← 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

Varis Kishor Rupabhinda, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(3), Mumbai

In the result, ITA No. 3379/Mum/2025 is partly allowed for

ITA 4111/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No. 3379 & 4111/Mum/2025

For Appellant: Asst. Commissioner ofFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Sr. D/R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68Section 69Section 69A

Accordingly, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 11. Coming to the issues raised in ITA No. 4111/Mum/2025, the assessee has challenged the levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act. The roots of the levy of penalty lie in the assessment order dated 20/03/2023 framed ... estimate basis on the assumption that the assessee must be seen commissioning 0.02% to 0.05%, we do not find any merit in the levy of penalty as the same has been levied on estimated additions. The AO is directed to delete the impugned penalty. Accordingly, this ground is allowed

Varis Kishorchandra Rupabhinda, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(3), Mumbai

In the result, ITA No. 3379/Mum/2025 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

ITA 3379/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No. 3379 & 4111/Mum/2025

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, A/RFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Sr. D/R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68Section 69Section 69A

Accordingly, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 11. Coming to the issues raised in ITA No. 4111/Mum/2025, the assessee has challenged the levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act. The roots of the levy of penalty lie in the assessment order dated 20/03/2023 framed ... estimate basis on the assumption that the assessee must be seen commissioning 0.02% to 0.05%, we do not find any merit in the levy of penalty as the same has been levied on estimated additions. The AO is directed to delete the impugned penalty. Accordingly, this ground is allowed

Bundelkhand University, Jhansi vs. DCIT(Exemption), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 310/AGR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: BEFORE, SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Sahgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 272Section 272A(1)(d)

only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Learned NFAC was justified in confirming the levy of penalty under section 272A(1)(d) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 3. I have heard the rival submissions and perused ... Hence, for a mere technical venial breach committed by the Assessee, in my considered opinion, the Assessee should not be invited with the levy of penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. My view is further fortified

The Chimna Agri. Ser Vice Society Ltd., Punjab vs. Jao Income Tax Officer, ITO, Ward-1, Jagraon, Punjab

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

ITA 423/CHANDI/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Sept 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 422/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 423/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 The Chimna Co-Op. Agri. Jao. बनाम Service Society Ltd., Income Tax Officer Vpo Chimna, Jagraon, Ward 1, Vs. Ludhiana. 141011 Jagraon "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aaaat4706D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Kushal Chopra, C.A. (Virtual) राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30-07-2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.09-2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri. Kushal Chopra, C.A. (virtual)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 270ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

appreciate that even otherwise all facts have been disclosed by the assessee at the time of filing return of income and hence levy of penalty is not justified. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed

The Chimna Co-Op Agri. Service Society Ltd., Punjab vs. Jao the Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Jagraon, Punjab

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

ITA 422/CHANDI/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Sept 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 422/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 423/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 The Chimna Co-Op. Agri. Jao. बनाम Service Society Ltd., Income Tax Officer Vpo Chimna, Jagraon, Ward 1, Vs. Ludhiana. 141011 Jagraon "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aaaat4706D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Kushal Chopra, C.A. (Virtual) राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30-07-2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.09-2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri. Kushal Chopra, C.A. (virtual)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 270ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

appreciate that even otherwise all facts have been disclosed by the assessee at the time of filing return of income and hence levy of penalty is not justified. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed

Vijay Tukaram Raundal, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Pune

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

ITA 1637/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Mihir NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 115JSection 131Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80I

assessee, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.15,38,96,534/- being penalty @ 100% of tax sought to be evaded. While levying the penalty the Assessing Officer, relying on various decisions, held that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income and had there been no survey, the assessee ... have escaped by claiming deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. 7. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee apart from challenging the levy of penalty on merit, challenged the validity of the penalty proceedings on the ground that the inappropriate words in the penalty notice have not been struck

Vijay Tukaram Raundal, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Pune

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

ITA 1636/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Mihir NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 115JSection 131Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80I

assessee, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.15,38,96,534/- being penalty @ 100% of tax sought to be evaded. While levying the penalty the Assessing Officer, relying on various decisions, held that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income and had there been no survey, the assessee ... have escaped by claiming deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. 7. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee apart from challenging the levy of penalty on merit, challenged the validity of the penalty proceedings on the ground that the inappropriate words in the penalty notice have not been struck

