← All Phrases

“Section 271(1)(c)”

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

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

Leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c)

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)(c)

Sh. Dinesh Sethi, Ludhiana vs. ITO, Ludhiana

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 376/CHANDI/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 376/Chd/2014 & "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Janesh Sethi, Legal Heir Of बनाम The Ito, Late Shri Dinesh Sethi, Ward – 1(1), Vs Prop. M/S R.S. Trading Corp., Ludhiana. C-434, Urban Estate Focal Point, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Aaqpk1200Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.8.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

consider whether assessee deserves to be visited with penalty or not, we deem it appropriate to take note of the relevant provision i.e. Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Section 271(1)(c) of the Act has a direct bearing on the controversy and, therefore, it is salutary upon ... take note of the relevant provisions of Section 271(1)(c) along with Explanation-1 which read as under: “271. Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc. (1). If the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the CIT in the course of any proceedings under

DCIT Central Circle 7 (1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Panther Investrade Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the Cross appeals no

ITA 416/MUM/2025[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Akash Kumar, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan (Sr. DR)
Section 271(1)(c)

case and in law, The learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty of Rs. 89,13,326/- imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite the fact that the Assessee had deliberately diverted interest-bearing funds for non- business purposes for the entire ... ITAT in the AY 2001-02, and therefore, the penalty imposed by the AO for the AY 2002- 03 is fully justified under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty

DCIT(Central Circle)-7(1), Mumbai vs. Panther Investrade Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the Cross appeals no

ITA 415/MUM/2025[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Akash Kumar, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan (Sr. DR)
Section 271(1)(c)

case and in law, The learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty of Rs. 89,13,326/- imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite the fact that the Assessee had deliberately diverted interest-bearing funds for non- business purposes for the entire ... ITAT in the AY 2001-02, and therefore, the penalty imposed by the AO for the AY 2002- 03 is fully justified under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty

Radiant Gems, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 34(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2075/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

No.4203 & 4304/Mum/2024, Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2011-12, dated 03/10/2024] whereby, in identical facts and circumstances, the Tribunal had deleted penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that addition was made on estimate basis. In view of the above, we decline to interfere with ... order passed by the CIT(A) deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, and therefore, Ground No.1, 2 and 3 raised by the Revenue are dismissed.” 7.3 Respectfully following the finding of the Tribunal (supra), we uphold the finding of the Tribunal on the issue

Radiant Gems, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 34(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2074/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

No.4203 & 4304/Mum/2024, Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2011-12, dated 03/10/2024] whereby, in identical facts and circumstances, the Tribunal had deleted penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that addition was made on estimate basis. In view of the above, we decline to interfere with ... order passed by the CIT(A) deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, and therefore, Ground No.1, 2 and 3 raised by the Revenue are dismissed.” 7.3 Respectfully following the finding of the Tribunal (supra), we uphold the finding of the Tribunal on the issue

Ogd Services Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1407/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan,(Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 43BSection 44A

Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)"] pertaining to a penalty order passed u/s. Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] dated 31.12.2021for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2019-20. 2. The grounds ... that appellant has concealed any income or particular of income and passed a penalty order determining a penalty of Rs.16,97,141/-under section 271(1)(c). 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty order passed by the learned AO under section 274 r.w.s Section 271

Pallavi Santosh Bhave, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 41(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 6418/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

Section 271(1)(c)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

Sukhabhai Dayalbhai Patel, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(6), Surat

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

ITA 1120/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat01 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri P M Jagasheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 54B

there was no merit in the assessee's claim and proceeded with the assessment based on the stamp duty valuation. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were also initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 4. In appeal, CIT(A) gave part relief to the assessee. CIT(Appeals) reviewed

Urmila Rajendra Mundra, Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Ajmer

In the result grounds raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 577/JPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(1)

found to be incorrect or erroneous or false. Such not being the case, there would be no question of inviting the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. A mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate ... claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the revenue, that by itself would not, in our opinion, attract the penalty under section 271(1)(c). If we accept the contention of the revenue then in case of every Return where the claim made is not accepted by Assessing

Mrs. Nidhi Yadav, Dehradun vs. ITO, Rudrapur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 117/DDN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.115/Ddn/2024, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No.117/Ddn/2024, A.Y. 2015-16 Nidhi Yadav, Vs. Income Tax Officer, B-801, Forest Residency, Ward 2(1)(4), Dehradun, Uttarakhand Income Tax Office, Pin Code: 248014 Rudrapur, Uttarakhand Pan: Acapy5157E (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Mohit Dev, Ca Respondent By Sh. Amarpal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am Common Facts & Similar Grounds Arise In The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee; Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order.

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN BENCH ‘SMC’: DEHRADUN BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH

Smt. Nidhi Yadav, Dehradun vs. ITO- W-2(1)(4), Rudrapur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 115/DDN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.115/Ddn/2024, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No.117/Ddn/2024, A.Y. 2015-16 Nidhi Yadav, Vs. Income Tax Officer, B-801, Forest Residency, Ward 2(1)(4), Dehradun, Uttarakhand Income Tax Office, Pin Code: 248014 Rudrapur, Uttarakhand Pan: Acapy5157E (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Mohit Dev, Ca Respondent By Sh. Amarpal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am Common Facts & Similar Grounds Arise In The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee; Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order.

