← 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

ACIT, Circle-9(1), New Delhi vs. Finest Promoters (P) Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, appeals filed by the revenue for AY 2011-12 to 2015-16 in ITA Nos. 7814/Del/2018 to 7817/Del/2018 and 3662/Del/2019 respectively, are dismissed

ITA 7815/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2010-11] M/S. Finest Promoters (P.) Ltd., Vs Acit, 232B, 3Rd Floor, Okhla Industrial Central Circle-10, Estate, Phase-Iii, New Delhi New Delhi-110020. Pan-Aaacf1102H Appellant Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 4Section 80Section 80I

Revenue’s appeal) 16. Now coming to the revenue’s appeal for AY 2010-11 in ITA No. 4277/Del/2019 regarding deletion of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is seen that the penalty at Rs. 2,43,97,690/- was levied ... concealed income on account of disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA claimed at Rs. 7,15,63,075/-. The ld. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty as the Hon’ble Delhi Court has decided the writ petition filed by the assessee in its favour wherein the withdrawal of approval granted

ACIT, Circle-9(1), New Delhi vs. Finest Promoters (P) Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, appeals filed by the revenue for AY 2011-12 to 2015-16 in ITA Nos. 7814/Del/2018 to 7817/Del/2018 and 3662/Del/2019 respectively, are dismissed

ITA 7814/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2010-11] M/S. Finest Promoters (P.) Ltd., Vs Acit, 232B, 3Rd Floor, Okhla Industrial Central Circle-10, Estate, Phase-Iii, New Delhi New Delhi-110020. Pan-Aaacf1102H Appellant Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 4Section 80Section 80I

Revenue’s appeal) 16. Now coming to the revenue’s appeal for AY 2010-11 in ITA No. 4277/Del/2019 regarding deletion of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is seen that the penalty at Rs. 2,43,97,690/- was levied ... concealed income on account of disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA claimed at Rs. 7,15,63,075/-. The ld. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty as the Hon’ble Delhi Court has decided the writ petition filed by the assessee in its favour wherein the withdrawal of approval granted

M/S. Finest Promoters (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Accordingly, appeals filed by the revenue for AY 2011-12 to 2015-16 in ITA Nos. 7814/Del/2018 to 7817/Del/2018 and 3662/Del/2019 respectively, are dismissed

ITA 2736/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2010-11] M/S. Finest Promoters (P.) Ltd., Vs Acit, 232B, 3Rd Floor, Okhla Industrial Central Circle-10, Estate, Phase-Iii, New Delhi New Delhi-110020. Pan-Aaacf1102H Appellant Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 4Section 80Section 80I

Revenue’s appeal) 16. Now coming to the revenue’s appeal for AY 2010-11 in ITA No. 4277/Del/2019 regarding deletion of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is seen that the penalty at Rs. 2,43,97,690/- was levied ... concealed income on account of disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA claimed at Rs. 7,15,63,075/-. The ld. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty as the Hon’ble Delhi Court has decided the writ petition filed by the assessee in its favour wherein the withdrawal of approval granted

DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Viraj Profiles Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 890/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): All the aforesaid appeals have been filed by the Revenue against separate order passed by ld. CIT(A) deleting the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) and 271AAB one arising out of additions made u/s.143(3) and other addition made in the assessment made u/s.153A A.Y.2011-12 ... compete fees, alleged bogus purchases, salary expenditure and unexplained cash / expenses u/s.69A and 69C. The ld. CIT(A) upon elaborate analysis has deleted these penalties. Revenue is in appeal against such penalties. Penalty on Corporate Guarantee Commission @ 0.5% 5. We first take up the penalty levied in respect

DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Viraj Profiles Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are

ITA 889/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2025AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 37Section 69ASection 69C

ORDER PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): All the aforesaid appeals have been filed by the Revenue against separate order passed by ld. CIT(A) deleting the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) and 271AAB one arising out of additions made u/s.143(3) and other addition made in the assessment made u/s.153A A.Y.2011-12 ... compete fees, alleged bogus purchases, salary expenditure and unexplained cash / expenses u/s.69A and 69C. The ld. CIT(A) upon elaborate analysis has deleted these penalties. Revenue is in appeal against such penalties. Penalty on Corporate Guarantee Commission @ 0.5% 5. We first take up the penalty levied in respect

DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Viraj Profiles Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 888/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): All the aforesaid appeals have been filed by the Revenue against separate order passed by ld. CIT(A) deleting the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) and 271AAB one arising out of additions made u/s.143(3) and other addition made in the assessment made u/s.153A A.Y.2011-12 ... compete fees, alleged bogus purchases, salary expenditure and unexplained cash / expenses u/s.69A and 69C. The ld. CIT(A) upon elaborate analysis has deleted these penalties. Revenue is in appeal against such penalties. Penalty on Corporate Guarantee Commission @ 0.5% 5. We first take up the penalty levied in respect

DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Mumbai vs. Viraj Profiles Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are

ITA 872/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai 'F' Bench M/S Viraj Profiles Private Limited Summary Of Penalty Appeals Sr. No. Nature Of Addition/ Disallowance Ay 2011-12 U/S 271(1)(C) Ay 2013-14 U/S 271(1)(C) Ay 2015-16 U/S 271(1)(C) Ay 2017-18 U/S 271Aab Ay 2018-19 U/S 271Aab (Amt In Inr) Total Addition Made U/S 143(3)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 37Section 69ASection 69C

AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): All the aforesaid appeals have been filed by the Revenue against separate order passed by ld. CIT(A) deleting the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) and 271AAB one arising out of additions made u/s.143(3) and other addition made in the assessment made u/s.153A A.Y.2011-12 ... compete fees, alleged bogus purchases, salary expenditure and unexplained cash / expenses u/s.69A and 69C. The ld. CIT(A) upon elaborate analysis has deleted these penalties. Revenue is in appeal against such penalties. Penalty on Corporate Guarantee Commission @ 0.5% 5. We first take up the penalty levied in respect

DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Mumbai vs. Viraj Profiles Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 871/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): All the aforesaid appeals have been filed by the Revenue against separate order passed by ld. CIT(A) deleting the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) and 271AAB one arising out of additions made u/s.143(3) and other addition made in the assessment made u/s.153A A.Y.2011-12 ... compete fees, alleged bogus purchases, salary expenditure and unexplained cash / expenses u/s.69A and 69C. The ld. CIT(A) upon elaborate analysis has deleted these penalties. Revenue is in appeal against such penalties. Penalty on Corporate Guarantee Commission @ 0.5% 5. We first take up the penalty levied in respect

Assistant Commissioner of Income Ta, Jaipur vs. Shri Nath Corporation, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 267/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Hemang Gargieya, Adv. &
Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

raised the following grounds of appeal:- "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the penalty of Rs.1,34,14,976/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case ... Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the penalty of Rs.1,34,14,976/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ignoring the fact that the penalty was levied for concealing the income of Rs.3

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 197/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hemang Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (through V.C.) a
Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the penalty of Rs. 1,34,14,976/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the facts and circumstances ... case?" 2. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the penalty of Rs.1,34,14,976/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ignoring the fact that the penalty was levied for concealing the income of Rs.3

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jaipur vs. Royal Jewellers, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 196/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Hemang Gargieya, Adv. &
Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

raised the following grounds of appeal:- "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the penalty of Rs.1,34,14,976/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case ... Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the penalty of Rs.1,34,14,976/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ignoring the fact that the penalty was levied for concealing the income of Rs.3

Snehalkumar Bhogilal Trivedi, Gandhinagar vs. NFAC, Assessment Unit, Present Juris. the ITO, Ward-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 740/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 740/Ahd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19) बनाम/ Snehalkumar Bhogilal Nfac, Assessment Unit Trivedi – Present Jurisdiction - Vs. B-502, Radhe Helios, Income Tax Officer Reliance Chowkdi, Orbit Ward-3(3)(5), Mall, Kudasan, Ahmedabad Gandhinagar, Gujarat – 382421 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaxpt4034G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Pritesh Shah, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 274Section 54F

notices issued to the assessee remained unresponded. He, however, contended that on legal grounds itself, the assessee had a very good case for deletion of penalty levied u/s.270A of the Act. His contention primarily before us was that Section 270A of the Act provides for levy of penalty ... assessee is not sustainable in law. I ITA No.740/Ahd/2025 [Snehalkumar Bhogilal Trivedi vs. ITO] A.Y. 2018-19 - 6 – therefore direct the deletion of penalty levied in the present case u/s.270A of the Act amounting to Rs.10,61,360/-. Appeal of the assessee is, therefore, allowed. 11. In the result

ITO 19(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Anita Dinesh Dhokar, Mumbai

Accordingly, in terms of the aforesaid CBDT circular, the present appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 2457/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms. Ridhisha Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

reproduced as under: (1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty Ra 1,18,470/- levied by the AQ on the restricted addition 3% of Rs. 5,80,994/ by ignoring the fact that the Maharashtra ... concealment of income?" (2). Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty Rs. 1,18470/- levied by the AO on the restricted addition 3% of Rs.5,80,994/- by ignoring the fact that the disallowance of purchase

Gaurav Ajmera, Ratlam vs. DCIT(Central)-2, Indore

Accordingly, Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is allowed

ITA 808/IND/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 115BSection 131Section 132(4)Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 234ASection 271ASection 274

guess work without being substantiated by any material evidence. The impugned penalty, therefore, cannot be sustained. The Assessing Officer is directed to delete the penalty. 15. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.” 5. Ld. AR argued that the total undisclosed income surrendered by the assessee ... assessment-year 2016-17. Since the penalty imposed in assessment-year 2015- 8 Gaurav Ajmera ITA No. 808/Ind/2024 – AY 2017-18 16 was deleted, the penalty for assessment-year 2016-17 is also not sustainable. Therefore, we uphold the deletion of penalty made

Shri Ramchand Laxmandas Babani, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 192/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No. 192/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2011-12 Shri Ramchand Laxmandas Babani P.No.2, Shiv Shankar Colony Janta Colony, Jaipur – 302 004 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The ITO Ward -6(4) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ANYPB 6571 A अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे/Assesseeby : Shri Mohit Balani, Advocate (Thru" V.C.) राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Shri Gautam Sin

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Balani, Advocate (Thru” V.C.)For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

with Section 251 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed for deletion of penalty amounting to Rs.2,60,090/-imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)©of the Act and the same has been confirmed by the ld.CIT ... RAMCHAND LAXMANDAS BABANI VS ITO, WARD 6(4), JAIPUR 4.8. The Appellant thus requests Your Honors to kindly direct the Assessing officer to delete the penalty levied upon by the Assessing Officer. The appellant shall be grateful if the above submissions are considered while disposing of the appeals

Khodiyar Organisers, Surat vs. ACIT, Circle-2(3), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 36/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.36/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) M/S Khodiyar Organisers, Vs. Acit, Central Plaza, Near Om Terrace, Circle – 2(3), New City Light Road, Surat – Surat 395007, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aakfk1498A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/08/2025

Section 133ASection 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

cannot be automatically imposed. 8.4 The ITAT, Surat also, in group cases of Milestone Developers (supra), upheld deletion of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by the CIT(A). In the said case, the AO has levied the penalty by holding that the amount disclosed in the survey

DCIT-5(2)(1), Aayakar Bhavan vs. Interjewel Pvt Ltd, Opera House

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2332/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Prabhash Shankardeputy Commissioner Of V/S. Interjewel Private Limited, 1508, Prasad Income Tax, Ward – 5(2)(1), बनाम Chambers, Opera House, Room No. 571, 5Th Floor, Mumbai, –400004, Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate, Maharashtra Mumbai–400020, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccd5877B .. Appellant/अपीलार्थी Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Vaidyalingan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, (Sr. DR)
Section 271GSection 92CSection 92D(3)

under: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting the penalty under section 271G when the assessee failed to furnish documentation as required under the rule 10D(1) and sub section ... Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty under section 271G without appreciating that the benchmarking of the entity level profit by the assessee cannot substitute the requirement of benchmarking of the international transactions

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Bathinda vs. Arshpreet Singh, Muktsar

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 532/ASR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.531/Asr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessmentyear: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 532/Asr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessmentyear: 2011-12) Dcit - Circle-1 Shri Arshpreet Singh बनाम/ Bathinda. H.No. 7581, Street No 3 Vs. Namdev Nagar Muktsar "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bczps-6061-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri Charan Dass (Addl. Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondentby : Sh. Manpreet Kanda (Advocate) - Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16-07-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07-08-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () Aggrieved By Deletion Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) For Rs.105.06 1. Lacs & Rs.118.98 Lacs As Levied By Ld. Ao For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively, The Revenue Is In Further Appeals Before Us. The Impugned Orders Have Been Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless

For Appellant: Shri Charan Dass (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Manpreet Kanda (Advocate) - Ld.AR
Section 271(1)(c)

घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 07-08-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) Aggrieved by deletion of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Rs.105.06 1. Lacs and Rs.118.98 Lacs as levied by Ld. AO for Assessment Years (AY) 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Bathinda vs. Arshpreet Singh, Muktsar

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 531/ASR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.531/Asr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessmentyear: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 532/Asr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessmentyear: 2011-12) Dcit - Circle-1 Shri Arshpreet Singh बनाम/ Bathinda. H.No. 7581, Street No 3 Vs. Namdev Nagar Muktsar "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bczps-6061-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri Charan Dass (Addl. Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondentby : Sh. Manpreet Kanda (Advocate) - Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16-07-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07-08-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () Aggrieved By Deletion Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) For Rs.105.06 1. Lacs & Rs.118.98 Lacs As Levied By Ld. Ao For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively, The Revenue Is In Further Appeals Before Us. The Impugned Orders Have Been Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless

For Appellant: Shri Charan Dass (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Manpreet Kanda (Advocate) - Ld.AR
Section 271(1)(c)

घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 07-08-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) Aggrieved by deletion of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Rs.105.06 1. Lacs and Rs.118.98 Lacs as levied by Ld. AO for Assessment Years (AY) 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively

Verambally Thazhikuniyil Vinodan, Kozhikode vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi

ITA 350/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 274

time prescribed u/s. 139(1) would demonstrate the contemptuous conduct of the assessee in concealing the actual consideration. He further submitted that the deletion of penalty would be defeated the very purpose because the enactment of section 269SS of the Act. He also placed reliance on the decision of coordinate