“penalty proceedings initiated”

PenaltySection 271Section 271556 judgments

PRAVIN VASANT MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE41(4)(1), KAUTILYA BHAVAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 9024/MUM/2025[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2026AY 2009-2010

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 17.10.2025 passed by the learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, arising out of penalty proceedings initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2009–10. 2 Pravin Vasant Mehta 2. The sole

WATTSUN ENERGY,KAPURTHALA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KAPURTHALA

In the result, this penalty appeal is also remanded back to the Ld first appellate authority to be decided in tandem with the quantum

ITA 625/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar23 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. Nos.625 & 626/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Wattsun Energy, Pir Chaudhary Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Road, Kapurthala, Punjab. Kapurthala. [Pan:Aabfw6696B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250Section 271FSection 272A(1)(d)Section 274

response to various notices subsequently issued u/s 142(1) , the assessment was completed on a total income of Rs.11 lakhs and penalty proceedings initiated and subsequently imposed u/s 272A(1)(d),amounting to Rs. 10,000/-, for non compliance to notices dated 20/12/2019. 3.1 In first appeal proceedings, the assessee

GLOBAL STAINLESS,DELHI vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-34(1), DELHI

In the result, the captioned appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3990/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19 Global Stainless, Vs. Acit, 17, Meera Tower, Ground Floor, Circle-34(1), Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 052. Pan: Aajfg7209G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Amol Sinha, Advocate & Shri Ankit Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.03.2026 Order Per Madhumita Roy:

For Appellant: Shri Amol Sinha, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 136Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

view of the above, the assessee requests your honour to delete the additions made by the AO and drop the penalty proceedings initiated. The assessee relies on various orders passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court. (i) DJ Surfactants vs National E-Assessment Centre Delhi, W.P. (C) 4814/2021 ... view of the above, the assessee requests your honour to delete the additions made by the AO and drop the penalty proceedings initiated. The assessee relies on various orders passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court. (i) DJ Surfactants vs National E-Assessment Centre Delhi, W.P.(C) 814/2021

DCM SHRIRAM INDUSTRIS LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 2166/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagemdra Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(10)Section 14ASection 80Section 92C

ignoring that DDT amounting to ₹1,41,67,650/- has been duly paid by the assessee on time. Other grounds 15. That the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 270A of the Act are on wholly illegal and untenable grounds since there was no concealment of any income nor submission of inaccurate

B R MORDEN SCHOOL,PAURI vs. I T O ,EXEMPTION WARD, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 28/DDN/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] B.R. Morden School Samiti Vs Ito Tara Lodge, Exemption, Ward Tehsil Road Pauri, Pauri, Dehradun Uttarakhand-246001. Pan-Aacab6988M Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rajiv Sahni, Ca Respondent By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.12.2025 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Against The Penalty Order Dated 21.09.2022 Passed U/S 271B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Heard The Contentions Of Both Parties & Perused The Material Available On Record. It Is Stated By Ld. Ar That The Quantum Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Captioned Assessment Year Against The Assessment Order Passed Has Already Been Restored To The File Of Ao By The Tribunal For Passing For Denovo Assessment. Thus, The Current Penalty Proceedings Initiated In The Said Order Has No Legs To Stand. Accordingly, We Delete The Penalty So Levied. The Ao Is At Liberty To Initiate The Proceedings, If The Circumstances Suggests So, In The Set Aside Proceedings In Accordance With Law. With These Directions, Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Allowed.

Section 250Section 271B

assessment order passed has already been restored to the file of AO by the Tribunal for passing for denovo assessment. Thus, the current penalty proceedings initiated in the said order has no legs to stand. Accordingly, we delete the penalty so levied. The AO is at liberty to initiate

DAWAT E ISLAMI AP,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD 1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1575/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1575/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dawat E Islami Ap, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Exemption Ward-1(1), Pan: Aabtd5383Q Hyderabad. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) करदाताका""त"न"ध"व/ : Shri Ankit Chokshi, Ca (Hybrid Mode) Assessee Represented By राज"वका""त"न"ध"व/ : Shri Mathivanan S A, Sr. Ar Department Represented By सुनवाईसमा"तहोनेक""त"थ/ : 05/03/2026 Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख/ : 11/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Dawat E Islami Ap, (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 25/07/2025 For The A.Y.2015-16. Dawat E Islami Ap Vs. Ito

