“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

Sant Shankar Maharaj Aashram, Amravati vs. DCIT ACIT Cir-Exemp, Nagpur

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 504/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 143Section 144Section 270ASection 270A(2)Section 271

maximum rate. Penalty levied can range from 50% to 200%. 200% is for misreporting of income. In this case there is 200% levy of penalty which is wrong. As has been held it is a case of under reporting of income were taxpayer failed to bring to tax an item ... penalty sustained by the learned CIT(A) is hereby quashed. Even on merits also, the penalty is not exigible. Hence, the levy of penalty is hereby directed to be directed. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 9. In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

Meena Gupta, Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-14, New Delhi

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

ITA 1418/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Madhav Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)

Gupta the Assessing Officer, being not impressed with the explanation of the assessee levied penalty on the said disallowance. The AO however, while levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act mentioned that it is for “concealment of income by way of furnishing inaccurate particulars”. 6. Aggrieved ... High Court of Delhi in the case of Virgo Marketing Pvt Ltd [2008] 171 Taxmann 156 [Delhi] had disapproved the levy of penalty holding as under: “We are unable to discern from a reading of the assessment order why the Assessing Officer chose to initiate penalty proceedings against the assessed

ACIT, Circle- 26(2), New Delhi vs. Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Earlier Knwon As Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), New Delhi

ITA 8079/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 1999-2000 Vs. M/S. Vodafone West Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Thereafter Merged With New Delhi Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacf1190P (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/S. Vodafone Idea Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Earlier Known As Vodafone New Delhi Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacb2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Sh. Anil Chachra, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Department By Sh. Vijay B. Basanta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.03.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm These Revenue’S Appeals Ita No.7658/Del/2018 & 8079/Del/2018 For Assessment Years 1999-2000 & 2007-08

Section 271(1)(c)

vide his lower appellate discussion reading as under: “5.4 Ground no. 2 is directed against the grievance of appellant with regard to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on technical ground. 5.5 The AR of the appellant submits as under: 1. At the foremost, the Appellant furnished that ... Petroproducts (2010) (3 taxmann.com 47) (Supreme Court), the assessing officer had rejected the company's claim for deduction on its interest expenditure and levied a penalty on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the tax department cannot levy penalty

ACIT, Circle-26(2), New Delhi vs. Vodafone West Ltd., (Thereafter Merged With Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), New Delhi

ITA 7658/DEL/2018[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 1999-2000

Section 271(1)(c)

DCIT(It)-3(2)(1), Income Tax Department International Taxation vs. Maquet Critical Care Ab, Sweden

Accordingly, the appeals must be dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 5099/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 201Section 271C

order under section 201. Consequently, there would be a levy of interest in terms of section 201(1A) as well as a levy of penalty under section 271C, if such failure was without reasonable cause. The amount of tax that could have been recovered from the payer would be equivalent

ACIT(It) 3 2 1 Mumbai, Income Tax Department International Taxation vs. Maquet Critical Care Ab, Sweden

Accordingly, the appeals must be dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 5096/MUM/2024[2016 17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 201Section 271C

ACIT(It)3-2-1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Maquet Critical Care Ab, Sweden

Accordingly, the appeals must be dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 5095/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 201Section 271C

Subramanyan Harikumar, Palkkad vs. JCIT, Palakkad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 711/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Subramanyan Harikumar .......... Appellant 29/58-4, 42/409-I, Mania, M.G. Road Karnaki Nagar, Palakkad 678001 [Pan: Achph7765A] Vs. Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent Aayakar Bhavan, English Church Road Palakkad 678014 Appellant By: Smt. Divya Ravindran, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.03.2025

For Appellant: Smt. Divya Ravindran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271D

directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)], dated 14.06.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 confirming the levy of penalty u/s. 271D of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act"). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual ... advance was received on sale of the said property, therefore, provisions of section 269SS had no application. However, the JCIT had proceeded with levy of penalty of Rs. 17,50,000/- u/s. 271D of the Act vide order dated 19.01.2022 placing reliance on the provisions of clause (iv) of Explanation

K B S Enterprises, Jaipur vs. ACIT (Circle-6), Jaipur

Appeal is allowed and both the said orders are hereby set aside

ITA 1346/JPR/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Mar 2025AY 2012-2013

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhry, JCIT-DR

Section 271(1)Section 274

that in such like matters, where notice is to be issued on account of violation of any provisions of law calling for levy of penalty, the concerned officer must communicate to the alleged violator of law, the particular ground, regarding which said person was required to furnish explanation or show

Shivratan Motilalji Rathi HUF, India vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jalna, India

