← 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

Earth Reality, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 460/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Earth Reality Dcit, Cir.1(1)(1) Earth-49, Vs Vadodara. Opp: Misuza Court Vasna Road, Vadodara 390 007 Pan : Aadfe 0069 N (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Hemant Suthar, Ar Revenue By : Ms.Bhavnasingh Gupta, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Suthar, ARFor Respondent: Ms.Bhavnasingh Gupta, Sr.DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Rs.4,32,600/- was levied on the ground of concealment of income. 3. The assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) challenging the levy of penalty. Hearing notices were issued to the assessee on multiple occasions, including 14.12.2018, 07.01.2021, 01.11.2022, 06.08.2024, 05.12.2024, and 18.12.2024. However, there was no response from ... claim the advance tax paid of Rs. 4,50,000/- while filing the return of income for the year under consideration. The impugned levy of penalty of Rs. 4,32,600/- being bad in law and in facts is prayed to be deleted. 4. Being aggrieved by the action

Soyab Rajjakbhai Memon, Nandurbar vs. DCIT Cicle Dhule Ward 3(2), Dhule

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

ITA 89/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.89/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh B Budruk
Section 271(1)(c)

facts and circumstances of the case and also in the larger interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to remit the issue of levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act to the file of ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given reasonable

Open Text Technologies India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

ITA 2387/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 143(3)Section 92B

computing the interest u/s 234C of the Act amounting to Rs.3,82,808 and the same is consequential to the above grounds. 16. Levy of penalty under section 271AA and 271BA of the Act Initiating penalty proceedings under section 271AA and 271BA of the Act." 3. The assessee has raised

Pandian Abilash, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-4(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 188/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.S. Kaarthick, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

total income of the assessee by order dated 31.01.2023. Thereafter, the AO is noted to have issued notice to the assessee for levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act; and levied Mr. Pandian Abilash :: 3 :: penalty of Rs.1,20,590/-. On appeal, against the penalty levied ... disputed and hence, not repeated for the sake of brevity. The short question is that whether on the facts discussed (supra), the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of particulars of income is tenable when the AO in the first place has resorted to estimate

Korbusier Kinema Private Limited, Juhu Mumbai vs. NFAC ACIT Cir 15(1) (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1016/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivram, Ld. A.R. a/wFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

evaded on the income of Rs.14,95,851/-. 3 M/s. Korbusier Kinema Private Limited 6. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said levy of penalty before the Ld. Commissioner, however, of no avail, as the Ld. Commissioner vide impugned order dated 17.12.2024 affirmed the levy of penalty. 7. The Assessee ... defective notice and/or not mentioning the charge/limb specifically in the notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act can justify the levy of penalty”. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Md. Farhan A Shaikh (supra) has dealt with the identical issue and considered various

Pankajkumar Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rakjot vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Rajkot

ITA 81/RJT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.76 To 80/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2012-13 & आयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No. 81/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya 3Rd Floor, Parth, Diwanpara | बनाम Main Road, Rajkot-3600 001 Vs. Pan: Aampl 3903 F Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2 Rajkot, 2Nd Floor, Amruta Estate, M.G. Rad, Rajkot-360 001 (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/04/2025 Order Per Bench, Captioned Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2008-09 To 2012-13 & Ay 2014-15, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (“Ld.Cit(A)” For Short) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act" For Short), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Orders, Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) & 271Aab(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

without prejudice to one another. 2.The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad erred on facts as also in law in confirming levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred as to the "Act"] at Rs.35,55,728/-on the alleged ground ... against addition of Rs.32,40,46,529/- and granted relief to the assessee of Rs.31,35,85,433/-. Therefore, assessing officer proposed to levy the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, on Rs.1,04,61,096/-. 12. During the penalty proceedings, the assessee submitted reply before the assessing

Pankajkumar Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rajkot vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Rajkot

ITA 80/RJT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.76 To 80/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2012-13 & आयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No. 81/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya 3Rd Floor, Parth, Diwanpara Main Road, Rajkot-3600 001 Pan: Aampl 3903 F (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2 Rajkot, 2Nd Floor, Amruta Estate, M.G. Rad, Rajkot-360 001 (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/03/2025 : 30/04/2025 Order Per Bench, Captioned Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2008-09 To 2012-13 & Ay 2014-15, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (“Ld.Cit(A)” For Short) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act" For Short), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Orders, Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) & 271Aab(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

without prejudice to one another. 2.The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad erred on facts as also in law in confirming levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred as to the "Act"] at Rs.35,55,728/-on the alleged ground ... against addition of Rs.32,40,46,529/- and granted relief to the assessee of Rs.31,35,85,433/-. Therefore, assessing officer proposed to levy the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, on Rs.1,04,61,096/-. 12. During the penalty proceedings, the assessee submitted reply before the assessing