Vijay Tukaram Raundal, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Pune

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

ITA 1635/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Mihir NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 115JSection 131Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80I

assessee, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.15,38,96,534/- being penalty @ 100% of tax sought to be evaded. While levying the penalty the Assessing Officer, relying on various decisions, held that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income and had there been no survey, the assessee ... have escaped by claiming deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. 7. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee apart from challenging the levy of penalty on merit, challenged the validity of the penalty proceedings on the ground that the inappropriate words in the penalty notice have not been struck

Vijay Tukaram Raundal, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Pune

ITA 1634/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Mihir NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 115JSection 131Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80I

assessee, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.15,38,96,534/- being penalty 100% of tax sought to be evaded. While levying the penalty the Assessing Officer, relying on various decisions, held that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income and had there been no survey, the assessee ... have escaped by claiming deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. 7. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee apart from challenging the levy of penalty on merit, challenged the validity of the penalty proceedings on the ground that the inappropriate words in the penalty notice have not been struck

K677 the Tirupur Co Operative Primary Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd(Rural Dev Bank Ltd), Tirupur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2) Tirupur, Tirupur

ITA 1826/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1826/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 K677 The Tirupur Cooperative Primary Income Tax Officer, Agriculture & Rural Development Ward-1(2), Bank Limited(Rural Dev Bank Ltd). Tirupur. No.39, Nehru Street, Tiruppur, Tamil Nadu-641 601 [Pan: Aaabr0204K] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Ms.A.Vijayalakshmi, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Veeramany K, Irs सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Ms.A.Vijayalakshmi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Veeramany K, IRS
Section 271B

amended from time to time. ITA No.1826 /Chny/2025 2.0 The only issue contested by the assessee in this appeal is the levy of penalty u/s 271B by the Ld.AO through order dated 13.05.2024 and its confirmation by the Ld.CIT(A) through his order dated 19.06.2025. The Ld.Counsel informed that

Anuvu Uk Operations Ltd (Earlier Knows As Global Eagle Entertainment Limited), London vs. ACIT, Circle-Int.Taxation 1(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 806/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.1879 और 1878/िद"ी/2022 (िन.व. 2018-19 और 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma & Ms. Shruti Khimta, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Anjula Jain, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

3338/DEL/2023 (A.Y. 2020-21 & 2021-22) 16. In ground no. 5 of appeal, the assessee has assailed levy of penalty u/s. 270A of the Act. Challenge to penalty proceedings at this stage is premature. Hence, ground no. 5 of appeal is dismissed. 17. In the result, appeal of the assessee ... assailed charging of interest u/s. 234A and 234B of the Act and in ground no. 8 of appeal, the assessee has assailed levy of penalty u/s. 270A of the Act. 25. The ld. DR fairly stated that the primary issue raised in this appeal in ground

Anuvu Uk Operations Limited (Earlier Known As Global Eagle Entertainment Limited), United Kingdom vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Int Tax Circle 1(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3338/DEL/2023[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.1879 और 1878/िद"ी/2022 (िन.व. 2018-19 और 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma & Ms. Shruti Khimta, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Anjula Jain, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

3338/DEL/2023 (A.Y. 2020-21 & 2021-22) 16. In ground no. 5 of appeal, the assessee has assailed levy of penalty u/s. 270A of the Act. Challenge to penalty proceedings at this stage is premature. Hence, ground no. 5 of appeal is dismissed. 17. In the result, appeal of the assessee ... assailed charging of interest u/s. 234A and 234B of the Act and in ground no. 8 of appeal, the assessee has assailed levy of penalty u/s. 270A of the Act. 25. The ld. DR fairly stated that the primary issue raised in this appeal in ground

Anuvu Uk Operations Ltd (Erstwhile Known As Global Eagle Entertainment Limited), London vs. ACIT, Int. Tax. 1(3)(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1879/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.1879 और 1878/िद"ी/2022 (िन.व. 2018-19 और 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma & Ms. Shruti Khimta, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Anjula Jain, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

3338/DEL/2023 (A.Y. 2020-21 & 2021-22) 16. In ground no. 5 of appeal, the assessee has assailed levy of penalty u/s. 270A of the Act. Challenge to penalty proceedings at this stage is premature. Hence, ground no. 5 of appeal is dismissed. 17. In the result, appeal of the assessee ... assailed charging of interest u/s. 234A and 234B of the Act and in ground no. 8 of appeal, the assessee has assailed levy of penalty u/s. 270A of the Act. 25. The ld. DR fairly stated that the primary issue raised in this appeal in ground

