← All Phrases

“Section 271(1)(c)”

Section References (mined)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)8,984 judgments

HIMANSHU DAKSHESHKUMAR KATWALA,KHAMBHAT ANAND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1), PETLAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 199/AHD/2026[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Apr 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Hardik J Raval & Vivek D Rao, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Girish Parihar, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69A

section 154 read with section 147, wherein the Assessing Officer had only rectified the penalty provision by substituting section 271AAC in place of section 271(1)(c), without making any change to the assessed income or addition. 7. With respect to the grounds relating to reopening of assessment under section

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)

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 grievance of the assessee ... account for possible inflation of purchase price or profit suppression. 5. Thus, in our considered view, the very edifice of penalty under section 271(1)(c) collapses in the absence of any cogent material demonstrating either concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The estimation of gross profit, howsoever

BABUBHAI GANGABHAI BAGUL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1, NAVSARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1352/SRT/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH “SMC”, SURAT BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1352/Srt/2025 (Assessment

NARAYAN BARTER PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-6(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 2572/KOL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act taxable at the rate of 30% u/s 115BBE of the Act. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were also initiated for concealment of income of ₹81,50,000/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before

MAHESH PRAKASH BENDE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE 27(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8028/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarmahesh Prakash Ito Circle - 27(2), Bende 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6, 302, 3Rd Floor, Prithvi Vs. It Office, Vashi Park, Sector-30, Vashi Railway Station Navi Mumbai-400 075 Building, Navi Mubmai – 400 703 Pan/Gir No. Alnpb2531M (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Devendra Jain, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2026

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 249Section 249(3)Section 250

profit on estimated basis: Rs. 38,23,291/- and Salary income: Rs. 18,00,000/-The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). The appeal

BHANUSHANKAR KASALSHIBHAI DAVE,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(6), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1331/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Mar 2026AY 2012-13
For Appellant: \nShri Mehul Shah, ARFor Respondent: \nShri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nSURAT BENCH, BENCH\n[Conducted through Hybrid mode at Ahmedabad Bench]\nBEFORE

MAHESH VISHINDAS CHANDWANI,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT, CIRCLE 29(2), MUMBAI

In the result the Ground No

ITA 6777/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2026AY 2013-14
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nMUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI\nBEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND\nSHRI

LATE VISHWAS GAJMAL SONAWANE,DHULE vs. ITO, WARD-1, DHULE, DHULE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 194/PUN/2026[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.194/Pun/2026 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Late Vishwas Gajmal Sonawane, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Through Legal Heir Milind Ward-1, Dhule Vishwas Gajmal, Plot No.40, Vishwasindhu Sneh Nagar, Station Road, Opp. Khandal Vipra Bhavan, Dhule – 424 001, Maharashtra Pan : Ablps6973N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dayanand Jawalikar
Section 139Section 143Section 148Section 154Section 2(14)Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.194/PUN/2026

GND ISPAT PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 725/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 725/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16) Gnd Ispat Private Limited, Vs Assistant Commissioner Of 114C, Gnd Chambers, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Agrasen Chowk, Raipur, C. G. - 492001 Raipur, 8Th Floor, Cbd Building, Naya Raipur, C. G. - 492018 Pan: Aaccg6090K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None (Petition Filed) राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 17/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2015-16 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.09.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [‘Cit(A)’], Raipur-3 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’).

For Appellant: None (Petition filed)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

erred in upholding the order of the Learned Assessing Officer, wherein the Assessing Officer levied penalty without specifying the particular limb of section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty proceedings were initiated. Consequently, the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is untenable ... upholding the order of the Learned Assessing Officer, wherein the Assessing Officer has erred in levying penalty of Rs.4,40,454 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT(A) is unjustified, unwarranted and uncalled

PRAFULLA KUMAR BIDHARA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD 5(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, ITA No.763/CTK/2025 is partly allowed whereas ITA

ITA 764/CTK/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarita No.763&764/Ctk/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Sarangi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND

PRAFULLA KUMAR BIDHARA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD 5(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, ITA No.763/CTK/2025 is partly allowed whereas ITA

ITA 763/CTK/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarita No.763&764/Ctk/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Sarangi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND

ACIT,CIRCLE -20(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. UTKARSHA VIVEK PARKAR, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6513/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokaracit Circle-20(1), Utkarsha Vivek Mumbai Parkar, Room No. 305, 3Rd Vs. 108, A-Wing, Byculla Floor, Piramal Service Industrial Chambers, Parel, Estate, D. K. Cross Mumbai – 400 012. Road, Byculla, Mumbai-400 027 Pan/Gir No. Agjpp4377J (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By Shri Nayanjyoti Nath, Ld. Dr Assessee By Ms. Dinkle Hariya, Ld. Ar Date Of Hearing 11.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.03.2026

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

added to the total income of the assessee. Consequently, the total income was assessed at Rs. 55,67,060/-. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were also initiated separately. 6. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). Before

GOPALKRISHNA NARLA RAO,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 16(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 6488/MUM/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishgopalkrishna Narla Rao, Income Tax Officer, A/12/46 Sunder Nagar Kalina, Ward 16(2)(4), Vs. Santacruz East, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400098 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpr 1916R Appellant By : Shri M Subramnian Respondent By : Shri Swapnil Choudhari, Sr.- Dr (Appellant) (Respondent) Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 16 .03.2026

For Appellant: Shri M SubramnianFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari, Sr.- DR
Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G-” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 419/GTY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

order of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the penalty of ₹ 1,01,25,099/- as imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) on account of concealment of particulars of income. ITA No. 418 & 419/GTY/2025 ABCI Infrastructure ... under Section 153A of the Act however in the assessment framed under Section 153A of the Act dated 29/09/2021, initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act vide notice dated 29/09/2021 for concealment of particulars of income. A show cause notice under Section 271(1)(c) read

ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 418/GTY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

order of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the penalty of ₹ 1,01,25,099/- as imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) on account of concealment of particulars of income. ITA No. 418 & 419/GTY/2025 ABCI Infrastructure ... under Section 153A of the Act however in the assessment framed under Section 153A of the Act dated 29/09/2021, initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act vide notice dated 29/09/2021 for concealment of particulars of income. A show cause notice under Section 271(1)(c) read

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SHILLONG, SHILLONG vs. MEGHALAYA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, LUMJINGSHAI, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 308/GTY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2016-17
Section 139(4)Section 139(9)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 72Section 80Section 80I

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'GAUHATI BENCH', GUWAHATI\n\nBEFORE SHRIDUVVURU RL REDDY, VP\nAND\nSHRI RAJESH

JAHAR DEB,AGARTALA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, AGARTALA, AGARTALA

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 244/GTY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2015-16
Section 271(1)(c)

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL `GAUHATI BENCH', GUWAHATI\n\nBEFORE SHRIDUVVURU RL REDDY, VP\nAND\nSHRI RAJESH

JAHAR DEB,AGARTALA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, AGARTALA, AGARTALA

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 243/GTY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2015-16
Section 271(1)(c)

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'GAUHATI BENCH', GUWAHATI\nBEFORE SHRIDUVVURU RL REDDY, VP\nAND\nSHRI RAJESH KUMAR

PLATINUM SALES,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD2(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1156/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1156/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Platinum Sales, The Ito, Scf-10, Sector 9-D, बनाम Ward 2(1), Chandigarh Chandigarh Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aanfp7207P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Phsyical Hearing) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Ms. Ekakshra Mandhar, Advocate & Sh. Atul Mandhar, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr.Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2026 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2026 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am : Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 14.07.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi.

For Appellant: Ms. Ekakshra Mandhar, Advocate, and Sh. Atul Mandhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr.DR
Section 147Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

relied upon in Assessment Order, 5. That the Lrd. CIT(A) has been unjustified in upholding Penalty proceedings under the Provisions of Section 271(1)(c). 6. That the Lrd. CIT(A) has been unjustified in upholding Penalty proceedings under the Provisions of Section 271(1)(b). 7. That

SHRI AJAY MAYOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1607/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

held now.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings against the assessee under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") on the ground that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income and had concealed the particulars ... disclosed the said receipt in the return of income and therefore had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. On this basis, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated and the Assessing Officer imposed a penalty of Rs.82,91,261/- holding that the assessee had concealed income and furnished inaccurate

Showing 1–20 of 8,984 · Page 1 of 450

...