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN BENCH ‘SMC’: DEHRADUN BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH

Desh Bhushan Singhal, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-1(3)(1), Surat

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

ITA 862/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.862/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Desh Bhushan Singhal, Vs. Income Tax Officer G-12, Rittz Square, Nr. Indoor Ward-1(3)(1), Stadium, Ghod Dod Road, Surat - Surat 395 007, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acips3627H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ramesh Malpani, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2025

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 234BSection 250Section 56

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat vs. Ms. Janani Exports, Mumbai

ITA 604/SRT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.604/Srt/2024 (Assessment Year:2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) Acit, Vs. M/S Janani Exports, Central Circle – 2, 704, Vastu Slip Apt., 7Th Floor, Nr. Surat Parsi Colony, Pump House, Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400093 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefj3969P (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Ss)A Nos.9, 10 & 19/Srt/2024 (Ays:2013-14, 2014-15 & 2018-19) Acit, Vs. M/S Janani Exports, Central Circle – 2, 704, Vastu Slip Apt., 7Th Floor, Nr. Surat Parsi Colony, Pump House, Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400093 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefj3969P (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Ss)A Nos.20 To 22/Srt/2024 (Ays: 2013-14 To 2015-16) M/S Janani Exports, Vs. Acit, 704, Vastu Slip Apt., 7Th Floor, Nr. Central Circle – 2, Parsi Colony, Pump House, Andheri Surat (E), Mumbai - 400093 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefj3969P (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Ss)A Nos.35 To 38/Srt/2024 (Ays: 2016-17 To 2019-20) M/S Janani Exports, Vs. Acit, 704, Vastu Slip Apt., 7Th Floor, Nr. Central Circle – 2, Parsi Colony, Pump House, Andheri Surat (E), Mumbai - 400093 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefj3969P (Appellant) (Respondent)

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT

Dy.CIT, Circle 1(1) & Tps, Thrissur vs. Arun Majeed, Thrissur

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands allowed

ITA 388/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. Cit, Circle 1(1) & Tps, Thrissur .......... Appellant [Pan: Adopa9351R] Vs. Arun Majeed .......... Respondent Palak Velyannur Temple Road Veliyannur, Thrissur 680021 Appellant By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Respondent By: ------- None ------- Date Of Hearing: 05.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025

For Appellant: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: ------- None -------
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271(1)(i)Section 274

Arun Majeed Ambadi Krisha Menon have no application, as the case of the appellant clearly falls within the ambit of Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. She further submits that in the assessment order, the AO had clearly recorded that penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c ... failed to specify whether the assessee had conceal income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. In our opinion provisions of Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) were squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, which reads as under: - “Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment

Sai Export Enterprises, Kollam vs. ITO, Ward 1 & Tps, Kollam

ITA 339/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sai Export Enerprises .......... Appellant Mangad P.O., Kollam 691015 [Pan: Absfs2716A] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-1 & Tpo, Kollam .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Rajakannan, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 13.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 31.03.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Partnership Firm. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Processing & Export Of Cashew Nuts. The Return Of Income For Ay 2016-17 Was Filed On 17.02.2017 Declaring Income Of Rs. 42,15,670/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The National

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 3

itself does not lead to the conclusion that the assessee concealed particulars of income or furnished incorrect particulars of income and provisions of section 271(1)(c) is not attracted. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ... acceptable to the revenue, that by itself would not, in our 4 Sai Export Enerprises opinion, attract the penalty under section 271(1)(c). If we accept the contention of the revenue then in case of every Return where the claim made is not accepted by Assessing Officer

Thekkinian Paulose Varkey, Thrissur vs. ACIT, Circle 2(1), Thrissur

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

ITA 959/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Niveditha K. Kammath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

contentions and perused the material available on record. the issue in the present appeal relates to levy of penalty under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The penalty was levied by the AO in respect of addition made u/s. 68 disbelieving the existence of sundry creditors

Mallelil Industries Private Limited, Pathanamthitta vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Thiruvalla

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 787/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mallelil Industries Pvt. Ltd. .......... Appellant Attachakkal P.O., Pathanamthitta 689691 [Pan: Aafcm0761Q] Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Thiruvalla .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Surendran, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 24.08.2022 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of Companies Act, 1956. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Manufacture Of Rock Aggregates & Running A Quarry. The Return Of Income For Ay 2015-16 Was Fled On 22.09.2015 Declaring Income Of Rs. 2,54,10,720/-. Survey

For Appellant: Shri Surendran, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 133ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM Assessment

Suresh Patel, Dewas vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 131/IND/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

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

Section 144Section 249(4)(b)Section 253(5)Section 271(1)(c)

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, इंदौर"ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

Suresh Patel, Dewas vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 130/IND/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

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

Section 144Section 249(4)(b)Section 253(5)Section 271(1)(c)

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, इंदौर"ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

Madan Lal Bapna, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward 3(5), Jaipur

12. As a result, ITA No

ITA 731/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh Prateek Jain, C.A. &For Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Chaudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k