Anuvu Uk Operations Ltd (Erstwhile Known As Global Eagle Entertainment Limited), London vs. ACIT, Int. Tax. 1(3)(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1878/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.1879 और 1878/िद"ी/2022 (िन.व. 2018-19 और 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma & Ms. Shruti Khimta, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Anjula Jain, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

3338/DEL/2023 (A.Y. 2020-21 & 2021-22) 16. In ground no. 5 of appeal, the assessee has assailed levy of penalty u/s. 270A of the Act. Challenge to penalty proceedings at this stage is premature. Hence, ground no. 5 of appeal is dismissed. 17. In the result, appeal of the assessee ... assailed charging of interest u/s. 234A and 234B of the Act and in ground no. 8 of appeal, the assessee has assailed levy of penalty u/s. 270A of the Act. 25. The ld. DR fairly stated that the primary issue raised in this appeal in ground

Kuldeep Kaur, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ambala, Haryana

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 297/CHANDI/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Sept 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR for Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(c)

assessee. It was further explained that the assessee came to know about the conclusion of the appellate proceedings only when a notice for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was served on 01.02.2025. Immediately thereafter, steps were taken for filing the present appeal

Rajasthan State Health Assurance Agency, Jaipur vs. It Ward -1(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 808/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vikas Rajvanshi,CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

that the issue raised by the assessee needs effective adjudication after proper examination as to the late deposit of TDS payment and subsequent levy of penalty amounting to Rs.23,46,390/- u/s 201(1)(A) of the Act by the Department. Hence, the appeal of the assessee deserves

Labh Singh Panchkula, Panchkula vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Panchkula

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 733/CHANDI/2025[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Chandigarh01 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 733/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Labh Singh, Ito, C/O M.K.Aggarwal & बनाम Ward 2, Associates, Panchkula Vs. Sco 1,First Floor, Sector 11, Panchkula "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Didps5445F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh Rishab Gupta, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Surinder Kaur Waraich, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28-08-2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01.09-2025 आदेश/Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Cit(A), Confirming The Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(B) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Assessing Officer (Ao), In The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, Issued Statutory Notices Under Sections 143(2) & 142(1) On Various Dates. Since The Assessee Did Not Comply With The Notices, The Ao Levied A Penalty Of ₹40,000/- Under Section 271(1)(B), Being ₹10,000/- For Each Of Four Defaults. The Learned Cit(A) Confirmed The Levy.

For Appellant: Sh Rishab Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Surinder Kaur Waraich, Addl. CIT
Section 271(1)(b)

statutory notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) on various dates. Since the assessee did not comply with the notices, the AO levied a penalty of ₹40,000/- under section 271(1)(b), being ₹10,000/- for each of four defaults. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the levy ... part of the assessee, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act and ultimately levied a penalty of ₹40,000/-, being ₹10,000/- for each of four instances of default. The learned CIT(A) sustained the levy of penalty in appellate proceedings

Moulimani Impex Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer- 1(1)(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 536/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c)

536/SRT/2025/AY 2009-10 to 2011-12 & 2012-13 Moulimani Impex Pvt. Ltd. basis of invalid penalty order in which the limb of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 not mentioned. 2. Ground 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case ... Income Tax Act, 1961 on the basis of invalid penalty order in which the limb of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 not mentioned. 2. Ground 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred

Moulimani Impex Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -1(1)(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 535/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c)

536/SRT/2025/AY 2009-10 to 2011-12 & 2012-13 Moulimani Impex Pvt. Ltd. basis of invalid penalty order in which the limb of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 not mentioned. 2. Ground 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case ... Income Tax Act, 1961 on the basis of invalid penalty order in which the limb of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 not mentioned. 2. Ground 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred

Moulimani Impex Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -1(1)(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 534/SRT/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c)

536/SRT/2025/AY 2009-10 to 2011-12 & 2012-13 Moulimani Impex Pvt. Ltd. basis of invalid penalty order in which the limb of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 not mentioned. 2. Ground 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case ... Income Tax Act, 1961 on the basis of invalid penalty order in which the limb of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 not mentioned. 2. Ground 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred