← 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

Income Tax Officer 5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Micro Plantae Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2926/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)

Objection by the assessee in the quantum of assessment passed u/s.153A r.w.s. 143(3) for the A.Y.2007-08. 2. The Revenue is aggrieved by deletion of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of Rs.16,29,627/- on account of disallowance of expenses like finance expenses, operative and other expenses depreciation and balance written ... carried out in the case of Temptation Foods Group on 24/09/2009 and assessee was issued notice 153C. 5. The ld. CIT (A) has deleted the penalty on facts in the following manner:- 9.9 Now, corning to the facts of the present case, the AO has levied the impugned penalty

Ashoka Tubewell Boring Engineering & Construction, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-2, Patna

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

ITA 90/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Patna18 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajhariya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. Revenue is aggrieved with the finding of Id. CIT(A) deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for AY 2014-15 & AY 2015-16 and penalty levied 271AAB ... concerned we find that Id. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty observing as follows (relevant extract): "It has been contended by the Appellant that the impugned penalty has been imposed merely on the basis of estimated addition and that taxes were paid on the same by the Appellant to avoid

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara vs. M/S. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1785/AHD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Aggrieved against the penalty order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who has partially confirmed and partially deleted the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved against the appellate order, both the Assessee and Revenue are in appeals before us raising the following grounds ... deleted." (B) In ITA No.1785/Ahd/2019 (by the Revenue) “1. The learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the penalty of Rs.4,22,77,759/- on account of selling & distribution expenses u/s 14A? 2 The learned CIT(Appeals)) has erred in law and on facts

Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited, Vadodara vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1)(1), Baroda

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1750/AHD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Aggrieved against the penalty order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who has partially confirmed and partially deleted the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved against the appellate order, both the Assessee and Revenue are in appeals before us raising the following grounds ... deleted.” (B) In ITA No.1785/Ahd/2019 (by the Revenue) “1. The learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the penalty of Rs. 4,22,77,759/- on account of selling & distribution expenses u/s 14A?" 2 The learned CIT(Appeals)) has erred in law and on facts

Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited, Vadodara vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1)(1), Baroda

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1741/AHD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Aggrieved against the penalty order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who has partially confirmed and partially deleted the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved against the appellate order, both the Assessee and Revenue are in appeals before us raising the following grounds ... deleted.” (B) In ITA No.1785/Ahd/2019 (by the Revenue) “1. The learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the penalty of Rs. 4,22,77,759/- on account of selling & distribution expenses u/s 14A?" 2 The learned CIT(Appeals)) has erred in law and on facts

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 13(1), New Delhi, I.P. Estate vs. Logic Eastern (India) Private Limited, Noida, Uttar Pradesh

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 437/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17] Deputy Commissioner Of Logic Eastern (India) Private Income Tax, Circle-13(1), Limited, Room No.316A, 3Rd Floor, Vs C-56/39, 5Th Floor, Sector-62, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301 New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aaacl3539Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Amisha S. Gupta, Cit(Dr) Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 07.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07.07.2025 Order Per Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am

Section 143(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 37Section 40

Revenue are as under:- “That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty of Rs.1,79,05,055/- imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 4. Brief facts of the case:- The assessee ... therefore the assessee was not liable for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty of Rs.1,79,05,055/-. 6. Aggrieved with the said order of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before

Panjurajan Ganesan, Sivakasi vs. DCIT, CC - 2, Madurai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 278/CHNY/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.278/Chny/2020 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Panjurajan Ganesan Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.74A, Velayutham Road, Corporate Circle-2, Sivakasi, Madurai. Tamil Nadu-626 123. [Pan:Abypg3315R] (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. D. Anand, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. G. Latchana, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.07.2025

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. G. Latchana, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

judgments of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Babuji Jacob vs. ITO, (2021) 124 taxmann.com 363 (Madras) and prayed for deletion of penalty. On the other hand, ld.DR Ms. G. Latchana, Addl.CIT relied upon the order 5. of the authorities below and prayed for confirming the orders ... case of Samson Perinchery (supra) had held as under:- 3. The impugned order of the Tribunal deleted the penalty imposed upon the Respondent-Assessee. This by holding that the initiation of penalty under Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act by Assessing Officer was for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income

ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Agra vs. Ashok Kumar Agarwal, Agra

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 52/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Agra24 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.52/Agr/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ashok Kumar Agarwal Acit, 6/26, Barah Bhai Ki Circle 2(1)(1), Vs. Gali, Belanganj, Agra-282002 Uttar Pradesh. Pan-Abipa7741F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142ASection 250

statistical purposes. 6. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed. 7. In this appeal, the Revenue has challenged the deletion of penalty of Rs.7,45,97,396/- levied u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty levied ... assessee and also in view of the facts as narrated above, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the penalty levied by AO u/s 271(1)(c) and restore back the matter back to the file of the AO with the directions to pass penalty

ACIT, Circle 2(1)(1), Agra vs. Ashok Kumar Agarwal, Agra

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 50/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Agra24 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.52/Agr/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ashok Kumar Agarwal Acit, 6/26, Barah Bhai Ki Circle 2(1)(1), Vs. Gali, Belanganj, Agra-282002 Uttar Pradesh. Pan-Abipa7741F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142ASection 250

statistical purposes. 6. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed. 7. In this appeal, the Revenue has challenged the deletion of penalty of Rs.7,45,97,396/- levied u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty levied ... assessee and also in view of the facts as narrated above, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the penalty levied by AO u/s 271(1)(c) and restore back the matter back to the file of the AO with the directions to pass penalty

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Patronage Welfare & Educational Society, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3633/DEL/2017[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2025AY 2006-2007

Bench: This Tribunal. In The First Round, The Quantum Appeal Was Dismissed As Withdrawn Vide Order Dated 24.12.2020 On Account Of Tax Effect Being Below The Limit Specified By Cbdt For Filing Appeals Before Itat By Revenue & The Corresponding Penalty Appeal Was Accordingly Also Dismissed. However, Pursuant To Miscellaneous Applications (Mas) Filed By The Department Highlighting That The Tax Effect Had Ito Vs. Patronage Welfare & Edu Soc Ay : 2006-07

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Maninder Kaur, Sr DR
Section 11Section 144Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

quantum assessment proceedings under Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), and the other challenging the deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.Both impugned orders were passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-36, New Delhi

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur vs. Ms Avc Homes, Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 384/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Bleand

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271DSection 69A

No.383 & 384/NAG/2023 M/s. AVC Homes “1. On the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty of Rs.1,34,20,434/- levied by the Addl.CIT which was based on the seized document No. B/6 of party A-2 from Shri Vyankatesh ... other ground that may be raised during the course of appellate.” The solitary issue raised by the Revenue is relating to deletion of penalty of Rs.1,34,20,434/- under section 271D levied by the Addl. CIT, Central Range-2, Nagpur based on the seized document No. B/6 of party

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur vs. Ms Avc Homes, Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 383/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Bleand

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271DSection 69A

No.383 & 384/NAG/2023 M/s. AVC Homes “1. On the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty of Rs.1,34,20,434/- levied by the Addl.CIT which was based on the seized document No. B/6 of party A-2 from Shri Vyankatesh ... other ground that may be raised during the course of appellate.” The solitary issue raised by the Revenue is relating to deletion of penalty of Rs.1,34,20,434/- under section 271D levied by the Addl. CIT, Central Range-2, Nagpur based on the seized document No. B/6 of party

