← All Phrases

“Section 271(1)(a)”

Section References (mined)Section 271Section 271(1)(a)62 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 271(1)(a) is CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), cited in 2,590 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 271(1)(a)

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory
359 ITR 565 · 2013 · High Court
2,590
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.

CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.
322 ITR 158 · 2010 · Supreme Court
2,228
citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income is not automatically leviable if the assessee has made a full disclosure of all particulars and the addition or disallowance arises from a difference of opinion.

Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT
328 ITR 81 · 2010 · High Court
1,183
citing judgments

Rule 8D, for computing disallowance under Section 14A for expenses related to exempt income, applies from Assessment Year 2008-09 onwards; for prior years, a reasonable disallowance must be made. The disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the actual exempt income earned.

CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows
73 Taxmann.com 248 · 2016 · Supreme Court
953
citing judgments

A notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether penalty proceedings are for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Such lack of specificity vitiates the penalty proceedings.

Ashok Pai v. CIT
292 ITR 11 · 2007 · Supreme Court
812
citing judgments

“Concealment of particulars of income” and “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” are two distinct offences under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. A penalty cannot be levied under one limb if the show cause notice or basis for penalty specifies the other, as this constitutes a complete variance in the reasons for assuming jurisdiction.

CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows
73 Taxmann.com 241 · 2016 · High Court
791
citing judgments

A penalty notice under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty is for concealment of income or for furnishing incorrect particulars of income.

CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd.
331 ITR 236 · 2011 · High Court
694
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer loses jurisdiction and the entire reassessment becomes invalid if no addition is made in respect of the income that formed the basis of the reopening. Explanation 3 to Section 147 does not permit assessing other escaped income unless an addition is made for the original income forming the reason to believe.

Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT
434 ITR 1 · 2021 · High Court
672
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify the exact charge by not striking off the irrelevant limb (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income). Such an omnibus or vague notice renders the penalty proceedings bad in law, and any penalty imposed on its basis is liable to be quashed.

Judgments citing Section 271(1)(a)

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

Tribunal was right in revoking the order of the Addl. Commissioner in so far as it pertains to the question of penalties under sections 271(1)(a) and 273(b). Here, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal. It is well established that proceedings ... levy of a penalty whether under section 271(1)(a) or under section 273(6) are proceedings independent of and separate from the assessment proceedings. Though the expression assessment is used in the Act with different meanings in different contexts, so far as section 263 is I.T.A No. 840/Ahd/2025

Dinesh Verma, Manali, Himachal Pradesh vs. ITO, ITO Ward Kullu

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 897/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vinamar Gupta, C.A (Virtually)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 263Section 270A

other decisions of the Tribunal. In J.K. D’Costa (Delhi High Court)case, the Assessing Officer failed to initiate a penalty under sections 271(1)(a) and 273, and the Commissioner revised the assessment, directing the initiation of a penalty. The High Court held that penalty proceedings under

Radheshyam Agarwal, Bhopal vs. The PCIT, Central, Bhopal

ITA 417/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

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

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 253Section 263

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT

Atma Ram Builders Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Central Circle 5, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 3593/DEL/2025[A.Y. 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 269TSection 270ASection 271ESection 69ASection 80G

time gap of more than three years In the assessment order dated 30.12.2017, the Assessing Officer has noted that penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has to be initiated separately. However, the Assessing Officer has made a reference to the Addl. CIT to initiate the proceedings ... under section 271D of the Act for violation of section 269SS of the Act. Once the Assessing Officer decided to initiate penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, subsequently, reference was made to Addl. CIT to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271D of the Act, the Assessing Officer

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the cross-objection of the assessee is partly

ITA 2831/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14A

before resorting to the interpretation of term in addition to the amount of the tax, if any, payable by him as appearing in section 271(1)(a) (i) observed as under: "On the other hand, it two reasonable constructions of a taxing provision are possible, that construction which favours

M/S Manilal P. Savla & Company, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle 5, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2394/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2394 & 2393/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Manilal P. Savla & Company, 24, Bhawani Peth, Pune-411042 Vs. Acit, Circle-5, Pune Pan: Aabfm9782A अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri M.R. Bhagwat Department By : Shri Vidya Ratan Kishore Date Of Hearing : 03-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24-11-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 27.09.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)”/“Nfac"] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2017-18. For The Sake Of Convenience, Both These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri M.R. BhagwatFor Respondent: Shri Vidya Ratan Kishore
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 189Section 189(1)Section 189(2)Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA

M/S Manilal P. Savla & Company, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle 5, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2393/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2394 & 2393/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Manilal P. Savla & Company, 24, Bhawani Peth, Pune-411042 Vs. Acit, Circle-5, Pune Pan: Aabfm9782A अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri M.R. Bhagwat Department By : Shri Vidya Ratan Kishore Date Of Hearing : 03-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24-11-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 27.09.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)”/“Nfac"] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2017-18. For The Sake Of Convenience, Both These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri M.R. BhagwatFor Respondent: Shri Vidya Ratan Kishore
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 189Section 189(1)Section 189(2)Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA

Rupesh Tambi, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is Partly allowed

ITA 1470/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S. R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 1Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 271Section 271A

Agency v. CIT [1989] 44 Taxman 278, at page 55, paragraph 4 held as under: "....It is sufficient for us to refer to section 271(1)(a), which provides that a penalty may be imposed if the Income-tax Officer is satisfied that any person has without reasonable cause failed ... generally sufficient to prove that a default in complying with the statute has occurred. In our opinion, there is nothing in section 271(1)(a) which provision....." (below is quoted from the para 46 of the judgement in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory

Avani Dipakbhai Shah, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle Intl. Txn., Vadodara

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 707/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Jigar Adhyaru, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 153CSection 271F

filing was July 31, 1979. The delay of 32 months led the Assessing Officer to levy a penalty of ₹32,130 under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). On further appeal, the Tribunal held that the assessee had reasonable

Avani Dipakbhai Shah, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle Intl. Txn., Vadodara

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 706/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Jigar Adhyaru, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 153CSection 271F

filing was July 31, 1979. The delay of 32 months led the Assessing Officer to levy a penalty of ₹32,130 under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). On further appeal, the Tribunal held that the assessee had reasonable

Avani Dipakbhai Shah, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle Intl. Txn., Vadodara

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 705/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Jigar Adhyaru, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 153CSection 271F

filing was July 31, 1979. The delay of 32 months led the Assessing Officer to levy a penalty of ₹32,130 under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). On further appeal, the Tribunal held that the assessee had reasonable

Vaibhav Bhargava, Thane vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Mumbai-27, Vashi, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2540/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Viraj Mehta, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263Section 270A

taxmann.com 329 (Mad.), after considering the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, observed as follows: – “14. In view of Section 271(1) read with Section 263 of the Act, the Principal Commissioner might pass such order as the circumstances of the case might justify, which could include ... Tribunal was right in revoking the order of the Addl. Commissioner in so far as it pertains to the question of penalties under sections 271(1)(a) and 273(b). Here, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal. It is well established that proceedings

M/S Vibhuti Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 689/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: the Assessing Officer by stating that the assessee received Rs.10,00,000/- from M/s Gajgamini Commodities on account of sale of shares. However, the Assessing Officer without doing any verification on the evidences furnished by the assessee which comprises of ledger account, bank statement, ITR, Balance Sheet etc. of Gajgamini Commodities Pvt. Ltd. The ld AO came to the conclusion that the assessee has not prove the genuineness of the transaction and consequently added amount to the income

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

under: 4. The first question for consideration is whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the notice issued to the assessee under section 271(1)(a) of the Act was a valid notice. Now, the Tribunal has found that that notice was not signed by the ITO. Section ... that provision, in our opinion, isintended to ensure that an inconsequential technicality does not defeat justice. But, the signing of a notice under section 271(1)(a) of the Act is not merely an inconsequential technicality. It is a requirement of the provisions of O.5, rule 1

Dubbi Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd, Dausa vs. ITO WD, Dausa

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1283/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR (V.C.)
Section 139Section 144Section 148Section 263Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80P

`आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Satya Venkata Krishna Ravi Prasad Koduri, Rajahmundry vs. ACIT, Circle - 1, Rajahmundry

ITA 294/VIZ/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon'Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon'Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 290 & 291/Viz/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Veera Venkata Ramakrishna Mohana Rao Koduri Flat No. 201, Sri Towers Nh-16 Venkateswara Nagar Syamalanagar East Godavari District - 533103 Andhra Pradesh V. Acit - Circle – 1 Ayakkar Bhawan Veerabadhrapuram Rajahmundry – 533105 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0888C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) आईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 293 & 294/Viz/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Satya Venkata Krishna Ravi Prasad Koduri 81-10-3/6, Venkateswaranagar Near Ima Halla, Danavaipeta East Godavari District Andhra Pradesh V. Acit - Circle – 1 Ayakkar Bhawan Veerabadhrapuram Rajahmundry - 533105 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0889D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) करदाता का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By सुनवाई समाप्त होने की तिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Smt Hemalatha K, Ca Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit(Dr) 05.08.2025 22.08.2025

