“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

Sun Diam, Surat vs. ITO 2(3)(6), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1109/SRT/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.DR

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the basis of invalid penalty notice in which the limb of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 not mentioned. 3. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case

Sun Diam, Surat vs. ITO 2(3)(6), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1108/SRT/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.DR

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Sun Diam, Surat vs. ITO 2(3)(6), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1107/SRT/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Feb 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.DR

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Mummalaneni Raghavan, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur

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

ITA 627/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Itat, Stating That The Reopening Of Assessment U/S 147 Of The Act Was Based Merely On System Generated Information, Which Is Invalid & Without Any Tangible Material. In The Grounds Of Appeal, It Was Mentioned That The Assessment U/S 147 Is Beyond Time Limit Prescribed & Hence, The Proceedings Are Void-Ab-Initio.

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 194ASection 56

r.w.s. 48 of the Act. Since it was held that there is no income at all, there cannot be concealed income. Hence, levy of penalty is incorrect. In view of the above, penalty levied by the Ld.AO is deleted and the assessee’s appeal is allowed. 10. In the result

M/S Pumarth Infrastructure Private Limited, Indore vs. The Asstt Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 4(1), Aaykar Bhawan, Indore

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 766/IND/2024[2009 -2010]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026

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

Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

Appeal is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. d. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty to the tune of Rs. 8,00,000/- is illegal, bad in law, arbitrary and perverse. e. That Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred ... this appellate order has initiated penalty proceedings U/s 271(1)(c) alleging concealment of income against the assessee and went on to levy the penalty of Rs. 8,00,000 on the assessee. The said levy of penalty in the impugned penalty order is made by Ld. AO despite

M/S Pumarth Infrastructure Private Limited, Indore vs. The Asstt Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 4(1), Aaykar Bhawan, Indore

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 765/IND/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

M/S Pumarth Infrastructure, Indore vs. The Asst Commissioner If Income Tax Circle 4(1), Aaykar Bhawan, Indore

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 757/IND/2024[2010 -11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026

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

Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

Kapil Khandelwal, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-I, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh

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

ITA 335/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 Kapil Khandelwal, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of 56, Moar Kothi, Gangapur, Bareilly Income Tax, Circle-I, Bareilly Pan: Aiypk4908M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Penalty Levied Upon The Assessee Under Section 271(1)(C) By The Ld. Ao On 17.03.2022 & Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. Because Requisite Satisfaction For Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) If The Income Tax Act 1961 Was Not Recorded In The Regular Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2017 Passed A/S 100%, Therefore, Penalty Proceedings Got Wholly Vitiated & Consequently, The Id. "Cit(A)" Ought To Have Quashed The Penalty Order Dated 17.03.2022, Being Illegal, Bad-In-Law & Without Jurisdiction 2. Because The Show Cause Notice For Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Did Not Specify Under Which Limb Penalty Was Sought To Be Imposed I.E.. Whether On Account Of Concealment Of Income Or For Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income & Consequently, The Penalty Order Dated 17.03.2022 Passed By Faceless Assessing Officer Deserved To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR

Section 10(38)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

dismissed the appeal of the assessee for the A.Y. 2015-16. The grounds of appeal are as under: - “1. BECAUSE requisite satisfaction for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) if the Income Tax Act 1961 was not recorded in the regular assessment order dated 22.12.2017 passed a/s 100%, therefore ... have quashed the penalty order dated 17.03.2022, being illegal, bad-in-law and without jurisdiction 2. BECAUSE the show cause notice for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act did not specify under which limb penalty was sought to be imposed i.e.. whether on account

The Institute of the Franciscan Missionaries of Mary Society No.14 (AOP), Nilgiris vs. ITO, Exemtions, Coimbatore

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3660/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3660/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. Abhishek Murali, C.A ()For Respondent: Dr. M.D.Vijay Kumar, JCIT

Section 10Section 12ASection 250Section 270ASection 274

Therefore, the assessee did not prefer further appeal before the CIT(A). Subsequently, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s.270A of the Act to levy a penalty @ 200% of the tax payable amounting to Rs.1,18,06,818/-. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred further appeal before the CIT(A). There ... held that – “13. We have heard both the parties on the legal issue and perused the records. The assessee has assailed the levy of penalty u/s.270A of the Act for AY 2018-19 & 2019-20 [three appeals], inter alia, on the ground that (i) the AO while passing the assessment

Dr Narayan Prasad Das Memorial Charitable Public Trust, Cuttack vs. ITO Exemption, Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 73/CTK/2026[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack26 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiadr Narayan Prasad Das Memorial Income Tax Officer Charitable Public Trust, At-Tigiria, Po: (Exemption), Cuttack Vs. Tigiria, Dist: Cuttack Pan No.Aaetd 1589 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No.NFAC/2022-23/10517685 dated 20/01/2026 for the A.Y. 2023-24 confirming the levy of penalty of Rs.50,97,813/- u/s.271D of the Act. 2. Shri S.K.Sarangi, ld. A.R. appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Sanjib Banerjee

Venkata Ramana Murthy Bollapragada, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-13(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1961/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1961/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17) Venkata Ramana Murthy Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bollapragada, Ward-13(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Abmpb7770R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri H. Srinivasulu, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 26/02/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 27/10/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-13, Hyderabad Under Section 271D Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 30/06/2022 For The Assessment Year

For Appellant: Shri H. SrinivasuluFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 274Section 54F

view, the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer is required to be recorded because the officer, who passed the assessment order would not be levying the penalty under Sec. 271D of the Act. unless it is recorded in the assessment order, he cannot refer the file to superior officer i.e., Joint ... Commissioner, for initiating levy of penalty. Unless the Assessing Officer, who is the primary authority, based on the material before it, during assessment proceedings, arrives at a finding that there has been a violation of the provisions, like in the present case, of Section 269SS, there will

Amber Corporation, Kalyan vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Kalyan, Thane

In the result the Assessee’s Appeal is allowed

ITA 8373/MUM/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri. Hitesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Surendra Mohan (SR. DR.)

Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

income ‘OR’ furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income, and vide penalty order dated 29.03.2018 u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, ultimately levied the penalty to the tune of Rs.1,15,875/- being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded on the addition of Rs.3,75,000/- for furnishing ... concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and on the basis of such notice, ultimately levied the penalty of Rs.70,00,000/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. 10. Admittedly, in the notice dated 30.03.2014 issued under section

M/S.Allied Digital Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(3), Mumbai

In the result the Assessee‟s Appeal is allowed

ITA 8147/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Allied Digital Services Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Central 808, 8Th Floor, Mafatlal Centre, Circile 1(3), 905,9Th Floor, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai – 400021. Old Cgo Building, Pan – Aaaca5509K Pratishtha Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Ms. Vinita Shah, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.02.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 11.07.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short „The Act‟) For The A.Y. 20101-11. 2. In The Instant Case, The Ao Vide Assessment Order Dated 28.03.2013 Under Section 143 (3) R.W.S. 153(A) Of The Act Has Made The Additions Of Rs.5,35,91,882/- & Rs.1,25,66,049/- On Account Of Disallowances Under Section 69C Of The Act & Section 2 M/S. Allied Digital Services Limited

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita Shah, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. D.R

Section 143Section 2Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69C

particulars of such income”. 3. The AO vide penalty order dated 25.02.2019 under Section 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act, ultimately levied the penalty of Rs.18,21,588/- @ 100% being amount of tax evaded on the income of Rs.54,64,764/- for concealing particulars of income OR furnishing ... impugned purchase, while partly allowing the appeal of the Assessee. 4. The Assessee being aggrieved challenged the said decision of the AO in levying the penalty, by filing the first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner and also raised a technical/legal issue qua not specifying the charge or limb, under which

Msn Laboratories Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

ITA 2304/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha G.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 270ASection 40A(3)

penalty notice issued by the Assessing Officer is invalid without specifying the clause/limb under which penalty can be levied U/s 270A, consequently the levy of penalty is against the law. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that admission during the course of search proceedings does ... misreporting of income. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the assessing officer is not justified in levying the penalty as there is no difference between the returned income and assessed income. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that levy

Msn Laboratories Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Addl. CIT, Central Range-2, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 2172/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 2164, 2165, 2171 & 2172/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2021-22) M/S. Msn Laboratories (P) Ltd Vs. Additional Cit Hyderabad Central Range-2 Pan:Aadcm6283F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per. Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate, But Identical Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad, All Dated 08/10/2025 For The A.Ys 2018-19 To 2021-22 Respectively. Since, Identical Issues Have Been Raised By The Assessee In All These Four Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Common Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 132Section 153ASection 269Section 271DSection 274

same should be deleted. The learned Counsel for the assessee further submitted that mere admission of the assessee does not ipso facto warrants levy of penalty under section 271DA of the Act, even though the assessee has made a statement regarding receipt of amount from the sale of spent solvent ... case of Pr. CIT vs. K. Umesh Shetty (Supra). The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court had considered an identical issue of levy of penalty under section 271D of the Act, in light of limitation provided under section 275 (1)(c) of the Act and after considering the relevant facts

Msn Laboratories Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Addl CIT, Central Range-2, Hyderabad

ITA 2171/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 132Section 153ASection 269Section 269OSection 269SSection 271D

Msn Laboratories Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Addl CIT, Central Range-2, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 2165/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 132Section 153ASection 269Section 271DSection 274

Msn Laboratories Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Addl CIT, Central Range-2, Hyderabad

ITA 2164/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 132Section 153ASection 269Section 269OSection 269SSection 271D

Meda Lakshminarayana Setty Naveen Kumar, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer, Circle-1(1) & Tps, Mysore

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

ITA 1795/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year :2018-19 Mr. Meda Lakshminarayana Setty Vs. Ito, Naveen Kumar, Circle – 1(1) & Tps, Fat No.305, Bougainvilla, Sankalp Mysore. Central Park, Yadavagiri, Mysore – 570 009. Pan : Ablpn 5943 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Siddesh N Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri. K. Subramanian, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 270A

filed. Accordingly, immunity was requested by letter dated 06.07.2024. 4. The learned AO held that as Form No.68 is not filed, levy of penalty is mandatory as assessee has not furnished any reply. Accordingly, penalty of Rs.2,17,158/- under section 270A of the Act was levied. Page

Health Biotech Limited, Chandigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 987/CHANDI/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: the disposal of the same.

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40

assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 5. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the assessee, confirmed the levy of penalty by holding that the assessee had failed to furnish true and correct particulars of income and that the claims made were not bona fide