← 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

Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav, Pune vs. DCIT, CC-2(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2144/PUN/2024[AY 2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav Central Circle 2(1), Vs. Plot No.42-44, Green Park Society, Pune Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aanpj0592P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav Dcit, Plot No.42-44, Green Park Society, Vs. Central Circle 2(1), Pune Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aanpj0592P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Cit & Shri Arvind Desai, Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 23-01-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-04-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – CIT and Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 245C(1)Section 245DSection 245D(4)Section 245HSection 271(1)(c)

civil application of the assessee declined to stay the penalty proceeding and hence as of now there is no bar on levying the penalty and hence penalty has to be levied on the fact and circumstances of the case. 18 AO has initiated the penalty of concealment of income ... merits as well as on technical aspects in this appeal. Apart from various contentions Appellant has also raised issue of time limit for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In this regard, following key events chart is extracted from Appellant's submissions. Date Event

DCIT, CC-2(1), Pune vs. Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1307/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav Central Circle 2(1), Vs. Plot No.42-44, Green Park Society, Pune Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aanpj0592P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav Dcit, Plot No.42-44, Green Park Society, Vs. Central Circle 2(1), Pune Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aanpj0592P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Cit & Shri Arvind Desai, Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 23-01-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-04-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – CIT and Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 245C(1)Section 245DSection 245D(4)Section 245HSection 271(1)(c)

civil application of the assessee declined to stay the penalty proceeding and hence as of now there is no bar on levying the penalty and hence penalty has to be levied on the fact and circumstances of the case. 18 AO has initiated the penalty of concealment of income ... merits as well as on technical aspects in this appeal. Apart from various contentions Appellant has also raised issue of time limit for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In this regard, following key events chart is extracted from Appellant's submissions. Date Event

Shivaji Laxman Sahane, Nashik vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Nashik

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1078/PUN/2024[A.Y. 2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1078/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S.ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

levied 2 Shavaji Laxman Sahane penalty of Rs.1.40 crore. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before the ld.CIT(A) against the levy of penalty which came to be dismissed. 3. Aggrieved assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal challenging the impugned order by raising the following grounds: “1. On the basis ... facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) is not justified in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs.1,40,87,934/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. On the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Union Bank of India, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 316/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Apr 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, C.A. &For Respondent: Ms. M Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(vila)

case of Bapunagar Mahila Co-operative Bank Ltd.(supra), where the Tribunal deleted identical additions made by the Assessing Officer towards levy of penalty by RBI for violation of its directions. In the present case, RBI imposed penalty for deviation in implementation of KYC-AML guidelines and therefore

Union Bank of India (Erstwhile-Andhra Bank), Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 193/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, C.A. &For Respondent: Ms. M Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(vila)

case of Bapunagar Mahila Co-operative Bank Ltd.(supra), where the Tribunal deleted identical additions made by the Assessing Officer towards levy of penalty by RBI for violation of its directions. In the present case, RBI imposed penalty for deviation in implementation of KYC-AML guidelines and therefore

Deejay Stocks Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee and revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4695/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 139Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)

decided afresh, accordingly, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the aforesaid appeal assessee has challenged the levy of penalty of Rs.4,20,000/- u/s.271AAC(1). It is in respect of the same quantum of addition of Rs.53,93,600/- wherein, ld. AO has levied penalty ... decided on facts and in law. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 7. In the aforesaid appeal assessee has challenged the levy of penalty of Rs.30,000/- for non-compliance u/s.272A(1)(d). We find that assessee has stated that when the assessment proceedings were initiated, the Director

Deejay Stocks Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee and revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4694/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 139Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)

decided afresh, accordingly, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the aforesaid appeal assessee has challenged the levy of penalty of Rs.4,20,000/- u/s.271AAC(1). It is in respect of the same quantum of addition of Rs.53,93,600/- wherein, ld. AO has levied penalty ... decided on facts and in law. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 7. In the aforesaid appeal assessee has challenged the levy of penalty of Rs.30,000/- for non-compliance u/s.272A(1)(d). We find that assessee has stated that when the assessment proceedings were initiated, the Director

Deejay Stocks Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee and revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4693/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 139Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)

decided afresh, accordingly, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the aforesaid appeal assessee has challenged the levy of penalty of Rs.4,20,000/- u/s.271AAC(1). It is in respect of the same quantum of addition of Rs.53,93,600/- wherein, ld. AO has levied penalty ... decided on facts and in law. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 7. In the aforesaid appeal assessee has challenged the levy of penalty of Rs.30,000/- for non-compliance u/s.272A(1)(d). We find that assessee has stated that when the assessment proceedings were initiated, the Director

Deejay Stocks Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee and revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4691/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 139Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)

decided afresh, accordingly, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the aforesaid appeal assessee has challenged the levy of penalty of Rs.4,20,000/- u/s.271AAC(1). It is in respect of the same quantum of addition of Rs.53,93,600/- wherein, ld. AO has levied penalty ... decided on facts and in law. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 7. In the aforesaid appeal assessee has challenged the levy of penalty of Rs.30,000/- for non-compliance u/s.272A(1)(d). We find that assessee has stated that when the assessment proceedings were initiated, the Director

ACIT, Room No. Aayakar Bhawan vs. Deejay Stocks Pvt Ltd, Mumbai City

In the result, appeals of the assessee and revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4671/MUM/2024[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 139Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)

decided afresh, accordingly, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the aforesaid appeal assessee has challenged the levy of penalty of Rs.4,20,000/- u/s.271AAC(1). It is in respect of the same quantum of addition of Rs.53,93,600/- wherein, ld. AO has levied penalty ... decided on facts and in law. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 7. In the aforesaid appeal assessee has challenged the levy of penalty of Rs.30,000/- for non-compliance u/s.272A(1)(d). We find that assessee has stated that when the assessment proceedings were initiated, the Director

ACIT, Mumbai City vs. Deejay Stocks Pvt Ltd, Borivali Maharashtra

In the result, appeals of the assessee and revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4668/MUM/2024[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 139Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)

decided afresh, accordingly, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the aforesaid appeal assessee has challenged the levy of penalty of Rs.4,20,000/- u/s.271AAC(1). It is in respect of the same quantum of addition of Rs.53,93,600/- wherein, ld. AO has levied penalty ... decided on facts and in law. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 7. In the aforesaid appeal assessee has challenged the levy of penalty of Rs.30,000/- for non-compliance u/s.272A(1)(d). We find that assessee has stated that when the assessment proceedings were initiated, the Director

M/S Kunj Power Projects Pvt.Ltd, Mathura vs. Addl.CIT(TDS), Kanpur

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 152/AGR/2022[2024-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Apr 2025AY 2024-15

Bench: : Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250(6)Section 271CSection 271C(1)(a)Section 276C

appeal either before or at the time of hearing in the above appeal. 3. The solitary issue in the present case pertains to levy of penalty u/s.271C of the Act. The orders of the authorities below reveal that the penalty was levied for violation on the part of the assessee ... required to be noted that the said circular as deals with the circumstances under which Section 271C was introduced in the Statute, for levy of penalty. Paragraph 16.5 of the above Circular reads as follows: “16.5: Insertion of a new section 271C to provide for levy of penalty for failure

Indo Pacific Finlease Ltd, Chandigarh vs. PCIT- Chandigarh 1, Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals are filed by the

ITA 449/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shrilaliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं . / I.T.A. Nos.448 & 449/Chd/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Sh.Rohit Sharma, CIT-D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 203(1)Section 263

Dhiraj Suri vs ACIT 98 ITD 87 (Del). In the said case, appeal was filed by the assessee before the Tribunal against the levy of penalty. In the appeal challenging the penalty order, the assESSEE challenged the validity of block assessment order which had ITA Nos.208/CHD/2021 & Ors. A.Ys ... therefore it is open to the assessee to set up the question of validity of the assessment in the appeal against the levy of penalty. 8. 9. We also derive support from another judgement of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Inventors Industrial Corporation

Indo Pacific Finlease Ltd, Chandigarh vs. PCIT Chandigarh 1, Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals are filed by the

ITA 448/CHANDI/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shrilaliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं . / I.T.A. Nos.448 & 449/Chd/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Vs Pcitchandigarh 1, Chandigarh Indo Pacific Finlease Ltd., Sco-98-99, Sector 34 Sub City Centre, Chandigarh 160002 स्थायीलेखासं./Panno. Aaaci2176E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By : Sh. Ashok Goel, C.A. Revenue By : Sh.Rohit Sharma, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing :19.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement ;16/04/2025 Physical Hearing Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M.: Both The Appeals Are Being Filed By The Assessee, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chandigarh-1 Dated 28.03.2024& 23.03.2024 U/S 263 For The Assessment Years: 2014-15& 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Common Grounds Of Appeal In Ita Nos.448 & 449/Chd/2024 As Under:

