← 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)

Sunil Kumar Nagar, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward- 2(4), Faridabad

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA No.2118/Del/2019 is allowed

ITA 247/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151

which the proceedings were initiated, were not indicated in the notice itself. 25. against the assumption of jurisdiction for the levy of section 271(1)(c) that in the penalty notice, relevant limb was not struck off to specify whether the penalty was initiated for concealment of income or furnishing

Sunil Kumar Nagar, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward- 2(4), Faridabad

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA No.2118/Del/2019 is allowed

ITA 2118/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151

which the proceedings were initiated, were not indicated in the notice itself. 25. against the assumption of jurisdiction for the levy of section 271(1)(c) that in the penalty notice, relevant limb was not struck off to specify whether the penalty was initiated for concealment of income or furnishing

Viral Vinodchandra Joshi, Gandhinagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Gandhinagar

Accordingly, these four appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 612/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.609, 610 & 611/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively Hema Viral Joshi The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 9C Sector-19, Ward-2, Gandhinagar V/S. Gandhinagar – 382 019 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Admpj 6455 B & आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.612/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Viral Vinodchandra Joshi The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 9C Sector-19, Ward-2, Gandhinagar V/S. Gandhinagar – 382 019 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abjpj 6812 H अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kushal Fofaria, Ar Revenue By : Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Kushal Fofaria, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "ायपीठ “डी“, अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ D ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD सु"ी सुिच"ा का"ले

Hema Viral Joshi, Gandhinagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Gandhinagar

Accordingly, these four appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 611/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.609, 610 & 611/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively Hema Viral Joshi The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 9C Sector-19, Ward-2, Gandhinagar V/S. Gandhinagar – 382 019 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Admpj 6455 B & आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.612/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Viral Vinodchandra Joshi The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 9C Sector-19, Ward-2, Gandhinagar V/S. Gandhinagar – 382 019 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abjpj 6812 H अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kushal Fofaria, Ar Revenue By : Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Kushal Fofaria, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "ायपीठ “डी“, अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ D ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD सु"ी सुिच"ा का"ले

Hema Viral Joshi, Gandhinagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Gandhinagar

Accordingly, these four appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 610/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.609, 610 & 611/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively Hema Viral Joshi The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 9C Sector-19, Ward-2, Gandhinagar V/S. Gandhinagar – 382 019 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Admpj 6455 B & आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.612/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Viral Vinodchandra Joshi The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 9C Sector-19, Ward-2, Gandhinagar V/S. Gandhinagar – 382 019 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abjpj 6812 H अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kushal Fofaria, Ar Revenue By : Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Kushal Fofaria, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "ायपीठ “डी“, अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ D ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD सु"ी सुिच"ा का"ले

Hema Viral Joshi, Gandhinagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Gandhinagar

Accordingly, these four appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 609/AHD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.609, 610 & 611/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively Hema Viral Joshi The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 9C Sector-19, Ward-2, Gandhinagar V/S. Gandhinagar – 382 019 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Admpj 6455 B & आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.612/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Viral Vinodchandra Joshi The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 9C Sector-19, Ward-2, Gandhinagar V/S. Gandhinagar – 382 019 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abjpj 6812 H अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kushal Fofaria, Ar Revenue By : Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Kushal Fofaria, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "ायपीठ “डी“, अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ D ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD सु"ी सुिच"ा का"ले

Santosh Maruti Pawar, Pune vs. ITO Ward 14(5) Pune, Pune

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

ITA 1311/PUN/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Oct 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1311/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Santosh Maruti Pawar, Vs. Ito, Ward-14(5), Pune. At Post Gopal Wadi, Daund, Pune- 413801. Pan : Bhrpp4140F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shir Paras Munot Revenue By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastava Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.10.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.01.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Present Appeal Is Filed Belatedly. The Ld. Ar With The Help Of Delay Condonation Application Supported With An Affidavit Submitted That The Assessee Was Prevented By Reasonable Cause For Not Submitting The Appeal In Prescribed Time Limit. It Was Submitted That The Assessee Was Suffering From Hepatomegaly & Undergoing

For Appellant: Shir Paras MunotFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava
Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 3

under section 271(1)(b). 3. The Ld. Assessing Officer erred in law and in levying penalty of Rs.1,56,560/- under section 271(1)(c). 4. The Ld. Assessing Officer erred in law and in levying penalty of Rs.5,000/- under section 271F. 5. The appellant craves leaves

Bindu Ketan Dhami, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 29(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 4005/MUM/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Singh
Section 2Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

whereby the CIT(A) had dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Assessee against the penalty order, dated 26/08/2016, passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act levying penalty of INR 3,66,225/- for the Assessment Year 2013-14. A.Y.2013-14 2. The Appellant has raised following grounds of appeal ... merit of the case. 2. Under the facts and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") of Rs 3,66,225/- 3. Under the facts

Smt. Smita Ashok Thakkar, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 4386/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Smt. Smita Ashok Thakkar Dcit, Central Circle 6(4) 1St Floor, Karimjee Building, Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Vs. Air India Building, Mumbai-400 001 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh P. ShahFor Respondent: Shri B. Laxmi Kanth
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM Smt

Kothari Jewels Private Limied, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal, file filed by the assessee stands party allowed with no order as to cost

ITA 964/JPR/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary,JCIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

No.1 raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order of Ld CIT (A) in confirming the action of AO in imposing penalty section 271(1)(c ) of the Act without specifying or pointing out in the show cause notice as to whether the penalty was proposed on concealment ... upon his written submissions. The relevant portion of the written submissions are reproduced here in below. ‘’SUBMISSION 1. For levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c), Assessing Officer is required to issue notice under Section 274 clearly specifying whether the penalty is levied for CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME

Jignesh Pravinbhai Rana, Gandhinagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 913/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Nargas, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 2Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

1 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A’ JAIPUR (Through: Visual Conference

Balhanuman Commodeal Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-5(4), Kolkata

ITA 116/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT

Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 899/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Ecospace, Campus 2B, 11F/12 Aayakar Bhavan, P-7, (Old Plot No. Aa Ii/Blk 3), Chowringhee Square, Vs New Town, Rajarhat, Kolkata - 700069 North 24 Paragans, Kolkata - 7000156 (Pan: Aaccs5491A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Abhishek Sureka, Ar Respondent By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, Dr Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.10.2024 O R D E R Per Rakesh Mishra: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-I, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Ays 2009-10 & 2013- 14, Dated 28.02.2018 & 13.03.2018 Respectively. Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of Vide This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience. Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Limited.: Ays: 2009-10 & 2013-14 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Sureka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR
Section 234CSection 250Section 37Section 40

towards sale of land while computing capital gains as per Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 7) For that, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in treating the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1

Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1145/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Ecospace, Campus 2B, 11F/12 Aayakar Bhavan, P-7, (Old Plot No. Aa Ii/Blk 3), Chowringhee Square, Vs New Town, Rajarhat, Kolkata - 700069 North 24 Paragans, Kolkata - 7000156 (Pan: Aaccs5491A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Abhishek Sureka, Ar Respondent By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, Dr Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.10.2024 O R D E R Per Rakesh Mishra: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-I, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Ays 2009-10 & 2013- 14, Dated 28.02.2018 & 13.03.2018 Respectively. Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of Vide This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience. Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Limited.: Ays: 2009-10 & 2013-14 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Sureka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR
Section 234CSection 250Section 37Section 40

towards sale of land while computing capital gains as per Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 7) For that, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in treating the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1

M/S. Vijay Jewellers, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax -19(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4204/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Hrithik Yadav / Shri DevangFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon SRDR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

impugned orders were emanated from the orders of the Learned National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (in brevity the ld. AO), orders passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, date of orders 16/03/2022 for A.Y. 2012-13 and 17/03/2022 for A.Y. 2011-12. 2. Both the appeals have common ... assessee filed appeals before the ld. CIT(A). But later on, the appeals were withdrawn. The ld.AO, by invoking the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, initiated the concealment penalty proceedings by issuance of notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c

M/S. Vijay Jewellers, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax -19(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4203/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Hrithik Yadav / Shri DevangFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon SRDR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

impugned orders were emanated from the orders of the Learned National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (in brevity the ld. AO), orders passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, date of orders 16/03/2022 for A.Y. 2012-13 and 17/03/2022 for A.Y. 2011-12. 2. Both the appeals have common ... assessee filed appeals before the ld. CIT(A). But later on, the appeals were withdrawn. The ld.AO, by invoking the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, initiated the concealment penalty proceedings by issuance of notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c

Narangi Land Development Corporation, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-17(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2735/MUM/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaranarangi Land Ito-Ward –25(3)(1) Developmentcorporation, R.No.116, Kautilya बनाम/ 407B, Gokul Arcade “A”, Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Swamy Nityanand Marg, Bandra (East) Vile Parle (E), Mumbai – 400051. Mumbai-400057. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaan3465B (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh Desai.ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

appeal , the CIT(A) has granted the relief and partly allowed the assessee appeal. 5. Subsequently the Assessing Officer has issued notice under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and has initiated the levy of penalty on the land development expenses claim sustained ... explanations. The Assessing Officer considering the information on record has levied a penalty of Rs.11,99,227/- and passed the order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act 30.01.2020. 6. Aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A), whereas

Tapaswini Mangesh Mahske, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Panvel

Appeals are PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISITCAL PURPOSES in aforestated terms

ITA 1302/PUN/2024[AY 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2024

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: None for the Assessee [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Arvind Desai [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 144Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 253(1)Section 274

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH ‘B’ PUNE BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Tapaswini Mangesh Mahske, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Panvel

Appeals are PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISITCAL PURPOSES in aforestated terms

ITA 1301/PUN/2024[AY 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2024

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: None for the Assessee [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Arvind Desai [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 144Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 253(1)Section 274

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH ‘B’ PUNE BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Saket Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 2(3) Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 646/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Ms. Satwika Jhan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam (CIT) a
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

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