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 263Section 270A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, विशाखापटणम पीठ, विशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM “DIVISION” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM (HYBRID HEARING) श्री रवीश

Satya Venkata Krishna Ravi Prasad Koduri, East Godhavari vs. ACIT, Circle - 1, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 293/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 263Section 270A

High Court in the case of CIT v. Chennai Metro Rail Ltd., [92 taxmann.com 329 (Madras) observed as follows: - “14. In view of Section 271(1) read with Section 263 of the Act, the Principal Commissioner might pass such order as the circumstances of the case might justify, which could ... Tribunal was right in revoking the order of the Addl. Commissioner in so far as it pertains to the question of penalties under sections 271(1)(a) and 273(b). Here, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal. It is well established that proceedings

Veera Venkata Ramakrishna Mohan Rao Koduri, East Godhavari vs. ACIT, Cirlce - 1, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 291/VIZ/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 290 & 291/Viz/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Veera Venkata Ramakrishna V. Acit – Circle – 1 Mohana Rao Koduri Ayakkar Bhawan Flat No. 201, Sri Towers Nh-16 Veerabadhrapuram Venkateswara Nagar Rajahmundry – 533105 Syamalanagar Andhra Pradesh East Godavari District - 533103 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0888C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 293 & 294/Viz/2025 निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Satya Venkata Krishna Ravi V. Acit – Circle – 1 Prasad Koduri Ayakkar Bhawan 81-10-3/6, Venkateswaranagar Veerabadhrapuram Near Ima Halla, Danavaipeta Rajahmundry – 533105 East Godavari District Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0889D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Smt Hemalatha K, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit(Dr)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153CSection 263Section 270A

High Court in the case of CIT v. Chennai Metro Rail Ltd., [92 taxmann.com 329 (Madras) observed as follows: - “14. In view of Section 271(1) read with Section 263 of the Act, the Principal Commissioner might pass such order as the circumstances of the case might justify, which could ... Tribunal was right in revoking the order of the Addl. Commissioner in so far as it pertains to the question of penalties under sections 271(1)(a) and 273(b). Here, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal. It is well established that proceedings

Veera Venkata Ramakrishna Mohana Rao Koduri, Rajahmundry vs. ACIT, Circle - 1, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 290/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 290 & 291/Viz/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Veera Venkata Ramakrishna V. Acit – Circle – 1 Mohana Rao Koduri Ayakkar Bhawan Flat No. 201, Sri Towers Nh-16 Veerabadhrapuram Venkateswara Nagar Rajahmundry – 533105 Syamalanagar Andhra Pradesh East Godavari District - 533103 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0888C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 293 & 294/Viz/2025 निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Satya Venkata Krishna Ravi V. Acit – Circle – 1 Prasad Koduri Ayakkar Bhawan 81-10-3/6, Venkateswaranagar Veerabadhrapuram Near Ima Halla, Danavaipeta Rajahmundry – 533105 East Godavari District Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0889D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Smt Hemalatha K, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit(Dr)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153CSection 263Section 270A

High Court in the case of CIT v. Chennai Metro Rail Ltd., [92 taxmann.com 329 (Madras) observed as follows: - “14. In view of Section 271(1) read with Section 263 of the Act, the Principal Commissioner might pass such order as the circumstances of the case might justify, which could ... Tribunal was right in revoking the order of the Addl. Commissioner in so far as it pertains to the question of penalties under sections 271(1)(a) and 273(b). Here, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal. It is well established that proceedings

Koti Narasimha Reddy Guttikonda, Guntur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 332/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.332/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17) Koti Narasimha Reddy Guttikonda Vs. Pr. Cit 1-99, Rudravaram – 522410 Siddhardha Public School Road Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh Mogalrajapurm Vijayawada – 520010 [Pan: Amcpg7882N] Andhra Pradesh (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri K.Siva Ram Kumar, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

Ld.Pr.CIT in exercising his powers under section 263 of the Act found that Ld. AO has failed to initiate penalty provisions under section 271(1)(c) of the Act as the assessee concealed his income particulars. Ld.Pr.CIT therefore considered assessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B ... Appeal.” 5. Assessee has challenged the notice issued under section 148 of the Act and has claimed immunity as per Explanation 4C to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has paid the entire tax on 26.11.2021 whereas notice under section

Rooman Technologies Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)& TDS, Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 536/BANG/2025[2015-16 Q 3]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Vinod Gard, CAFor Respondent: Shri. R. Rajamanohar, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 2Section 200ASection 234ESection 271(1)(a)Section 271H

prescribed for submission of the said statement. To put it in other words, for failure to submit the statements, the penalty provided under Section 271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub- section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that