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Sh.Rohit Sharma, CIT-D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 203(1)Section 263

Dhiraj Suri vs ACIT 98 ITD 87 (Del). In the said case, appeal was filed by the assessee before the Tribunal against the levy of penalty. In the appeal challenging the penalty order, the assESSEE challenged the validity of block assessment order which had ITA Nos.208/CHD/2021 & Ors. A.Ys ... therefore it is open to the assessee to set up the question of validity of the assessment in the appeal against the levy of penalty. 8. 9. We also derive support from another judgement of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Inventors Industrial Corporation

Mohan Krishna Jadhav, Sangli vs. Income Tax Office, Kolhapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1495/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1495/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Mohan Krishna Jadhav, V The Income Tax Office. Hotel Vaishali, S A/P-Kameri, Tal-Walwa, Sangli – 415403. Pan: Adbpj1592J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte - Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde - Dr Date Of Hearing 20/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2019-20, Dated 19.06.2024 Emanating From The Penalty Order U/S.270A Of The Act, Dated 11.09.2022 For A.Y.2019-20. “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld.Cit(A)-11, Pune Erred In Confirming The Levy Of Penalty By The Ao U/S 270A In Respect Of Income Declared By The Appellant In Survey Which

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 270A

A.Y.2019-20. “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A)-11, Pune erred in confirming the levy of penalty by the AO u/s 270A in respect of income declared by the appellant in survey which ITA No.2048/PUN/2024 [A] was offered ... accepting the submission of the appellant that: a. There being no difference in the returned income and assessed income, levy of penalty for under reporting of income inconsequence of misreporting is incorrect. b. No penal proceedings having been issued at the time of assessment, initiation and levy of such penalty

Singanamala Sarala, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 200/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, C.AFor Respondent: : Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 263Section 269S

Venkata Amarendra Vs. JCIT dated 04.10.2024 submitted that, the Ld. AO has to record the satisfaction ITA No.200/Hyd/2024 5 in his order for levy of penalty u/s.271D of the Act, although the order of penalty u/s.271D of the Act is not to be levied by the Ld. AO. Further, relying ... account of the assessee on account of sale of property. The Ld. AO did not record any satisfaction in his order for levy of penalty u/s271D of the Act on account of contravention of provisions of section 269SS of the Act. Consequently, the Ld. PCIT exercised his jurisdiction u/s.263

Vara Infraprojects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), Signature Towers, Kondapur

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

ITA 1167/HYD/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Apr 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar ChakrapaniFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, SR-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 69A

accordingly. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 1166/Hyd/2024 is partly allowed. 9. This appeal is related to levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act on the addition made by the Ld. AO in ITA No.1166/Hyd/2024. The Ld. AO has levied a penalty ... assessee justifying the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the Ld. DR prayed before the bench to uphold the order of levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. 13. We have heard the rival contentions and also gone through the record in the light

Vara Infraprojects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1166/HYD/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Apr 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar ChakrapaniFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, SR-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 69A

accordingly. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 1166/Hyd/2024 is partly allowed. 9. This appeal is related to levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act on the addition made by the Ld. AO in ITA No.1166/Hyd/2024. The Ld. AO has levied a penalty ... assessee justifying the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the Ld. DR prayed before the bench to uphold the order of levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. 13. We have heard the rival contentions and also gone through the record in the light

Oakton Global Technology Services Centre (I) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 32/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Bharadawaj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 92B

computing the interest u/s 234C of the Act amounting to Rs.4,11,702 and the same is consequential to the above grounds. 17. Levy of penalty under section 271AA M and 271BA of the Act. Initiating penalty proceedings under section 271AA and 271BA

Oakton Global Technology Services Centre (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 2130/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Bharadawaj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 92B

computing the interest u/s 234C of the Act amounting to Rs.4,11,702 and the same is consequential to the above grounds. 17. Levy of penalty under section 271AA M and 271BA of the Act. Initiating penalty proceedings under section 271AA and 271BA