace, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 748/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Vinod Gupta, CA. Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 153ASection 250

loan and repayment of loan in cash in the hands of M/s Meuz Hest Process Tech (P) Ltd. but CIT (Appeals) has deleted levy of penalty u/s 271D and 271E of the Income Tax Act. The orders of the CIT (Appeals) have been upheld by the ITAT Mumbai Bench, whose

Silver & Art Palace, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 733/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

Section 153ASection 250

loan and repayment of loan in cash in the hands of M/s Meuz Hest Process Tech (P) Ltd. but CIT (Appeals) has deleted levy of penalty u/s 271D and 271E of the Income Tax Act. The orders of the CIT (Appeals) have been upheld by the ITAT Mumbai Bench, whose

Silver & Art Palace, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 602/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Vinod Gupta, CA. Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 153ASection 250

loan and repayment of loan in cash in the hands of M/s Meuz Hest Process Tech (P) Ltd. but CIT (Appeals) has deleted levy of penalty u/s 271D and 271E of the Income Tax Act. The orders of the CIT (Appeals) have been upheld by the ITAT Mumbai Bench, whose

Silver & Art Palace, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

ITA 551/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Vinod Gupta, CA. Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 153ASection 250

loan and repayment of loan in cash in the hands of M/s Meuz Hest Process Tech (P) Ltd. but CIT (Appeals) has deleted levy of penalty u/s 271D and 271E of the Income Tax Act. The orders of the CIT (Appeals) have been upheld by the ITAT Mumbai Bench, whose

Silver & Art Palace, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 534/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Vinod Gupta, CA. Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 153ASection 250

loan and repayment of loan in cash in the hands of M/s Meuz Hest Process Tech (P) Ltd. but CIT (Appeals) has deleted levy of penalty u/s 271D and 271E of the Income Tax Act. The orders of the CIT (Appeals) have been upheld by the ITAT Mumbai Bench, whose

Silver & Art Palace, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 460/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Vinod Gupta, CA. Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 153ASection 250

loan and repayment of loan in cash in the hands of M/s Meuz Hest Process Tech (P) Ltd. but CIT (Appeals) has deleted levy of penalty u/s 271D and 271E of the Income Tax Act. The orders of the CIT (Appeals) have been upheld by the ITAT Mumbai Bench, whose

Silver & Art Palace, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 442/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Vinod Gupta, CA. Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 153ASection 250

loan and repayment of loan in cash in the hands of M/s Meuz Hest Process Tech (P) Ltd. but CIT (Appeals) has deleted levy of penalty u/s 271D and 271E of the Income Tax Act. The orders of the CIT (Appeals) have been upheld by the ITAT Mumbai Bench, whose ... loan and repayment of loan in cash in hands of M/s Meuz Hest Process Tech (P) Ltd. but CIT (Appeals) has deleted levy of penalty u/s 271D and 271E of the Income Tax Act. The orders of the CIT (Appeals) have been upheld by the ITAT Mumbai Bench, whose copies

Silver & Art Palace, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 441/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Vinod Gupta, CA. Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 153ASection 250

loan and repayment of loan in cash in the hands of M/s Meuz Hest Process Tech (P) Ltd. but CIT (Appeals) has deleted levy of penalty u/s 271D and 271E of the Income Tax Act. The orders of the CIT (Appeals) have been upheld by the ITAT Mumbai Bench, whose

Raghavan, Kanchipuram vs. ITO, Ncc-22(1), Tambaram

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

ITA 1776/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1776/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Raghavan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 3503, Bay View House, Hiraranan, Non Corporate Circle 22(1). 5/63, Omr, Egattur, Thazambur, Tambaram, Chennai. Kanchipuram District, Tamil Nadu. 600 130 [Pan:Ajjpv9178L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y.Sridhar, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.06.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Raised 12 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is 2

For Appellant: Shri Y.Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 270ASection 270A(1)Section 270A(2)(b)Section 274

does not exempt filing of tax payable exceeds TDS. She argued that acceptance of returned income does not bar levy of penalty, when it confirms the income existed, but, however, unreported initially. She further explains that source explained by the assessee, which was accepted in the assessment does not excuse ... considered opinion that clause (6)(a) to 9 I.T.A. No.1776/Chny/25 section 270A of the Act prevent the assessee from levy of penalty under section 270A of the Act. Accordingly, the penalty levied under section 270A of the Act and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) stands deleted. Thus, the grounds

M.Lakhamsi& Co., Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 17(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4304/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Mr. Ketan Vajani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kasuri, (Sr. AR)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292B

confirming the penalty on this issue without any discussion and opportunity to present the case on merits. 4. The appellant respectfully submits that levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of the above addition is not justified on legal principles. The appellant, therefore, prays that ... made on either side. From the orders under challenge, it is very clear that the main grievance of the assessee is that the levy of penalty on the basis of notice which is vague and illegal cannot be sustained. Such a question of the legality or otherwise of assumption

Mukon Construction Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1152/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Srivashtav,ARFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kasuri, (Sr. AR)
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292B

made on either side. From the orders under challenge, it is very clear that the main grievance of the assessee is that the levy of penalty on the basis of notice which is vague and illegal cannot be sustained. Such a question of the legality or otherwise of assumption

