← 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

Vimal Pukhraj Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 42(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4305/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhrivimal Pukhraj Jain Income Tax Officer Ward 806, Dheeraj Enclave, Borivali East, Vs. 42(1)(5) Opp. Bhor Industries, Mumbai Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, 400066 Mumbai 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaipj6511H (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्ााररती की ओर से / Assessee By: Shri. Pankaj Jain/ Ms. Karuna Kurle Shirdhankar /Revenue By: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.09.2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M]: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)"] Dated 14.02.2023 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "Act"] For Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) –Nfac Has Confirmed The Penalty Of Rs. 50,000/- Levied By The Assessing Officer By Invoking Provisions Of Section 272A(1)(D) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For Non-Compliance Of The Notices.” 3. At The Outset, It Is Notice That There Is A Delay In Filling Appeal Of 807 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For The P A G E | 2

For Appellant: Shri. Pankaj Jain/ Ms. KarunaFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik SR. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 272ASection 272A(1)(d)

assessee’s explanation is backed by requisite documentary evidence. We are of the considered view that it is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s. 272A(1)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed by the Ld. AO u/s. 272A

Shaik Saida, Nuzvid vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 337/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: the Tribunal and the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons, similar to the three appeals, which are extracted herein below:

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271ASection 69A

assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the 06 grounds of appeal which revolve around the levy of penalty by the Ld. AO and decision of the Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the same. 27. It is pertinent to mention here that against the quantum additions made

Shaik Saida, Nuzvid vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 336/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: the Tribunal and the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons, similar to the three appeals, which are extracted herein below:

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271ASection 69A

assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the 06 grounds of appeal which revolve around the levy of penalty by the Ld. AO and decision of the Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the same. 27. It is pertinent to mention here that against the quantum additions made

Assistant Commissioner of Income Ta, Jaipur vs. Shri Nath Corporation, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 267/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Hemang Gargieya, Adv. &
Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

evident from the grounds of appeal that the issue raised in all these bunch of appeal are identical relating to the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) and we have heard these cases together with the consent of the parties and have decided to dispose these appeals by common order ... taxmann.com 303 (Ahmedabad - Trib.) and in the case of Muninaga Reddy vs. ACIT [2013] 37 taxmann.com 440 (Bangalore - Trib.) wherein deleted the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. 2. Similarly, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. SAS Pharmaceuticals

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 197/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hemang Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (through V.C.) a
Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

evident from the grounds of appeal that the issue raised in all these bunch of appeal are identical relating to the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) and we have heard these cases together with the consent of the parties and have decided to dispose these appeals by common ... taxmann.com 303 (Ahmedabad - Trib.) and in the case of Muninaga Reddy vs. ACIT [2013] 37 taxmann.com 440 (Bangalore - Trib.) wherein deleted the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6.2. Similarly, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. SAS Pharmaceuticals

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jaipur vs. Royal Jewellers, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 196/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Hemang Gargieya, Adv. &
Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

evident from the grounds of appeal that the issue raised in all these bunch of appeal are identical relating to the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) and we have heard these cases together with the consent of the parties and have decided to dispose these appeals by common ... taxmann.com 303 (Ahmedabad - Trib.) and in the case of Muninaga Reddy vs. ACIT [2013] 37 taxmann.com 440 (Bangalore - Trib.) wherein deleted the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. 2. Similarly, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. SAS Pharmaceuticals

Grindly Gases & Petrochemicals P. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Jt. CIT, TDS Range, Vadodara

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

ITA 1388/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Grindly Gases & Petrochemicals P. Ltd. The Jcit, Tds Range 303, B.N. Chambers Vadodara. R.C. Dutt Road Vadodara 390 007. Pan : Aaaccs 7129 F (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : None : Shri Arvind Kumbhara, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/09/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: None
Section 194ASection 271CSection 274

holding the assessee to be an assessee-in-default in respect of the said non-deduction. The matter was thereafter taken up for levy of penalty under section 271C. 2.2 In the penalty order, it is recorded that notices under section 274 read with section 271C were issued

Ashok Gurunath Patil, Latur vs. ITO Ward1(1), Latur

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 594/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.594/Pun/2025 धििेंारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Ashok Gurunath Patil, Ito, Ward 1(1), Latur A/P Masobavadi, Khed, Nilanga, Latur-413522 Vs. Maharashtra Pan-Bihpp0618K अपीलेंर्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By: Shri Pratik Sandbhor Department By: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing: 24-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 06-10-2025 आदीश/Order Per Dr. Manish Borad:- This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Dated 21.08.2024 Which Is Arising Out Of Order Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Dated 27.02.2018. 2. Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 123 Days In Filing Of The Appeal. Application For Condonation Of Delay Alongwith Affidavit Has Been Filed & Placed At Page No. 24-26 Of The Appeal Citing The Main Reason For The Delay, That The Assessee Was Not Aware Of Passing Of The Impugned Order As 2 The Tax Consultant Registered The E-Mail Id Of His Younger Son & The E-Mail Account Was Not In Use. After Hearing The Ld. Departmental Representative (Dr) & Perusing The Records We Find That The Sufficient Cause Prevented The Assessee From Filing The Appeal Within The Prescribed Time Limit & The Delay Is Not Intentional. Therefore In The Larger Interest Of Justice & Also Placing Reliance On The Judgement Of Hon’Ble Apex Court In The Case Of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Master Katiji & Others(1987) 167 Itr 471(Sc) (Supreme Court) & In The Case Of Inder Singh Vs State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Dated 21.03.2025 (2025) Insc 382) We Hereby Condone The Delay Of 123 Days & Admit The Appeal For Adjudication On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri Pratik SandbhorFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

case and also in the larger interest of justice deem it appropriate to restore the issue in the instant appeal regarding the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for necessary adjudication by Ld. CIT(A) and to pass a speaking order as contemplated

Venkateshwara Rao Dalapathirao, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-4(1), Hyderabad

In the result appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 988/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, B Satyanarayana MurthyFor Respondent: Sri Madan Mohan Meena, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 270ASection 270A(1)Section 270A(2)(a)Section 270A(7)Section 274

goods sold for determining the total income of the assessee cannot be per se being treated as under reporting of income which necessitated levy of penalty under section 270A(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer after considering the explanation of assessee and also taking note of relevant facts, levied ... after considering the relevant submissions of the assessee and also taking note of relevant reasons given by the Assessing Officer for levy of penalty held that, the Assessing Officer has rightly levied the penalty for under-reporting of income because, there is a difference between returned income reported and income

Magnaquest Technologies Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, ITA.No.736/Hyd

ITA 743/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, G Srinivasa RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 438Section 43B

learned CIT(A) after considering the relevant submissions of the assessee and also taking note of reasons given by the Assessing Officer for levy of penalty, sustained the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer on the ground that, the assessee is unable to explain to the show cause notice issued ... Assessing Officer proposing levy of penalty for under-reporting of income as a consequence of misreporting of income and thus, there is no error in the reasons given by the Assessing Officer to levy penalty u/sec.270A(8) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The relevant findings of the learned

Magnaquest Technologies Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, ITA.No.736/Hyd

ITA 736/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, G Srinivasa RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 438Section 43B

learned CIT(A) after considering the relevant submissions of the assessee and also taking note of reasons given by the Assessing Officer for levy of penalty, sustained the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer on the ground that, the assessee is unable to explain to the show cause notice issued ... Assessing Officer proposing levy of penalty for under-reporting of income as a consequence of misreporting of income and thus, there is no error in the reasons given by the Assessing Officer to levy penalty u/sec.270A(8) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The relevant findings of the learned

B & B Sharecom Pvt Ltd., Hisar vs. DCIT, Circle, Hisar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2877/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shris.Rifaur Rahmanb & B Sharecom Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle, 133, 1St Floor, Parijat Complex, Hisar. Hisar – 125 001. (Pan :Aagcb1363A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K. Sampath, Advocate Shri V Rajakumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Abhishek Deavel, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.08.2025 Date Of Order : 24.09.2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Deavel, Sr. DR
Section 133Section 143(2)Section 271Section 43(5)Section 68

order in accordance with law. Accordingly, Ground Nos.C & D raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 23. Ground No.E is regarding levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act which is consequential in nature, hence not adjudicated. 24. In the result, the appeal filed

Allied Construction Company, Malad vs. Income Tax Officer - 30 (1) (1), Bandra

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

ITA 4121/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Allied Construction Ito-30(1)(1), Company, C-13, 5Th Floor, 4&5, Sai Zarukha Vs. Pratyakshakar Bhavan, B.J. Patel Road, Bandra East, Malad (West), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400064. Pan : Aapfa8255N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jose Pulikkoden Revenue By : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Jose PulikkodenFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.DR
Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ["Ld. CIT(A)"] erred in upholding the levy of penalty of ₹1,08,45,900/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without appreciating that the Ld. AO while initiating ... whether it is a case of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of Income. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of penalty of ₹1,08,45,900/-under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without appreciating that the AO had levied

