← 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)

Nilesh Ashanand Thacker, Bhuj vs. ITO Ward 4, Gandhidham (Bhuj)

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

ITA 377/RJT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.377/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Nilesh Ashanand Thacker, बनाम Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4, / Near-Laxmi Vekari Mahakali Gandhidham (Bhuj-2)-370 201 Vs. Shopping Mall, Jublee Circle, Bhuj, Kutch-300 001(Gujarat) "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adhpt 8610R (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN

Dredging Corporation of India Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal of the appellant company is allowed

ITA 634/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: the CIT(A), Visakhapatnam on the following grounds : (i) Sale of scrap amounting to Rs.3,49,99,784/- (ii) Sale of empties amounting to Rs.8,65,345/- (iii) Sale of waste oil amounting to Rs.17,03,358/- (iv) Recovery towards leased quarter amounting to Rs.3,30,665/- (v) Exchange differences amounting to Rs.58,96,009/- (vi) Condemned machinery scrapped sale amounting to Rs.2,69,23,862/- (vii) Staff car recoveries amounting to Rs.61,560/- (viii) Sale of tender documents amounting to Rs.2,94,250

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

आयकर अपीऱीय न्यायाधिकरण, विशाखापट्नम बेंच में, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Visakhapatnam Bench, Visakhapatnam श्री विजय पाऱ राि,माननीय

Sarfarazkhan Sarvarkhan Pathan, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2016/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri P D Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69Section 69A

estimating income at 12.5% of total bank credits treated as business receipts. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Before the CIT(Appeals

Jatinkumar Patel, Chhatral Kalol vs. Income Tax Office, Ward 1, Mehsana

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the above terms

ITA 1907/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT- D.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT- D.R
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 263

Rs.169,75,68,149/- as unexplained money under section 69A. The amount was brought to tax under section 115BBE, and penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c) and 271B were initiated, besides levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal

Nirman, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1509/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalnirman, Vs. 35, Vasantkunj Society, New Dcit, Sharda Mandir Road, Paldi, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad-380007 Ahmedabad [Pan :Aabfn 7155 L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant Represented By : Shri Parin Shah, Ar Respondent Represented By: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 03.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2026 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

Section 132Section 148Section 250Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Srimad Virat Pothuluri Veerabrahmendra Swamulavari Muttam, Kadapa vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Tirupati

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2287/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1164/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Vs. Income Tax Officer Brahmendra Swamula Vari Exemption Ward, Mattam, Kadapa. Tirupati. Pan: Aagts2599Q (Respondent) (Appellant) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.2287/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Vs. Income Tax Officer, Brahmendra Swamula Vari Exemption Ward, Chittoor, Mattam, Kadapa. Tirupati. Pan: Aagts2599Q (Respondent) (Appellant) निर्धारिती द्वारा/Assessee By: Shri Ravindra Chenji, Advocate (Through Hybrid Mode) राजस्व द्वारा /Revenue By:: Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: | 13/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Brahmendra Swamula Vari Mattam (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 21/08/2023 & 21/10/2025 Respectively For The A.Y.2016-17.

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra Chenji, Advocate
Section 253(5)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad 'A' Bench, Hyderabad श्री विजय पाल राव, उपाध्यक्ष

Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Brahmendra Swamula Vari Mattam, Cuddapah vs. ITO., Exemption Ward, Tirupathi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1164/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1164/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Vs. Income Tax Officer Brahmendra Swamula Vari Exemption Ward, Mattam, Kadapa. Tirupati. Pan: Aagts2599Q (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.2287/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Vs. Income Tax Officer, Brahmendra Swamula Vari Exemption Ward, Chittoor, Mattam, Kadapa. Tirupati. Pan: Aagts2599Q (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri Ravindra Chenji, Advocate (Through Hybrid Mode) राज" व "वारा/Revenue By:: Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr.Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement: 13/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Brahmendra Swamula Vari Mattam (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra Chenji, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr.AR

determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.77,45,857/-. Against the said assessment, the Ld. AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. During the course of penalty proceedings, the assessee did not comply with the notices issued by the Ld. AO. Accordingly ... completed the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and passed a penalty order dated 22.03.2025, levying penalty of Rs.23,93,470/- on the assessee. 9. Aggrieved with the penalty order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However

Sea Shark Lines, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward -12(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3444/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.3443 & 3444/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sea Shark Lines, The Income Tax Officer, New No.94, Old No.131, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward-12(1), Ii Floor, Coral Merchant Street Chennai. Mannady, Chennai – 600 001. [Pan: Abkfs-5316-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (&'थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. H. Yeshwanth Kumar, C.A. &'थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. Krishna Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.02.2026

For Appellant: Mr. H. Yeshwanth Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. Krishna Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एबी टी वक", "ाियक