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2599/PUN/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2599, 1704 & 2256/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: Smt. Smruti SabniaFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

reopening vide order dated 27.03.2019. Ld. AR submitted that since the substantive additions itself have been deleted, there remains no ground for levy of penalty on the protective addition which itself does not stand for. He further referring to the judgment of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court

Shivratan Motilalji Rathi HUF, Pune vs. ITO Jalna, Jalna

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2256/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2599, 1704 & 2256/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: Smt. Smruti SabniaFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

Kolhapur Zilla Krishi Karmachari Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Kolhapur

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

ITA 1763/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Sarang GudhateFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(3)Section 249Section 270ASection 80P

Rs.5,72,116/-. 3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. Assessing Officer has recorded inadequate satisfaction for levy of penalty. Hence, penalty needs to be dropped. 4. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, since the assessee has filed the appeal against Quantum

Shivratan Motilal Rathi, Jalna vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jana, Jalna

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1704/PUN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2599, 1704 & 2256/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: Smt. Smruti SabniaFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

Vikram Reddy, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-18(5), Chennai

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

ITA 311/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K., Vice- & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 310 & 311/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vikram Reddy, Income Tax Officer, 202, Lotus Serviced Apartments Vs. Non Corporate Ward - 18(5), 15, Venkataraman Street, Chennai. Thiyagaraya Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan: Aqzpv5520B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 19.03.2025 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 270ASection 69

dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 9. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against levy of penalty under section 270A of the Act. Since the quantum addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 144 of the Act has :-5-: ITA. Nos:310 & 311/Chny/2025 ... However, since we have remitted the quantum addition to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for adjudication in accordance with law, the levy of penalty under section 270A is also remitted to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after deciding the quantum addition on merits

Vikram Reddy, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-18(5), Chennai

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

ITA 310/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 270ASection 69

Amrrut Shavjjibhai Gada, Mumbai vs. Dycit, Circle-13(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3773/MUM/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhailamrrut Shavjjibhai Gada Sejal Glass House, Krishna Kunj Ground Floor, S.V. Road, Malad West, Mumbai 400064 ……………. Appellant Pan: Aadpg5298D V/S

For Appellant: Dr. Prayag JhaFor Respondent: Shri. Ram Krishna Kedia, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 221Section 221(1)Section 250

Grounds of Appeal during the course of appeal proceedings.” 3. The solitary grievance of the assessee, in the present appeal, is against the levy of penalty under section 221(1) of the Act. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business ... despite having sufficient income chose not to pay the outstanding tax demand even after the lapse of almost 9 years. Accordingly, the AO levied a penalty of INR 1,21,24,070 under section 221(1) of the Act. 5. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, after considering

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. The Dy-CIT (Int. Taxation)-2(1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 749/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Dcit (International Taxation)- Investment Bank (Formerly 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) : Respondent)

Section 143(3)

No.17 earned by Hong Kong Branch on ECB to 15 & 18 Indian borrowers Levy of interest under section 234B Ground No.19 Ground No.22 Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) Ground No.20 Ground No.23 45. From the above table it is clear that the grounds of the assessee ... Indian Branch for marketing of derivative products (60% of INPV was attributed) Levy of interest under section 234B Ground No.26 Ground No.19 Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) Ground No.27 Ground No.20 Cost incurred by HO/OB towards credit risk Ground No.6 - assistance, EDP assistance HO-System Implementation Charges

Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. The Dy.CIT of Income Tax (Internationsl Taxation) -2(1) (1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1234/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Section 143(3)

Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. The Jt CIT (International Taxationa), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1027/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1839/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Adit (International Taxation)- 1(2), Room No. 119, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Vs.11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1273/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1165/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit (International Taxation)- 1(1)(1), Room No. 114, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Vs. Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, 11Th & 12Th & 14Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B : Respondent)

Section 143(3)

Taxability in India at 50% of commission earned by Hong Kong Branch on ECB to Indian borrowers Levy of interest under section 234B Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) AY 2011-12 Ground No.1 AY 2010-11 Ground No.1 Ground No.2 & 3 Ground No.2 & 3 Ground No.4 Ground

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. ACIT (It) 2 (1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 458/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1839/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Adit (International Taxation)- 1(2), Room No. 119, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Vs.11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1273/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Respondent) 2

Section 143(3)

Indian borrowers Ground No.14 & 15 Ground No.17 & 18 Ground No.19 Ground No.20 Ground No.22 Ground No.23 Levy of interest under section 234B Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) 45. From the above table it is clear that the grounds of the assessee and the revenue raised