Pankajkumar Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rajkot vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 79/RJT/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

without prejudice to one another. 2.The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad erred on facts as also in law in confirming levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred as to the "Act"] at Rs.35,55,728/-on the alleged ground ... against addition of Rs.32,40,46,529/- and granted relief to the assessee of Rs.31,35,85,433/-. Therefore, assessing officer proposed to levy the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, on Rs.1,04,61,096/-. 12. During the penalty proceedings, the assessee submitted reply before the assessing

Pankajkumar Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rakjot vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Rajkot

ITA 78/RJT/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2010-11
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

without prejudice to one another. 2.The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad erred on facts as also in law in confirming levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred as to the "Act"] at Rs.35,55,728/-on the alleged ground ... against addition of Rs.32,40,46,529/- and granted relief to the assessee of Rs.31,35,85,433/-. Therefore, assessing officer proposed to levy the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, on Rs.1,04,61,096/-. 12. During the penalty proceedings, the assessee submitted reply before the assessing

Pankajkumar Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rajkot vs. The Actit, Central Circle-2, Rajkot

ITA 77/RJT/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.76 To 80/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2012-13 & आयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No. 81/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya 3Rd Floor, Parth, Diwanpara Main Road, Rajkot-3600 001 Pan: Aampl 3903 F (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/04/2025 Order Per Bench, Captioned Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2008-09 To 2012-13 & Ay 2014-15, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (“Ld.Cit(A)” For Short) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act" For Short), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Orders, Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) & 271Aab(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

without prejudice to one another. 2.The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad erred on facts as also in law in confirming levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred as to the "Act"] at Rs.35,55,728/-on the alleged ground ... against addition of Rs.32,40,46,529/- and granted relief to the assessee of Rs.31,35,85,433/-. Therefore, assessing officer proposed to levy the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, on Rs.1,04,61,096/-. 12. During the penalty proceedings, the assessee submitted reply before the assessing

Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rajkot vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Rajkot

ITA 76/RJT/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

without prejudice to one another. 2.The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad erred on facts as also in law in confirming levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred as to the "Act"] at Rs.35,55,728/-on the alleged ground ... against addition of Rs.32,40,46,529/- and granted relief to the assessee of Rs.31,35,85,433/-. Therefore, assessing officer proposed to levy the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, on Rs.1,04,61,096/-. 12. During the penalty proceedings, the assessee submitted reply before the assessing

Up Government Employees Welfare, Lucknow vs. ACIT, NFAC, Delhi

In the result appeals in ITA No

ITA 743/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.743 & 746/Lkw/2024 & Ita No. 30/Lkw/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 U.P. Government Employees Vs. Assessing Officer, Nfac Welfare, Lucknow Pan:Aaatu0957A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Sh. Manu Chaurasia, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 15.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.04.2025 O R D E R Per Bench.: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac On 23.10.2024, 28.10.2024 & 2.01.2024 In The Appeals Preferred Against The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3), The Penalty Order Under Section 271Aac(1) & The Penalty Order Under Section 270A. The Grounds Of Appeal In These Three Appeals Are As Under:-

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Manu Chaurasia, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234ASection 270ASection 271ASection 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 68

assessee. 5. Shortly after the passing of the assessment order, the assesee was also issued a show cause notice for the levy of penalty under section 271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect to the addition of Rs. 14,83,85,414/- added to the income ... respond to the notices and was non-responsive. Therefore, quoting from the provisions of section 271AAC(1), the ld. AO on 15.03.2022, levied a penalty of Rs.1,14,62,773/- @ 10% of the unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 6. The assessee went in appeal against this

Nareshkumar Babubhai Sutariya, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-7(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1992/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Passing The Impugned Order Of Penalty. 1.3 The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grievously Erred In Law & Or On Facts In Imposing Penalty Of Rs 30,000/- For Alleged Default Of Non- Compliance To The Notices Issued U/S 142(1).”

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia & Shri Samir VoraFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

against order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (in short ‘the CIT(A)’) confirming the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 08.11.2024 pertaining to Assessment Year ... hold, to reject the same as non-acceptable. 8. In the light of the same, we hold that there is no case for levy of penalty for non-compliance of notices. ITA No. 1992/Ahd/2024 [Nareshkumar Babubhai Sutariya vs. ITO] A.Y. 2013-14 - 5 – 9. The penalty, therefore, levied amounting

