← All Phrases

“deletion of penalty”

PenaltySection 271Section 271348 judgments

The decision most relied on for deletion of penalty is Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust v. ADIT (115 TTJ 419), cited in 292 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on deletion of penalty

Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust v. ADIT
115 TTJ 419 · 2008 · ITAT
292
citing judgments

Penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) for non-compliance with a notice issued under Section 142(1) is not leviable when the assessee demonstrates a reasonable cause for such non-compliance. The decision defines what constitutes 'reasonable cause' in this context.

Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation v. DCIT 22(2), Mumbai
84 Taxmann.com 51 · 2017 · ITAT
263
citing judgments

A penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars cannot be deleted merely due to technical defects in the penalty notice, such as not ticking the specific default, if the assessee understood the charges.

K.C. Builders & Anr. v. ACIT
265 ITR 562 · 2004 · Supreme Court
241
citing judgments

When the addition made in the assessment order, on the basis of which a penalty for concealment under section 271(1)(c) is levied, is subsequently deleted, the penalty has no basis and must be cancelled.

CIT v. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd.
221 ITR 110 · 1996 · High Court
146
citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act cannot be levied when an addition to income is based purely on an estimate, without concrete evidence proving concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.

CIT v. Krishi Tyre Retreading and Rubber Industries
360 ITR 580 · 2014 · High Court
117
citing judgments

No penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act is leviable when an addition to income is made purely on an estimation basis, absent concrete evidence of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.

CIT v. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd.
303 ITR 53 · 2008 · High Court
116
citing judgments

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act is not leviable when an addition to income is made purely on an estimated basis, without any concrete evidence of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.

Surajmal Parsuram Todi v. CIT
222 ITR 691 · 1996 · High Court
114
citing judgments

A penalty under Section 271B for failure to get accounts audited cannot be levied if a penalty under Section 271A has already been imposed for non-maintenance of books of account.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Triumph International Finance (I) Ltd.
345 ITR 270 · 2012 · High Court
114
citing judgments

Transactions involving the receipt or repayment of loans or deposits solely through journal entries, without actual cash movement, contravene Sections 269SS and 269T. However, penalties under Sections 271D or 271E for such contraventions are not imposable if the assessee demonstrates a reasonable cause under Section 273B, particularly when no cash has passed between parties.

Judgments citing deletion of penalty

Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., Burla, Sambalpur vs. DCIT Circle2(1), Sambalpur

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue being ITA No

ITA 14/CTK/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Girish Agrawalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.14 To 17/Ctk/2023 & आयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.41/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2016-2017 To 2020-2021) Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Vs Acit/Dcit, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur-768020 Pan No. :Aabcm 5188 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.70 To 73/Ctk/2023 & आयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.147/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2016-2017 To 2020-2021) Acit/Dcit, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur Vs Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur-768020 Pan No. :Aabcm 5188 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.69/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Acit/Dcit, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur Vs Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur-768020 Pan No. :Aabcm 5188 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.S.Poddar, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench :

For Appellant: Shri S.S.Poddar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

respective appeals for the assessment years 2016-2017 to 2020- 2021. 3. ITA No.69/CTK/2023 is an appeal filed by the revenue against the deletion of penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act by the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi, dated 30.11.2022, passed in DIN & Order ... Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 30.11.2022, passed in DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1047723977(1) for the assessment year 2015-2016, wherein the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. 63. It was submitted by the ld. CIT-DR that the AO had levied penalty on account

D.C.I.T. Amravati Circle, Amaravati vs. The Amravati Zilla Parishad Shikshak Sahakari Bank Ltd., Amaravati

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 239/NAG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Kapin Hirani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Kanojiya, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

short Act”]. 2. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 3. Coming to the Revenue’s sole substantive grievance challenging the deletion of penalty of Rs.82,73,704/- imposed u/s 271(1)(c) by the Assessing Officer’s corresponding order dated 06.09.2016 and reversed in the CIT(A)’s lower

DCIT, Circle-7(2), New Delhi vs. Direct News Private Ltd.(Previously Known As M/S Inx Pvt. Ltd.), New Delhi

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 593/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

assessee company failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of M/s Indi Media Company Pvt. Ltd. Revenue has also challenged the deletion of penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for allegedly furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee for A.Y. 2012-13. 3. During

ACIT, Circle-7(2), New Delhi vs. Direct News P.Ltd, Delhi

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 6146/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

assessee company failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of M/s Indi Media Company Pvt. Ltd. Revenue has also challenged the deletion of penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for allegedly furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee for A.Y. 2012-13. 3. During

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Inx News Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 1788/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

assessee company failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of M/s Indi Media Company Pvt. Ltd. Revenue has also challenged the deletion of penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for allegedly furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee for A.Y. 2012-13. 3. During

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Inx News Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 1787/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

assessee company failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of M/s Indi Media Company Pvt. Ltd. Revenue has also challenged the deletion of penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for allegedly furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee for A.Y. 2012-13. 3. During

Uma Mandal, Jaipur (Rajasthan) vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

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

ITA 281/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 280 & 281/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2010-11 Uma Mandal 754, Lodho Ka Maohalla M. D. Road, Ward No. 34, Jaipur cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2), Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: APSPM 2419 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : None jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a lquokbZ dh rkjh[

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 271ASection 271BSection 273BSection 44A

accounts have been maintained by the assessee and as such question of audit thereof does not arise. It is hereby thus prayed to delete the penalty so imposed. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) grossly erred in law and facts by approving ... that the notice by which the jurisdiction has been assumed by Ld. AO is vague and invalid. It is hereby thus prayed to delete the penalty so imposed. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) grossly erred in law and facts by approving

Uma Mandal, Jaipur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

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

ITA 280/JPR/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Sept 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 280 & 281/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2010-11 Uma Mandal 754, Lodho Ka Maohalla M. D. Road, Ward No. 34, Jaipur cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2), Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: APSPM 2419 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : None jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a lquokbZ dh rkjh[

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 271ASection 271BSection 273BSection 44A

accounts have been maintained by the assessee and as such question of audit thereof does not arise. It is hereby thus prayed to delete the penalty so imposed. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) grossly erred in law and facts by approving ... that the notice by which the jurisdiction has been assumed by Ld. AO is vague and invalid. It is hereby thus prayed to delete the penalty so imposed. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) grossly erred in law and facts by approving

Smt. Jaya Mogra, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 333/JODH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur20 Sept 2023AY 2009-10
Section 127Section 132Section 271(1)(c)

estimated income basis is liable to be deleted. 2.5 In view of the forgoing judgments and material facts, the appellant humbly prays for deletion of penalty of Rs. 729,100/- and allow this ground of appeal. We pray that the appeal may kindly be allowed. The letter of authority

ACIT, Circle-13(1), New Delhi vs. Johnson Matthey India P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 735/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Anukrati Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT(DR)
Section 271(1)(c)

733/Del/2023 are as under:- 1. That whether on the facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is erred in deleting the penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act levying penalty of Rs. 5,16,62,058/- that the assessee has knowingly and willingly furnished inaccurate particulars ... payment made under cost sharing arrangements. 2. That whether, on the facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is erred in deleting the penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act levying penalty of Rs. 5,16,62,058/- that the assessee has knowingly and willingly furnished inaccurate

ACIT, Circle 13(1), New Delhi vs. Johnson Matthey India P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 734/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Anukrati Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT(DR)
Section 271(1)(c)

733/Del/2023 are as under:- 1. That whether on the facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is erred in deleting the penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act levying penalty of Rs. 5,16,62,058/- that the assessee has knowingly and willingly furnished inaccurate particulars ... payment made under cost sharing arrangements. 2. That whether, on the facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is erred in deleting the penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act levying penalty of Rs. 5,16,62,058/- that the assessee has knowingly and willingly furnished inaccurate

Aci, Circle 13(1), New Delhi vs. Johnson Matthey India P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 733/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Anukrati Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT(DR)
Section 271(1)(c)

733/Del/2023 are as under:- 1. That whether on the facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is erred in deleting the penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act levying penalty of Rs. 5,16,62,058/- that the assessee has knowingly and willingly furnished inaccurate particulars ... payment made under cost sharing arrangements. 2. That whether, on the facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is erred in deleting the penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act levying penalty of Rs. 5,16,62,058/- that the assessee has knowingly and willingly furnished inaccurate

ACIT, Circle-13(1), New Delhi vs. Johnson Maththey India P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 732/DEL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Anukrati Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT(DR)
Section 271(1)(c)

733/Del/2023 are as under:- 1. That whether on the facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is erred in deleting the penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act levying penalty of Rs. 5,16,62,058/- that the assessee has knowingly and willingly furnished inaccurate particulars ... payment made under cost sharing arrangements. 2. That whether, on the facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is erred in deleting the penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act levying penalty of Rs. 5,16,62,058/- that the assessee has knowingly and willingly furnished inaccurate