DCIT Circle 5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Arjav Diamonds (India) Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 5610/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Arjav Diamonds (India) Pvt. Ltd. - 5(1)(1) Cc, 9010A Bharat Diamond Bourse, Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Vs. Circle 5(1)(1), R.No.568, Aaykar Mumbai-400051. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aagca2472D (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Fenil Bhat Respondent By : Dr. K. R. Subhash, (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai (‘Ld.Cit(A)’ For Short), Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “(I) "Whether, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & As Per Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Is Justified In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs. 16,13,66,235/-Levied U/S 271G Of The It Act, 1961 When The Statutory Requirement Of Rule 10B(1)(E), Stating The Methodology For Benchmarking Transactions Using Tnmm, States That The Net Profit Margin From The Controlled International Transaction & The Uncontrolled International Transactions Should Be Separately Provided By The Assessee & Their Statutory Requirement Has Not Been Fulfilled By The Assessee?" Arjav Diamonds (India) Pvt. Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri. Fenil BhatFor Respondent: DR. K. R. Subhash, (CIT-DR)
Section 250Section 271GSection 92C

appeal: “(i) "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and as per law, the Ld. CIT (A) is justified in deleting the penalty of Rs. 16,13,66,235/-levied u/s 271G of the IT Act, 1961 when the statutory requirement of Rule 10B(1)(e), stating ... provided by the assessee and their statutory requirement has not been fulfilled by the assessee?" Arjav Diamonds (India) Pvt. Ltd. (ii) "Whether the deletion of penalty u/s 271G of the Act can be sustained without considering the fact that it is a statutory requirement to maintain the details as contemplated

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Aurangabad vs. Prabha Farms Private Limited, Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1748/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1748/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1, Vs. Prabha Farms Private Aurangabad. Limited, Akash, Paithan Road, Aurangabad- 431005. Pan : Aaccp3782D Appellant Respondent C. O. No.07/Pun/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1748/Pun/2024) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Prabha Farms Private Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Limited, Aurangabad. Akash, Paithan Road, Aurangabad- 431005. Pan : Aaccp3782D Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Assessee By : Shri N. R. Agrawal Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.06.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri N. R. AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act was deleted. The Revenue filed second appeal before the Tribunal against the deletion of penalty. Vide order date 27.02.2020, the Tribunal restored the issue of quantum to the Assessing Officer as well as vide order dated 29.09.2020 the Tribunal also restored ... appeal was preferred before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC against the penalty order dated 27.09.2022. Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC allowed the appeal by deleting the penalty levied at Rs.72,93,114/- and this is the order against which the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The Revenue has raised

Ram Niwas Yadav, Shahpura vs. Income Tax Officer Behror, Behror

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

ITA 275/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Jaideep Malik, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 234ASection 271(1)(b)Section 44A

defiance of law or was guilty of contumacious conduct or dishonest act. We thus find merit in the plea of the assessee for deletion of penalty on both counts. PRAYER Thus, in light of the facts & circumstances of the case, submission made and the case-laws cited it is humbly

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1), Surat, Anavil Business Centre vs. Navinbhai Himatlal Shah, Diwali Baug Athwalines

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 115/SRT/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.107 To 109/Srt/2025 Assessment Years:(2010-11 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) The Ito, Vs. Hiteshbhai Popatbhai Sakariya, Ward – 1(2)(6), 17, Hetal Nagar Society, Rander Road, Surat Near Navyug College, Surat - 395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akvps5306G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Himashu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.115/Srt/2025 Assessment Year:(2007-08) The Ito, Vs. Navinbhai Himatlal Shah, Ward – 1(3)(1), 7/Swashray Society, Diwali Baug, Surat Athwalines, Surat - 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afsps3575H (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.1/Srt/2025 [Arising In Ita No.115/Srt/2025] Assessment Year:(2007-08) Navinbhai Himatlal Shah, Vs. The Ito, 7/Swashray Society, Diwali Baug, Ward – 1(3)(1), Athwalines, Surat - 395001 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afsps3575H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mitul R. Mehta, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025

Section 271(1)(c)

107/SRT/2025 (AY.2010-11), are as follows: “a) On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Id.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty levied by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 of Rs.24,019/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee claimed bogus ... Income-tax Act, 1961. b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty is not in accordance with the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the cases of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Subhash Trading

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(6), Surat vs. Hiteshbhai Popatbhai Sakariya, Surat