Pankaj Kumar Gupta, Azamgarh vs. ITO Ward3(1), Income Tax Office Azamgarh

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

ITA 126/VNS/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi10 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: S/Shri Piyush Kumar Kamal and Abhishek Kumar Gupta, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Smt Amandeep Kaur, D.R
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(c)

jurisdiction and hence deserved to be quashed as such. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has proceeded to uphold the levy of penalty on a subjective, arbitrary and, whimsically basis. Moreover, she has proceeded to arrive at conclusions on factually incorrect basis and, total misconception

Pankaj Kumar Gupta, Azamgarh vs. Income Tax Officer

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

ITA 125/VNS/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi10 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: S/Shri Piyush Kumar Kamal and Abhishek Kumar Gupta, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Smt Amandeep Kaur, D.R
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(c)

jurisdiction and hence deserved to be quashed as such. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has proceeded to uphold the levy of penalty on a subjective, arbitrary and, whimsically basis. Moreover, she has proceeded to arrive at conclusions on factually incorrect basis and, total misconception

Sincere Architects Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Cirlce-7, Jaipur

In the result the appeal no

ITA 974/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Ashish Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 194A

assessee. The dispute relates in all the years is of Assessment Year 2017- 18, one appeal relates to the quantum proceeding, one for levy of penalty on that quantum proceeding and the third one for levy of penalty for not getting the books of account audited by the above-named ... return of income before completion of the assessment and in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The Id. AO while levying the penalty noted that the assessee did not file the return u/s.139 of the Act and even within time allowed as per provision of section

Sincere Architects Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-7, Jaipur

In the result the appeal no

ITA 973/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Ashish Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 194A

assessee. The dispute relates in all the years is of Assessment Year 2017- 18, one appeal relates to the quantum proceeding, one for levy of penalty on that quantum proceeding and the third one for levy of penalty for not getting the books of account audited by the above-named ... return of income before completion of the assessment and in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The Id. AO while levying the penalty noted that the assessee did not file the return u/s.139 of the Act and even within time allowed as per provision of section

DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Atul Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1774/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 271GSection 92CSection 92DSection 92D(3)

where TP study report of the appellant was accepted and no show cause notice was issued. 4.4 Further, I examined the issue of levy of penalty u/s.271G of the Act in respect of two transactions where show cause notice was issued. The first transaction pertains to purchase of goods from ... pointed out in her penalty order which information and documents could not be furnished by the appellant which warrants levy of penalty u/s.271G of the Act. Therefore, I find merit in the submission of the appellant that it has provided all the information/details and documents relevant to the transactions

Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority, Greater Noida vs. Commissioner of Income Tax- Appeal, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2489/DEL/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalyamuna Expressway Cit(Appeal), Industrial Development Ghaziabad. Authority, Greator Noida, Vs. First Floor, Commercial Complex, Gautambudh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-201308. Pan-Aaalt0341D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10(46)Section 12ASection 147(3)Section 148Section 271ASection 271BSection 3Section 44A

accounts audited besides initiating the penalty proceedings for non- maintenance of books account u/s 271A of the Act. Thereafter, the AO proceeded to levy of penalty in terms of the order dated 20.11.2017 and penalty of Rs.24,464/- being 0.50% of the gross receipts is levied u/s 271B

Mr. Nikhil Sawhney, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1249/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarmr. Nikhil Sawhney, Vs. Dcit, 17, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, New Delhi-11003 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaups0222Q

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur hansra, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

arguments but those specifically relies on this tribunal decision. 30. Whereas one of the decision of Coordinate Bench, of course while deciding the levy of penalty u/s 271 (1) ( c) of the income tax act , but dealing with the controversy and also referring to the decision of the coordinate bench

Bajaj Housing Finance Limited, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-8(1), Pune

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

ITA 1608/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Respondent: Appellant by Shri Nikhil Mutha
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 270ASection 270A(9)

order as to which limb of section 270A(9) of the Act is allegedly attracted in the present case: 2. Ground No. 2 - Levy of penalty under section 270A of the Act amounting to ₹26,15,568 is bad in law The Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in confirming ... order of the learned Assessing Officer ('learned AO') of levy of penalty under section 270A of the Act amounting to 26,15,568 without appreciating that it is not a case of under-reporting of income as well as not a case of under- reporting in consequence of misreporting

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions Circle, Coimbatore vs. Uthangarai Sri Vidya Mandir Educational and Social Welfare Trust, Krishnagiri

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue vide ITA No

ITA 2114/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2112/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2015-16 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2113/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2016-17 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2114/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2017-18

For Appellant: T.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.ARV Sreenivasan, CIT &
Section 143(3)Section 271A

appeals, through grounds of appeal, are centering around the issue of order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) issuing directions to the Ld.AO to levy the penalty after due verification of facts. It is the case of the appellant Revenue that the impugned direction constitutes an act of setting aside ... penalty order passed u/s 271AAB(1) of the Act dated 08.02.2022. The Ld.DR fiercely contested that the impugned direction to “….levy the penalty after due verification of facts..”, Page - 2 - of 5 ITA No.2112, 2113 & 2114/Chny/2025 constitutes an Act of setting aside for fresh adjudication and that the Ld.First Appellate