Section 12ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275

Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that under Ground Nos. 1 and 2, the assessee has challenged the very validity of the penalty proceedings initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In this regard, the Ld. AR submitted that the notice issued by the Ld. AO under section ... material available on record including the case laws relied upon. The issue raised by the assessee is regarding the validity of the penalty proceedings initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the basis of the notice issued under section 274 of the Act, wherein

SANTRAM,DEHRADUN vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(3), DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3/DDN/2026[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Dehradun09 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Santram Vs Ito Near Subhash Chandra Ward-1(1)(3) Bose Academy, Nathuwala, Dehradun Dehradun-248001. Pan-Demps4349P Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rajiv Sahni, Ca Respondent By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.12.2025 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Penalty Order Dated 24.03.2025 Passed U/S 270A Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Heard The Contentions Of Both Parties & Perused The Material Available On Record. It Is Stated By Ld. Ar That The Quantum Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Captioned Assessment Years Against The Assessment Order Passed Has Already Been Restored Back To The File Of The Ao By The Tribunal Passing For Denovo Assessment Vide Its Order Passed In Ita No.57/Ddn/2025 For Assessment Year 2017-18 Dt. 09.07.2025. Thus, The Current Penalty Proceedings Initiated In The Said Order Has No Legs To Stand. Accordingly, We Delete The Penalty So Levied. The Ao Is At Liberty To Initiate The Proceedings, If Desired, In The Set Aside Proceedings In Accordance With Law. With These Directions, Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Allowed.

Section 250Section 270A

Tribunal passing for denovo assessment vide its order passed in ITA No.57/DDN/2025 for Assessment Year 2017-18 dt. 09.07.2025. Thus, the current penalty proceedings initiated in the said order has no legs to stand. Accordingly, we delete the penalty so levied. The AO is at liberty to initiate the proceedings

M/S CARE INDIA SOLUTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purpose

ITA 7439/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

For Appellant: Sh. Pratik Arora, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Jain, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 25Section 250

ncomputing the total income of the Appellant.\nGeneral\n11. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in\nupholding the penalty proceedings initiated under section\n271(1)(c) and section 271 AAD of the Act by the Ld. AO.\n12. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred

M/S CARE INDIA SOLUTION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purpose

ITA 7438/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

For Appellant: Sh. Pratik Arora, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Jain, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 25Section 250

M/S CARE INDIA SOLUTION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purpose

ITA 7437/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Pratik Arora, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Jain, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 25Section 250

MAHAVEER SINGH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 840/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234FSection 263(1)Section 270ASection 270A(2)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 44A

initiation of penalty proceedings. In that circumstances, the Chennai Tribunal held that Revision proceedings cannot be invoked, solely for the reasons that penalty proceedings initiated on a wrong penalty proceedings. Whereas in this case, the Ld. A.O. has consciously and correctly invoked Section 271AAC(1) in the reassessment order, however

M/S PUMARTH INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 4(1), AAYKAR BHAWAN, INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 766/IND/2024[2009 -2010]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026

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

Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

Pumarth Infrastructure Private Limited ITA Nos. 766/Ind/2024, 757/Ind/2024, 765/Ind/2024 AYs: 2009-10 to 2011-12 “Additional Ground No. 1: Whether the penalty proceedings initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are without jurisdiction and bad in law, as the Assessing Officer failed to record

M/S PUMARTH INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4(1), AAYKAR BHAWAN, INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 765/IND/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

nproduce below the additional grounds of first AY 2009-10 for an immediate\nreference:\n\"Additional Ground No. 1:\nWhether the penalty proceedings initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961, are without jurisdiction and bad in law, as the\nAssessing Officer failed to record

M/S PUMARTH INFRASTRUCTURE,INDORE vs. THE ASST COMMISSIONER IF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4(1), AAYKAR BHAWAN , INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 757/IND/2024[2010 -11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026