Asha Didwania, Bhadrak vs. The Income Tax Officer, Bhadrak Ward, Bhadrak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 292/CTK/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Sept 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 271BSection 275(1)(c)

quantum assessment, therefore, that cannot be waived under VSV Scheme. This being so, it cannot be said that the time limit for levy of penalty should be extended till the disposal of the appeal in quantum proceedings or till the issue of final certificate under VSV Scheme. In view

Chundayil Kalam Girijadevi, Keralassery vs. ITO Ward 1 & Tps, Palakkad

ITA 564/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Padmnathan K.VFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal
Section 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 4

ITAT New Delhi in HCL Technologies Ltd. Versus DCIT, Circle 11 (1) New Delhi No.-ITA No. 3702/Del/2017, wherein it was held that levy of penalty is unsustainable because mere preferring a claim which is unacceptable to the Revenue does not ipso facto lead to levy of penalty ... Mayur Mathurdas Patel Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 (3) (7), Surat No. ITA No.697 & 698/SRT/2018 to buttress this contention. F. The levy of penalty at 200% of tax as mis-reporting of income is illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice, since 2 Assessment Year

Rajesh Singh, Rewa vs. ITO Ward-1 Rewa, Rewa

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 129/JAB/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur19 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.128 & 129/Jab/2023 A.Y. 2010-11 Rajesh Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, M/S Pharma Deal Agency, Ward No.8, Ward-1, Rewa, M.P. Mauganj, Distt. Rewa, M.P. Pan:Atrps5702K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Devendra Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

section 147 r.w.s. 144 passed by the Assessing Officer on 23.11.2017 for the A.Y. 2010-11 and also the appeal filed against the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b) on 29.05.2018. As the matter was heard together and the penalty under section 271(1)(b) arises ... under section 69A and deleted the rest. 4. Subsequent to the passing of the assessment order, the ld. AO also issued notice for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b). A show cause notice was issued to the assessee to explain why penalties under section 271(1)(b) amounting

Rajesh Singh, Rewa vs. ITO Ward -1, Rewa

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 128/JAB/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur19 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.128 & 129/Jab/2023 A.Y. 2010-11 Rajesh Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, M/S Pharma Deal Agency, Ward No.8, Ward-1, Rewa, M.P. Mauganj, Distt. Rewa, M.P. Pan:Atrps5702K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Devendra Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

section 147 r.w.s. 144 passed by the Assessing Officer on 23.11.2017 for the A.Y. 2010-11 and also the appeal filed against the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b) on 29.05.2018. As the matter was heard together and the penalty under section 271(1)(b) arises ... under section 69A and deleted the rest. 4. Subsequent to the passing of the assessment order, the ld. AO also issued notice for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b). A show cause notice was issued to the assessee to explain why penalties under section 271(1)(b) amounting

Varahala Sobha Rani, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-1, Sangareddy

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

ITA 789/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(b)

with penalty notices, and ITA No.789/Hyd/2025 4 even at the appellate stage before the Tribunal, has failed to appear. He submitted that the levy of penalty of Rs.20,000/- under section 271(1)(b) of the Act is squarely justified, as the statutory defaults are admitted and unexplained. He therefore

Megnanapuram Paccs, Tiruchendur vs. PCIT, Madurai

ITA 895/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:895/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Megnanapuram Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Credit Society 4/40, Megnanapuram Tiruchendur Road, Tiruchendur Thoothukudi – 628 210. [Pan: Aabam-9847-M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Pcit Vs. Madurai - I (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.09.2025 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Pcit, Madurai - 1, For The Assessment Year 2018-19, Vide Order Dated 17.03.2025. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80P

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'बी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरि, न्यायिक

Labtop Instruments Private Limited, Vasai vs. Addl. CIT, 11(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4916/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Ms. Vidhi SolaniFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.DR
Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [‘Ld.CIT(A)'], dated 10-06-2025, against the sustenance of levy of penalty u/s.271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'). 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that during the course of assessment proceedings ... authorities and further relied upon the written submissions the contents of which read as under: 1. The present appeal is against the levy of penalty u/s 271D, amounting to Rs.2,00,000/-on account of a loan borrowed in cash by the appellant from its Director/Shareholder, Mr. Byju George