← 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)

Co-Operative Cane Development Union Ltd., Modi Nagar vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Ghaziabad

ITA 4084/DEL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

assessee’s corresponding quantum appeals ITA No.4083, 4085, 4087 & 4089/Del/2024 allowing the very issue of section 80P deduction as well as its corresponding section 271(1)(c) consequential penalty appeals ITA Nos. 4084, 4086, 4088/Del/2024, respectively. No other ground or argument has been pressed before

Co-Operative Cane Development Union Ltd., Modi Nagar vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Ghaziabad

ITA 4083/DEL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

assessee’s corresponding quantum appeals ITA No.4083, 4085, 4087 & 4089/Del/2024 allowing the very issue of section 80P deduction as well as its corresponding section 271(1)(c) consequential penalty appeals ITA Nos. 4084, 4086, 4088/Del/2024, respectively. No other ground or argument has been pressed before

Co-Operative Cane Development Union Ltd., Hapur vs. ITO, Ward-3(4), Hapur

ITA 4068/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

assessee’s corresponding quantum appeals ITA No.4083, 4085, 4087 & 4089/Del/2024 allowing the very issue of section 80P deduction as well as its corresponding section 271(1)(c) consequential penalty appeals ITA Nos. 4084, 4086, 4088/Del/2024, respectively. No other ground or argument has been pressed before

Barun Kumar Chand, Bhadrak vs. The Income Tax Officer, Bhadrak Ward, Bhadrak

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 230/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Barun Kumar Chand, At-College Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhadrak Road, Jagannathpur, Dist: Ward, Bhadrak Bhadrak-756100 Pan/Gir No. Adppc 8074 Q (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Adv Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kr Chakdraborty, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02//07/2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ashim kr Chakdraborty, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT(KZ) AND RAJESH KUMAR

Hindusthan Ore and Mining Private Limited, Barbil vs. ITO, Rourkela, Ayakar Bhawan, Udit Nagar Rourkela

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

ITA 210/CTK/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2015-16 Hindustan Ore & Mining Private Vs. Ito, Rourkela, Ayakar Bhawan, Limited Udit Nagar, Rourkela Opposite East India Crusher Near Gurunanak Petroleum, Barbil, Keonnjhar- 758035 Pan/Gir No. Aacch 7805 D (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chittaranjan Panda, Ca Revenue By : Shri Prateek Kr Mishra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 2 /7/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 2 /7/2025 O R D E R Per Bench The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nafc), New Delhi Nfac), Delhi Dated 07/06/2024 In Appeal No. Nfac/2014-15/10129894 Passed For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Vide Adjournment Petition Dated July 01, 2025, Ld Ar Had Sought Adjournment, Which Is Rejected & The Appeal Is Disposed On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri Chittaranjan Panda, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Kr Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 156Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT(KZ) AND RAJESH KUMAR

Uma Kant Singh, Purnea vs. DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle-3, Patna

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 152/PAT/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Patna02 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not appear in response to the single notice fixing the date for hearing and is seen to have not filed any submission also in response to the said notice. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded ahead to confirm the penalty levied by the Ld. AO. We find an identical pattern in other appeals also of a single notice being issued by the Ld. CIT(A) for which there was seen to be no response from the side of the assessee and thereafter, the penalty imposed in all the

Section 153ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “PATNA BENCH”, PATNA (VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA) SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY

Uma Kant Singh, Purnea vs. DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle-3, Patna

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 151/PAT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna02 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not appear in response to the single notice fixing the date for hearing and is seen to have not filed any submission also in response to the said notice. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded ahead to confirm the penalty levied by the Ld. AO. We find an identical pattern in other appeals also of a single notice being issued by the Ld. CIT(A) for which there was seen to be no response from the side of the assessee and thereafter, the penalty imposed in all the

Section 153ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “PATNA BENCH”, PATNA (VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA) SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY

Uma Kant Singh, Purnea vs. DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle-3, Patna

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 150/PAT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna02 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not appear in response to the single notice fixing the date for hearing and is seen to have not filed any submission also in response to the said notice. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded ahead to confirm the penalty levied by the Ld. AO. We find an identical pattern in other appeals also of a single notice being issued by the Ld. CIT(A) for which there was seen to be no response from the side of the assessee and thereafter, the penalty imposed in all the

Section 153ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “PATNA BENCH”, PATNA (VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA) SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY

Uma Kant Singh, Purnea vs. DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle-3, Patna

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 149/PAT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna02 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not appear in response to the single notice fixing the date for hearing and is seen to have not filed any submission also in response to the said notice. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded ahead to confirm the penalty levied by the Ld. AO. We find an identical pattern in other appeals also of a single notice being issued by the Ld. CIT(A) for which there was seen to be no response from the side of the assessee and thereafter, the penalty imposed in all the

Section 153ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “PATNA BENCH”, PATNA (VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA) SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY

Uma Kant Singh, Purnea vs. DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle-3, Patna

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 148/PAT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna02 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not appear in response to the single notice fixing the date for hearing and is seen to have not filed any submission also in response to the said notice. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded ahead to confirm the penalty levied by the Ld. AO. We find an identical pattern in other appeals also of a single notice being issued by the Ld. CIT(A) for which there was seen to be no response from the side of the assessee and thereafter, the penalty imposed in all the

Section 153ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “PATNA BENCH”, PATNA (VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA) SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY

Panjurajan Ganesan, Sivakasi vs. DCIT, CC - 2, Madurai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 278/CHNY/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.278/Chny/2020 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Panjurajan Ganesan Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.74A, Velayutham Road, Corporate Circle-2, Sivakasi, Madurai. Tamil Nadu-626 123. [Pan:Abypg3315R] (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. D. Anand, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. G. Latchana, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.07.2025

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. G. Latchana, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

which penalty proceedings has been initiated. The ld. counsel further contended that ‘concealment of income’ and ‘furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income’ in Section 271(1)(c) of the Act carries different meanings/ connotations and therefore, the satisfaction of the ld. Assessing Officer with regard to only ... there is concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee. It would be apposite here to refer to relevant portion of Section 271 (1)(c), which is reproduced as under:- “―271. Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc.— (1) If the Assessing Officer

Ashutosh Kumar HUF, Mumbai vs. ACIT-24(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 892/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal & Shri Fenil Bhatt, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr. D/R
Section 271(1)(c)Section 57

| आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR

Ashutosh Kumar HUF, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 24(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3275/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal & Shri Fenil Bhatt, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr. D/R
Section 271(1)(c)Section 57

| आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR

Jince Kurian, Sambalpur vs. The Income Tax Officer ITO, Ward 2(1), Sambalpur

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 98/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Jince Kurian Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Sambalpur Bishop House, C/O Associate Infra Developers Private Limited Ainthhapali, 768004 Pan/Gir No. Bvppk 7918 G (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K Miishra, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Prateek Ku. Mishra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01 /07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01 /07/2025 O R D E R Per Bench The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nafc), New Delhi Nfac), Delhi Dated 21/06/2024 In Appeal No. Cit(A), Sambalpur/10137/2018-19 Passed For Assessment Year 2016-17, Order Dated

For Appellant: Shri P.K Miishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Ku. Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT(KZ) AND RAJESH KUMAR

S.B. Combine, Cuttack vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 42/CTK/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Ku. Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

1 | 4 ITA No.41/CTK/2025 Assessment Year :2015-16 16, in the matter of assessment u/s.147 r.w.s. 144, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and penalty under section271(1)(b) of the Act. 2. At the time of hearing, ld AR of the assessee submitted that

S.B. Combine, Cuttack vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 41/CTK/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Ku. Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

1 | 4 ITA No.41/CTK/2025 Assessment Year :2015-16 16, in the matter of assessment u/s.147 r.w.s. 144, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and penalty under section271(1)(b) of the Act. 2. At the time of hearing, ld AR of the assessee submitted that

Jince Kurian, Sambalpur vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-2(1) Sambalpur, Sambalpur

In the result, appeals stand partly allowed for statistical

ITA 130/CTK/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P.K Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Ku. Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT(KZ) AND RAJESH KUMAR

Jince Kurian, Sambalpur vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-2(1), Sambalpur

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 129/CTK/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Jince Kurian Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Sambalpur Bishop House, C/O Associate Infra Developers Private Limited Ainthhapali, 768004 Pan/Gir No. Bvppk 7918 G (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K Miishra, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Prateek Ku. Mishra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01 /07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01 /07/2025 O R D E R Per Bench The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nafc), New Delhi Nfac), Delhi Dated 21/06/2024 In Appeal No. Cit(A), Sambalpur/10137/2018-19 Passed For Assessment Year 2016-17, Order Dated

For Appellant: Shri P.K Miishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Ku. Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT(KZ) AND RAJESH KUMAR

Tarsem Bharti, Shoghi Shimla vs. ITO Ward 1, Shimla

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 939/CHANDI/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Jul 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Assessee-in-perosnFor Respondent: Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH PHYSICAL HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM AND

Taranjeet, Tohana vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeals stand allowed

ITA 771/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No. 770/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No. 771/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Taranjeet Singh Ito बनाम/ Vs. H. No 279, Tharvi, Pirthala Ward -1 Tohana, Fatehabad-125120 Fatehabad "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Apvpt-2307-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Saurabh Jain (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-06-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01-07-2025. आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. In The Captioned Appeals For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14, The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Confirmation Of Quantum Addition & Levy Of Consequential Penalty U/S 271(1)(C). First, We Take Up Quantum Appeal Ita No.770/Chandi/2024 Which Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Jain (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH PHYSICAL HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM AND