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

Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

KARUR SREE RAMA TRADING PVT.LTD.,KARUR vs. ITO, CIRCLE-191), TRICHY

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

ITA 3841/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3841/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Karur Sree Rama Trading Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, S.F. No. 2262, Pari Nagar, Chinna Circle 1(1), Andan Koil Road, Karur 639 001. Trichy. [Pan:Aabfs8790C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.02.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.10.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Passed Under Section 147/271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. CIT

Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

erstwhile partnership firm even though the firm had ceased to 2 I.T.A. No.3841/Chny/25 exist after conversion into a company w.e.f. 02.02.2012 and the penalty proceedings initiated against a non-existent entity are void ab initio. He further submits that the penalty arises from a reassessment order made in the name ... initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act or as per first para of the penalty order dated 31.12.2021, no penalty proceedings initiated in the original assessment order dated 31.03.2015. Under the above facts and circumstances, we quash the order of levying penalty under section

GS & SD ASSOCIATES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-8(2), CHENNAI

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

ITA 2767/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2767/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Gs & Sd Associates, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 03, Vania Street, Kundrathur, Non Corporate Ward 8(2), Chennai 600 069. Chennai. [Pan:Aaqfg8838C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2026 : आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.08.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Raised 6 Grounds Amongst Which The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act , 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 269SSection 68

attention to the order dated 24.06.2020 in the hands of Danasekaran Sambandam passed under section 271D of the Act and argued that the penalty proceedings initiated under section 271D of the Act were dropped by holding that any payment or repayment made pursuant to current account maintained between parties cannot ... assessee as genuine and acceptable and held that it is fair transaction between the assessee and the partners and dropped the penalty proceedings initiated under section 271D of the Act. 8 I.T.A. No.2767/Chny/25 8. We find ledger account of partner capital account of Mr.G. Srinivasan in the books

MSN LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-2 , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the\nΑ

ITA 2171/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 132Section 153ASection 269Section 269OSection 269SSection 271D

discovery of unaccounted cash receipts from the sale of spent solvents and scrap. The assessee admitted additional income, but contended that the penalty proceedings initiated under Section 271DA were time-barred and that the revenue had not discharged its burden of proof for violating Section 269ST.", "held": "The Tribunal held

DWARKA CEMENT WORKS LIMITED(CONVERTED INTO DWARKA CEMENT WORKS LLP W.E.F 15-09-2022),MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-6(2)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6706/MUM/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2015-2016

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n\"D\" BENCH MUMBAI\nBEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT &\nSHRI MAKARAND

DCIT,CIRCLE-1,RANCHI, RANCHI vs. CENTRAL COALFIELD LTD, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 223/RAN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaym/S Central Coalfields Ltd., D.C.I.T., Darbhanga House, Kutchery Road, Circle-1, Vs. Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue D.C.I.T., Central Coalfield Ltd., Circle-1, 4Th Floor, Central Revenue Building Vs. Ranchi. Annexee, 5A, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40

notice and deleting the penalty imposed thereby. A copy of the said order is also attached herewith. As such, we state that the penalty proceedings initiated in case of the assessee was ab initio void and the penalty imposed thereby is fit to be deleted. We shall be obliged ... DCIT & 1 Anr. imposed penalty. As the issue on which Penalty was initiated was deleted in appeal, the penalty proceeding initiated by the AO lost sanctity. The initiation of penalty would have been justified had the CITIA) initiated the same. The facts in the instant case are strikingly different from

DCIT,CIRCLE-1,RANCHI, RANCHI vs. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 220/RAN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 32

notice and deleting the penalty imposed thereby. A copy of the said order is also attached herewith. As such, we state that the penalty proceedings initiated in case of the assessee was ab initio void and the penalty imposed thereby is fit to be deleted. We shall be obliged ... addition made by the CIT(A), the AO imposed penalty. As the issue on which Penalty was initiated was deleted in appeal, the penalty proceeding initiated by the AO lost sanctity. The initiation of penalty would have been justified had the CITIA) initiated the same. The facts in the instant

Showing 1–20 of 556 · Page 1 of 28

...