Shri Prakash Vilas Rasal, Sangli vs. ITO, Ward 5, Sangli

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

ITA 83/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Smt. Vinita Shah (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk
Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

above bunch of appeals at the instance of assessee are against the orders of ld.CIT(A) evenly dated 19.11 2024 affirming the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act pertaining to assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2016-17 and 2015-16 respectively. 2. At the outset ... contention. 3. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. Instant four appeals under appeal are against the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. We find that the quantum issue was also challenged by the assessee and vide order dated 21.03.2025 this

Shri Prakash Vilas Rasal, Sangli vs. ITO, Ward 5, Sangli

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

ITA 81/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Smt. Vinita Shah (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk
Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

above bunch of appeals at the instance of assessee are against the orders of ld.CIT(A) evenly dated 19.11 2024 affirming the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act pertaining to assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2016-17 and 2015-16 respectively. 2. At the outset ... contention. 3. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. Instant four appeals under appeal are against the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. We find that the quantum issue was also challenged by the assessee and vide order dated 21.03.2025 this

Shri Prakash Vilas Rasal, Sangli vs. I.T.O Ward-5, Sangli

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

ITA 80/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Smt. Vinita Shah (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk
Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

above bunch of appeals at the instance of assessee are against the orders of ld.CIT(A) evenly dated 19.11 2024 affirming the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act pertaining to assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2016-17 and 2015-16 respectively. 2. At the outset ... contention. 3. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. Instant four appeals under appeal are against the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. We find that the quantum issue was also challenged by the assessee and vide order dated 21.03.2025 this

Shri Prakash Vilas Rasal, Sangli vs. ITO, Wrd.5, Sngli, Sangli

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

ITA 78/PUN/2025[2013-14Q]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Smt. Vinita Shah (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk
Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

above bunch of appeals at the instance of assessee are against the orders of ld.CIT(A) evenly dated 19.11 2024 affirming the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act pertaining to assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2016-17 and 2015-16 respectively. 2. At the outset ... contention. 3. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. Instant four appeals under appeal are against the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. We find that the quantum issue was also challenged by the assessee and vide order dated 21.03.2025 this

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Parasuraman Karthik Iyer, Chennai

In the result, appeals in ITA

ITA 31/HYD/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1796 To 1798/Hyd/2019 & Ita Nos.30 & 31/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Dy. Cit Vs. Shri Parasuraman Karthik Iyer, Chennai Circle 16(2) Pan:Aftpk1261M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. M. Narmada, Cit(Dr) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese 5 Appeals Filed By The Department Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Cit (A)-4, Hyderabad, Out Of Which 3 Appeals Are Arising From The Orders Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 For The A.Y 2008-09 To 2010-11 & 2 Appeals Are Arising From The Penalty Order Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act, For The A.Ys 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively. In The Quantum Appeals, The Department Has Raised

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. M. Narmada, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 80G

others of 2019 Parasuraman Karthik Iyer Assessing Officer in the quantum appeals, therefore, the matters of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are also set aside to the record of the Assessing Officer for taking the steps as per the outcome of the set aside proceedings

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Parasuraman Karthik Iyer, Chennai

In the result, appeals in ITA

ITA 30/HYD/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1796 To 1798/Hyd/2019 & Ita Nos.30 & 31/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Dy. Cit Vs. Shri Parasuraman Karthik Iyer, Chennai Circle 16(2) Pan:Aftpk1261M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. M. Narmada, Cit(Dr) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese 5 Appeals Filed By The Department Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Cit (A)-4, Hyderabad, Out Of Which 3 Appeals Are Arising From The Orders Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 For The A.Y 2008-09 To 2010-11 & 2 Appeals Are Arising From The Penalty Order Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act, For The A.Ys 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively. In The Quantum Appeals, The Department Has Raised

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. M. Narmada, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 80G

others of 2019 Parasuraman Karthik Iyer Assessing Officer in the quantum appeals, therefore, the matters of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are also set aside to the record of the Assessing Officer for taking the steps as per the outcome of the set aside proceedings

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Parasuraman Karthik Iyer, Chennai

In the result, appeals in ITA

ITA 1798/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1796 To 1798/Hyd/2019 & Ita Nos.30 & 31/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Dy. Cit Vs. Shri Parasuraman Karthik Iyer, Chennai Circle 16(2) Pan:Aftpk1261M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. M. Narmada, Cit(Dr) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese 5 Appeals Filed By The Department Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Cit (A)-4, Hyderabad, Out Of Which 3 Appeals Are Arising From The Orders Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 For The A.Y 2008-09 To 2010-11 & 2 Appeals Are Arising From The Penalty Order Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act, For The A.Ys 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively. In The Quantum Appeals, The Department Has Raised

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. M. Narmada, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 80G

others of 2019 Parasuraman Karthik Iyer Assessing Officer in the quantum appeals, therefore, the matters of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are also set aside to the record of the Assessing Officer for taking the steps as per the outcome of the set aside proceedings