DCIT, CC-3, Thane vs. M/S. Sai Sugam Enterprises, Vasai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1474/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1474/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) Dcit, Central Circle-3 बिधम/ Sai Sugam Enterprises D- Room No. 11, A-Wing, 6Th Ii-01/02 Aakansha Vs. Floor, Ashar I. T. Park, Commercial Comp., Road No. 16-Z Wagle Nallasopara (West), Industrial Estate, Thane 401209. (W)-400604. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abvfs4193G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi Revenue By: Dr. Kishore Dhule (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Pune Dated 10.02.2023 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi Pointed Out That The Ao Had Levied An Amount Of Rs.71,78,070/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) By Penalty Order Dated 14.02.2017 For Ay. 2011-12. According To Him, On Appeal, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Taken Note Of The Fact That In The Notice Issued By Ao Before Levy Of Penalty, The Ao Failed To Strike Out The Faults/Charges Which Are Not Applicable To Assessee. Meaning, Ao In The Penalty Notice Didn’T Specify The Fault/Charge Against Which Assessee Is Being Proceeded Against For Levy Of Penalty; & So, Assesse Was In The Dark As To What Was The Fault Charged Against

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule (DR)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

which the AO was proposing to levy penalty. Therefore, according to Ld CIT(A) the penalty levied by AO is vitiated and ordered deletion of penalty. And for taking such a view, the Ld. CIT(A) has relied on the Full Bench decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax. Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Milan Kavinchandra Parikh, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1382/MUM/2023[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

following grounds:– “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A)has erred in deleting the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without considering that specific information in form of 'Base Note ... assessee. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A)has erred in deleting the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer w/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without considering that during the penalty proceedings the assessee had failed

Shafiq Ahmed, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(2) Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 249/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ankur, ProxyFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271BSection 44A

produced the relevant details in support of its grounds of appeal during appellate proceedings and also did not submit any explanation for deletion of penalty u/s 271B of the I.T. Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO treated the entire gross receipts (cash deposits) of Rs.97

Shri Balbir Singh M/S Jaideep Gift Centre Taptej Singh Market, Moga vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Moga Range Moga, Moga

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 746/ASR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Radhey Shyam Jaiswal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 27Section 271D

KPVS Mohammad Rowther & Co. 232 ITR 176 (Mad) held that ignorance of law can be a reasonable cause for the failure and deletion of penalty was justified. Where the Ld. AO during Assessment proceedings already made additions of such Loan (as held by AO) as deemed dividend ... genuineness of the transaction was accepted. In the case of CIT vs. Balaji Traders, 303 ITR 312 (Mad) it has been held that deletion of penalty was justified in a case where:- (i) creditors are genuine and transactions not doubted (ii) there is no revenue loss to the exchequer

Shri Balbir Singh M/S Jaideep Gift Centre, Taptej Singh Market, Moga vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Moga Range, Moga

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 745/ASR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Radhey Shyam Jaiswal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 27Section 271D

KPVS Mohammad Rowther & Co. 232 ITR 176 (Mad) held that ignorance of law can be a reasonable cause for the failure and deletion of penalty was justified. Where the Ld. AO during Assessment proceedings already made additions of such Loan (as held by AO) as deemed dividend ... genuineness of the transaction was accepted. In the case of CIT vs. Balaji Traders, 303 ITR 312 (Mad) it has been held that deletion of penalty was justified in a case where:- (i) creditors are genuine and transactions not doubted (ii) there is no revenue loss to the exchequer

Sheetal Mehra, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-40(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 907/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Pradip Kumar Kediasheetal Mehra Vs. Ito Qp-40, 2Nd Floor, Ward – 40(1) Pitampura, New Delhi-34 New Delhi Pan No. Ajapm 1364 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Snehil, Adv. Revenue By Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.07.2023

Section 271(1)(c)

aforesaid legal ground, we are not inclined to deal with other aspect of the arguments raised on behalf of the assessee for deletion of penalty. Sheetal Mehra vs. ITO 4 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 17.07.2023 (KUL BHARAT

The Income-Tax Officer -41(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Mr Jaiprakash Dhirajlal Barbhaya, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 475/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Bleincome Tax Officer – 41(2)(2) V. Jaiprakash Dhirajlal Barbhaya 301, Mahavir Apartment Room No. 636, 6Th Floor Nahur Road, Sarvodaya Nagar Kautilya Bhavan Mumbai – 400080 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Agppb9599J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

challenging the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. After considering the detailed submissions, Ld.CIT(A) deleted the penalty since non-striking of irrelevant limb in the notice issued u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and also considering that disallowance ... Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in law in deleting the penalty knowing the fact that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed and levied on the addition of bogus purchase where