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 109/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.107 To 109/Srt/2025 Assessment Years:(2010-11 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) The Ito, Vs. Hiteshbhai Popatbhai Sakariya, Ward – 1(2)(6), 17, Hetal Nagar Society, Rander Road, Surat Near Navyug College, Surat - 395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akvps5306G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Himashu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.115/Srt/2025 Assessment Year:(2007-08) The Ito, Vs. Navinbhai Himatlal Shah, Ward – 1(3)(1), 7/Swashray Society, Diwali Baug, Surat Athwalines, Surat - 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afsps3575H (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.1/Srt/2025 [Arising In Ita No.115/Srt/2025] Assessment Year:(2007-08) Navinbhai Himatlal Shah, Vs. The Ito, 7/Swashray Society, Diwali Baug, Ward – 1(3)(1), Athwalines, Surat - 395001 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afsps3575H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mitul R. Mehta, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025

Section 271(1)(c)

107/SRT/2025 (AY.2010-11), are as follows: “a) On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Id.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty levied by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 of Rs.24,019/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee claimed bogus ... Income-tax Act, 1961. b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty is not in accordance with the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the cases of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Subhash Trading

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(6), Surat vs. Hiteshbhai Popatbhai Sakariya, Surat

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 108/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.107 To 109/Srt/2025 Assessment Years:(2010-11 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) The Ito, Vs. Hiteshbhai Popatbhai Sakariya, Ward – 1(2)(6), 17, Hetal Nagar Society, Rander Road, Surat Near Navyug College, Surat - 395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akvps5306G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Himashu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.115/Srt/2025 Assessment Year:(2007-08) The Ito, Vs. Navinbhai Himatlal Shah, Ward – 1(3)(1), 7/Swashray Society, Diwali Baug, Surat Athwalines, Surat - 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afsps3575H (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.1/Srt/2025 [Arising In Ita No.115/Srt/2025] Assessment Year:(2007-08) Navinbhai Himatlal Shah, Vs. The Ito, 7/Swashray Society, Diwali Baug, Ward – 1(3)(1), Athwalines, Surat - 395001 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afsps3575H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mitul R. Mehta, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025

Section 271(1)(c)

107/SRT/2025 (AY.2010-11), are as follows: “a) On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Id.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty levied by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 of Rs.24,019/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee claimed bogus ... Income-tax Act, 1961. b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty is not in accordance with the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the cases of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Subhash Trading

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(6), Surat vs. Hiteshbhai Popatbhai Sakariya, Surat

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 107/SRT/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.107 To 109/Srt/2025 Assessment Years:(2010-11 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) The Ito, Vs. Hiteshbhai Popatbhai Sakariya, Ward – 1(2)(6), 17, Hetal Nagar Society, Rander Road, Surat Near Navyug College, Surat - 395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akvps5306G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Himashu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.115/Srt/2025 Assessment Year:(2007-08) The Ito, Vs. Navinbhai Himatlal Shah, Ward – 1(3)(1), 7/Swashray Society, Diwali Baug, Surat Athwalines, Surat - 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afsps3575H (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.1/Srt/2025 [Arising In Ita No.115/Srt/2025] Assessment Year:(2007-08) Navinbhai Himatlal Shah, Vs. The Ito, 7/Swashray Society, Diwali Baug, Ward – 1(3)(1), Athwalines, Surat - 395001 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afsps3575H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mitul R. Mehta, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025

Section 271(1)(c)

107/SRT/2025 (AY.2010-11), are as follows: “a) On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Id.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty levied by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 of Rs.24,019/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee claimed bogus ... Income-tax Act, 1961. b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty is not in accordance with the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the cases of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Subhash Trading

Palanisamy Devi, Erode vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Erode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 42/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. P.M.Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

attracted. And moreover, it is common knowledge that estimated quantum addition involves inherent subjectivity, therefore, we direct the Palanisamy Devi :: 7 :: AO for deletion of penalty levied on the estimated quantum addition of Rs.16,57,216/-. 6. Coming to the quantum addition of Rs.1,733/- on the basis of which