← All Phrases

“cancellation of penalty”

PenaltySection 271Section 27149 judgments

KAKINADA INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1053/HYD/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2021-2022
For Appellant: \nShri Naresh Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS Reema Yadav, Sr. AR
Section 270A

{ "clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nHyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad\nBEFORE SHRI VIJAY

ANITA BASAK,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC 1(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2174/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Anita Basak Acit, Central Circle 1(1), C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Kolkata, Advocates, Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, 2, Garstin Place, 2 Nd Floor, Suite 110 Shanti Pally, 5 Th Floor, Vs. No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata, Eastern Metropolitian By Pass, West Bengal-700001, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahhpb5785B Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ruchika Sharma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ruchika Sharma, DR
Section 1Section 133Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144ASection 145(3)Section 270ASection 271Section 271ASection 44A

Income-tax Act and his belief under the circumstances cannot be said to be otherwise than a bona fide belief. The cancellation of penalty is required to be upheld.” 2.4. We, therefore, respectfully following the decision of the co- ordinate bench, set aside the order

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. NEVALES NETWORKS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4827/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-14(1)(1), M/S. Nevales Networks Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 432, 4Th Floor, The Capital, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Level 7, Plot-C70, M.K.Road, G Block, Mumbai-400020. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan : Aadcn1748A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Piyush Chhajed Revenue By : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui

For Appellant: Shri Piyush ChhajedFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

that when addition has been accepted to buy peace and avoid litigation and the explanation was found reasonable by the appellate authorities the cancellation of penalty was justified. This Court in the case of BHADRA ADVANCING PVT LIMITED reported in 210 CTR 447, held that merely because the assessee

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE COIMBATORE CITY TAMILNADU POLICE CANTEEN,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NCW-1(1), COIMBATORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2069/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Oct 2025AY 2022-23
Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 274Section 44Section 44A

appellants Bonafide\nbelief that it did not require to get the accounts audited under section\n44AB amounted to a reasonable cause of cancelation of penalty.\n3. Karnataka High court held in the case of M/s.Koramangala\nclub Vs ITO that it is clear the assessee was under the Bonafide belief\nthat ... belief of the assessee that it was not required to\ncomply with Section 44AB would constitute reasonable cause under Section\n273B, thereby warranting cancellation of penalty.\n19. We also draw support from the Hon'ble Karnataka High court held in the\ncase of M/s.Koramangala Club Vs ITO (ITA No.279 & 280/2010

MEGNANAPURAM PACCS,TIRUCHENDUR vs. PCIT,, MADURAI

ITA 895/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Sept 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80P

Court is fallacious.\nIn our view, if the trial is allowed to proceed further after the order of the Tribunal\nand the consequent cancellation of penalty, it will be an idle and empty formality to\nrequire the appellants to have the order of Tribunal exhibited as a defence\ndocument inasmuch ... which penalties were levied had been set aside by\nthe Tribunal. Hence, the order of penalty could not stand by itself. The cancellation\nof penalty was justified. \" (p. 846)\n3. CIT v. Bengal Jute Mills Co. Ltd. [1988] 174 ITR 402 (Cal.) \"Where penalty was\nimposed solely on the basis

VIJAY TUKARAM RAUNDAL,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1637/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Mihir NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 115JSection 131Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80I

invalid initiation of Penalty Proceedings in the Assessment Order and Notice issued U/s.274 r.w.s.271(1)(c) without identifying the limb/charge. Appellant prays for cancellation of Penalty holding the initiation and levying Order as ab initio bad in law. 3. Without prejudice to above grounds, Honorable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ... inaccurate particulars of income when particulars furnished are not inaccurate but may be allowability of claim U/s.80IB(10) is debatable. Appellant prays for cancellation of Penalty levied U/s.271(1)(c). 4. Honorable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)'s action is not just and equitable in levying penalty inspite of binding

VIJAY TUKARAM RAUNDAL,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1636/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Mihir NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 115JSection 131Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80I

invalid initiation of Penalty Proceedings in the Assessment Order and Notice issued U/s.274 r.w.s.271(1)(c) without identifying the limb/charge. Appellant prays for cancellation of Penalty holding the initiation and levying Order as ab initio bad in law. 3. Without prejudice to above grounds, Honorable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ... inaccurate particulars of income when particulars furnished are not inaccurate but may be allowability of claim U/s.80IB(10) is debatable. Appellant prays for cancellation of Penalty levied U/s.271(1)(c). 4. Honorable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)'s action is not just and equitable in levying penalty inspite of binding

VIJAY TUKARAM RAUNDAL,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1635/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Mihir NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 115JSection 131Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80I

invalid initiation of Penalty Proceedings in the Assessment Order and Notice issued U/s.274 r.w.s.271(1)(c) without identifying the limb/charge. Appellant prays for cancellation of Penalty holding the initiation and levying Order as ab initio bad in law. 3. Without prejudice to above grounds, Honorable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ... inaccurate particulars of income when particulars furnished are not inaccurate but may be allowability of claim U/s.80IB(10) is debatable. Appellant prays for cancellation of Penalty levied U/s.271(1)(c). 4. Honorable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)'s action is not just and equitable in levying penalty inspite of binding

VIJAY TUKARAM RAUNDAL,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1634/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2025AY 2013-14
Section 115JSection 131Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80I

decision Veena Estate Pvt\nLtd, Bombay High Court which is not applicable to the facts of the\npresent case. Appellant prays for cancellation of Penalty levied U/s.271(1)(c).\n6. Appellant prays for just and equitable relief.\n7. Appellant prays to add, alter, amend and / or withdraw the Ground/s ... case it is\nproved that the assessee has filed the letter seeking the approval on 07.03.2012\nbefore the competent authority, then to cancel the penalty. The Assessing Officer\nshall also keep in mind the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the\nTahsildar has issued a further report

SAI SAMARPAN REALTORS PVT LTD,DELHI vs. JCIT CENTRAL RANGE-1, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 5866/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraita No.5866/Del/2024 (Assessment Year 2020-21) Sai Samarpan Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Jcit, C/O C.S. Anand, Adv. Central Circle-1, B-81, First Floor (Part B), Vs. Delhi. Defence Colony, Bhishma Pitamah Marg, New Delhi-110024. Pan-Aakcs6743D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shric.S. Anand & Ms. Vaishnavi Yadav, Advs. Department By Shrimanish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.08.2025

Section 153CSection 269SSection 271D

been held as follows: “reasonable cause had been shown by the assessee and the provisions of Section 273B were applicable. The cancellation of penalty was justified”. 15. Thus, having regard to the entire aspect of the matter, when reasonable cause has been shown by the assessee which was further considered

SAI SAMARPAN REALTORS PVT LTD,DELHI vs. JCIT CENTRAL RANGE-1, DELHI

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

ITA 5865/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraita No.5866/Del/2024 (Assessment Year 2020-21) Sai Samarpan Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Jcit, C/O C.S. Anand, Adv. Central Circle-1, B-81, First Floor (Part B), Vs. Delhi. Defence Colony, Bhishma Pitamah Marg, New Delhi-110024. Pan-Aakcs6743D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shric.S. Anand & Ms. Vaishnavi Yadav, Advs. Department By Shrimanish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.08.2025

Section 153CSection 269SSection 271D

been held as follows: “reasonable cause had been shown by the assessee and the provisions of Section 273B were applicable. The cancellation of penalty was justified”. 15. Thus, having regard to the entire aspect of the matter, when reasonable cause has been shown by the assessee which was further considered

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. MANIPAL HOSPITALS (BANGALORE) PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result appeal of the Ld

ITA 959/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Hon’Ble & Shri Soundararajan K, Hon’Bledcit – Central Circle – 1(2) Vs. M/S. Manipal Hospitals Room No. 307, 3Rdfloor. (Bangalore) Private Limited C.R. Building, Queens Road 98/2, The Annex Bengaluru – 560001 Ruso Bagh Karnataka Off. Hal Airport Road Bengaluru – 560017 Karnataka Pan: Aaccv9562D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By: Sri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Department Represented By: Smt Prajakta Thakur, Jcit Date Of Hearing:09.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.07.2025 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi: 1. Captioned Appeal Is Filed By Dcit – Central Circle – 1(2), Bengaluru Against The Appellate Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Bengaluru (“The Ld.Cit(A)”) Dated 28.02.2025 Wherein The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Penalty Order Dated 25.03.2022 Passed By Dcit – Central

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

proper reasons are recorded by the Ld. AO for levy of penalty which is available in the assessment order and therefore the cancellation of penalty by the Ld.CIT(A) is not correct. 10. Ld. Authorized Representative vehemently supported the orders of the Ld.CIT(A) and referred to Para No.4.3

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAKJOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 81/RJT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

DCIT vs. Mardal Ltd, and Saraswati Construction\nCo. in ITA No. 2865/Ahd/2010 wherein Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of Revenue\nchallenging the cancellation of penalty levied on disallowance made under section\n40(a)(ia) of the Act.\n18. Thus, the proposal to levy penalty

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 80/RJT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

DCIT vs. Mardal Ltd, and Saraswati Construction\nCo. in ITA No. 2865/Ahd/2010 wherein Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of Revenue\nchallenging the cancellation of penalty levied on disallowance made under section\n40(a)(ia) of the Act.\n18. Thus, the proposal to levy penalty

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 79/RJT/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

DCIT vs. Mardal Ltd, and Saraswati Construction\nCo. in ITA No. 2865/Ahd/2010 wherein Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of Revenue\nchallenging the cancellation of penalty levied on disallowance made under section\n40(a)(ia) of the Act.\n18. Thus, the proposal to levy penalty

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAKJOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 78/RJT/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2010-11
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

DCIT vs. Mardal Ltd, and Saraswati Construction\nCo. in ITA No. 2865/Ahd/2010 wherein Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of Revenue\nchallenging the cancellation of penalty levied on disallowance made under section\n40(a)(ia) of the Act.\n18.\nThus, the proposal to levy penalty

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACTIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 77/RJT/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

DCIT vs. Mardal Ltd, and Saraswati Construction\nCo. in ITA No. 2865/Ahd/2010 wherein Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of Revenue\nchallenging the cancellation of penalty levied on disallowance made under section\n40(a)(ia) of the Act.\n18. Thus, the proposal to levy penalty

PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 76/RJT/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

DCIT vs. Mardal Ltd, and Saraswati Construction\nCo. in ITA No. 2865/Ahd/2010 wherein Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of Revenue\nchallenging the cancellation of penalty levied on disallowance made under section\n40(a)(ia) of the Act.\n\n18. Thus, the proposal to levy penalty

BAGARIA LEASING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 442/KOL/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

imposition of penalty and since there was no proper representation, therefore, the order of the Ld. AO has been confirmed. As regards the cancellation of penalty on the issue relating to the defect in the notice issued for imposition of penalty is concerned, the jurisdictional High Court has decided

BAGARIA LEASING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 441/KOL/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

imposition of penalty and since there was no proper representation, therefore, the order of the Ld. AO has been confirmed. As regards the cancellation of penalty on the issue relating to the defect in the notice issued for imposition of penalty is concerned, the jurisdictional High Court has decided

Showing 1–20 of 49 · Page 1 of 3