Sea Shark Lines, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward- 12(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3443/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.3443 & 3444/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sea Shark Lines, The Income Tax Officer, New No.94, Old No.131, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward-12(1), Ii Floor, Coral Merchant Street Chennai. Mannady, Chennai – 600 001. [Pan: Abkfs-5316-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (&'थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. H. Yeshwanth Kumar, C.A. &'थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. Krishna Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.02.2026

For Appellant: Mr. H. Yeshwanth Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. Krishna Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एबी टी वक", "ाियक

Sh. Ratnaram Kohlaram Chaudary (Prop. of M/S. Nutech Metal), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 8693/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Ravi GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. AR
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Rs.59,262/- towards unexplained expenditure. 15. On such conspectus, whether it was open to the Assessing Officer to invoke the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act so as to reach to a conclusion that the assessee be held liable for a penalty, on the count of furnishing ... Shri Ratnaram Kohlaram Chaudhary vs. ITO 16. It is well settled that the condition precedent for levy of penalty under Section 271 (1)(c) is only when the Assessing Officer, in the course of proceedings, is satisfied that an assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or has furnished

Sh. Ratnaram Kohlaram Chaudary (Prop. of M/S. Nutech Metal), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 8692/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Ravi GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. AR
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Rs.59,262/- towards unexplained expenditure. 15. On such conspectus, whether it was open to the Assessing Officer to invoke the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act so as to reach to a conclusion that the assessee be held liable for a penalty, on the count of furnishing ... Shri Ratnaram Kohlaram Chaudhary vs. ITO 16. It is well settled that the condition precedent for levy of penalty under Section 271 (1)(c) is only when the Assessing Officer, in the course of proceedings, is satisfied that an assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or has furnished

Sh. Ratnaram Kohlaram Chaudary (Prop. of M/S. Netech Metal), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 8691/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Ravi GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. AR
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Rs.59,262/- towards unexplained expenditure. 15. On such conspectus, whether it was open to the Assessing Officer to invoke the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act so as to reach to a conclusion that the assessee be held liable for a penalty, on the count of furnishing ... Shri Ratnaram Kohlaram Chaudhary vs. ITO 16. It is well settled that the condition precedent for levy of penalty under Section 271 (1)(c) is only when the Assessing Officer, in the course of proceedings, is satisfied that an assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or has furnished

Rasila Lalitkumar Cholera, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

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

ITA 7544/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) I.T.A. No. 7544/Mum/2025 Assessment Year

Pba Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 5(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4212/MUM/2025[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi a/wFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR a/w
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

computed under normal procedure is less than the tax payable under the deeming provisions of Section 115JB of the Act, then penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act could not be imposed with reference to additions/disallowances made under normal provisions. The judgment has attained finality. 4. Subsequently

Pba Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 5(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4211/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi a/wFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR a/w
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

computed under normal procedure is less than the tax payable under the deeming provisions of Section 115JB of the Act, then penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act could not be imposed with reference to additions/disallowances made under normal provisions. The judgment has attained finality. 4. Subsequently

DCIT, Delhi vs. Aster Tradelinks Private Limited, Delhi

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

ITA 6254/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

Section 147Section 153(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the penalty of Rs.71,51,527/- imposed under section 271(1)(c), as the Ld. AO failed to record the mandatory satisfaction as required under the law and further failed to specify the exact charge, i.e., whether ... facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the penalty of Rs.71,51,527/- imposed under section 271(1)(c) also on the ground that penalty 2 | P a g e ITA No. 6254 Aster Tradelinks Pvt Ltd & CO- 4/D/2026 notice u/s 271(1)(c

Park View Automotives Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 19(3), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5711/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year : 2012-13 Park View Automotives P. Ltd., Vs. Ito, S-606, School Block, Ward 19(3), Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. Delhi – 110 092. Pan: Aaecp3499H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mukesh Jain, Ca & Shri Samyak Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.02.2026 Order Per Madhumita Roy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Jain, CA &For Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Income Tax Act, 1961 for concealment of income as aforesaid within the meaning of explanation 1 to the sub section (1) of the section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are initiated. 7 5.3 As per the reply of the assessee mentioned above, assessee has requested

Mckinsey & Company India LLP, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-29(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 1028/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

Company India LLP The Appellant also submits that the appeal includes corporate tax-related grounds pertaining to the consequential levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Given the MAP resolution, these grounds have now become infructuous. We further wish to bring to the kind attention ... well as additional ground No. 16 filed on 17.04.2022. It is further stated that the grounds relating to consequential levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act have become infructuous. ITA No.- 1028/Del/2021 McKinsey & Company India LLP 4. The Ld. Sr. DR did not have any objection

Sar Auto Products Limited, Rajkot vs. ACIT Circle 1(2), Rajkot

In the result impugned order in set aside and, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 668/RJT/2025[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Feb 2026AY 2009-2010

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Gaurang Khakhar, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND DR. DINESH MOHAN

Vimlaben V Brahmbhatt, Vadodara vs. ITO Ward-1(3)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 2686/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarita Nos. 2686/Ahd/2025 & 1945/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Parin S. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH BEFORE DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL