← 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)

Ajju Chakradhar, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(4), Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 57/VIZ/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 57/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ajju Chakradhar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-5(4), Pan: Aglpc9710C Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 08/08/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

आयकर अपीलीयअिधकरण, िवशाखापटणम पीठ, िवशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM "ी दु"वू" आर एल रे"ी, "याियक

Satyavathi Golkonda, Machilipatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Machilipatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 219/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 219/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Satyavathi Golkonda, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mig-102, Old Aphb Colony, Aayakar Bhavan, Paraspet, Machilipatnam, Krishna District, Machilipatnam, Andhra Pradesh – 521001. Andhra Pradesh-521001. Pan: Attpg1361J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri K. Siva Ram Kumar, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/08/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 08/08/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri K. Siva Ram Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

आयकर अपीलीयअिधकरण, िवशाखापटणम SMC पीठ, िवशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM SMC BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM "ी दु"वू" आर एल

Janaki Ammal Ayya Nadar Trust, Sivakasi vs. ITO, NFAC, Delhi

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 505/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Samantha Mullamudi, (Addl.CIT) -Ld. Sr.DR
Section 11Section 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी महावीर िसंह

Janaki Ammal Ayya Nadar Trust, Sivakasi vs. ITO, NFAC, Delhi

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 504/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Samantha Mullamudi, (Addl.CIT) -Ld. Sr.DR
Section 11Section 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी महावीर िसंह

Janaki Ammal Ayya Nadar Trust, Sivakasi vs. ITO, NFAC, Delhi

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 503/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Samantha Mullamudi, (Addl.CIT) -Ld. Sr.DR
Section 11Section 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी महावीर िसंह

Janaki Ammal Ayya Nadar Trust, Sivakasi vs. ITO, NFAC, Delhi

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 502/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Samantha Mullamudi, (Addl.CIT) -Ld. Sr.DR
Section 11Section 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी महावीर िसंह

Babu Lal Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 5(1), Jaipur

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 356/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C(1)

favour. The observation as made by the AO in his Penalty Order is reproduced as under:- ‘’In view of the above provision of section 271(1)(c) and habitual non- responsive attitude of the assessee, it is evident that the assessee has nothing to offer and the assessee has willfully ... concealed the particulars of income within the provision of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act 1961. In view of above. I am satisfied that it is a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. The quantum of penalty levy

Gopaliyengar Madabushi Muralidhar, Bengaluru vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(4), Bengaluru

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

ITA 956/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari (Accountant Member), Shri Keshav Dubey (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Pai, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

losses is required to be granted. 4. Initiation of penalty proceedings 4.1. The Learned AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3 Gopaliyengar Madabushi Muralidhar 5. Other grounds: 5.1. The Learned AO has erred in law and on facts in levying interest

DCIT, Central Circle - 7(1), Mumbai vs. Maneesh Pharmaceuticals Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 964/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Maneesh Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Tax, Vs. 29-33, Ancillary Industrial Central Circle – 7(1), Plots, Near M Ward, Mumbai Govandi, Mumbai – 400 043 (Pan : Aaacm3635Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Jaypraksh Bairagra, Ca Revenue : Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit, Dr

For Appellant: Shri Jaypraksh Bairagra, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT, DR
Section 10BSection 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

claim of deduction cannot be considered as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 5.2. Ld. CIT(A) further dealt with Explanation 4 to section 271(1)(c) which deals with the expression “the amount of tax sought to be evaded” and observed that merely because assessee was found to have ... imposed for this disallowance by charging the assessee with the charge of ‘furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.’ 7.1. The scheme of section 271(1)(c) visualizes imposition of penalty when the assessee has concealed particulars of income or when the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income

ITO, Ward-2(1)(3), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Lydia Construction Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 729/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

added the same to ITO vs. M/s. Lydia Construction Pvt. Ltd. Asst.Year –2011-12 - 3– the assessee’s income. Penalty proceeding under Section 271(1)(c) were also initiated for filing inaccurate income particulars. 4. In appeal before CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer added

Intas Biopharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 865/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 865/Ahd/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Intas The Dy. Commissioner Of बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Biopharmaceuticals Ltd. Income Tax Vs. Plot 423/P/A, Sarkhej Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad Bavla Highway, Moraiya, Sanand, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 382213 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabci4722M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Bandish Soparkar & Shri Parin अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shah, Ars. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit. Dr & Shri Ashish Rajesh Revar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07/08/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 20.01.2016 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. Ita No. 865/Ahd/2016 [Intas Biopharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Dcit] A.Y. 2011-12 - 2 –

For Appellant: Shah, ARsFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT. DR
Section 143(3)Section 35Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICAL MEMBER & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT

Sarat Gopal Boppana, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 635/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.635/Hyd/2022 & Sa No.49/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Sarat Gopal Boppana Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 2(3) Pan:Afcpb8083K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/08/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 131Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

called upon the assessee to explain as to why the penalty cannot be levied u/s 271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation 5A of section 271(1)(c) thereto. During the penalty proceedings the Assessing Officer observed that, during the PO operation at the residential premises of the assessee ... with the explanation furnished by the assessee and according to the Assessing Officer, the case of the assessee fall under Explanation 5A of section 271(1)(C) of the Act, where it has been clearly stated that notwithstanding that such income is declared by him in any return of income

Equitable Marketing Association, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-30, Kolkata.

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1226/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A No.1226/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Equitable Marketing Association…………………… ........................……Appellant 82, Baburam Ghosh Road, Tollygunge, Kolkata – 700040. [Pan: Aaaae0345D] Vs. Acit, Circle-30, Kolkata…...................…................…........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. S. Gupta, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 10, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 07, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.09.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Is Arbitrary, Bad In Law & Facts & The Ld. Cit(A), Erred In Confirming The Same In Part. 2. That The Ld. A.O Erred In Making An Addition Of Rs.1,36,67,806/- By Invoking Sec. 50C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Same In As Much As In View Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case No Such Addition U/S 50C Was At All Called For.

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 234BSection 234DSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 54D

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘बी’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri

Cidco Employees Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Ward 28(1)(3), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal ITA NO

ITA 699/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 80PSection 80P(4)

Reportable IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH

Cidco Employees Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Ward 28(1)(3), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal ITA NO

ITA 698/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 80PSection 80P(4)

Reportable IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH

Cidco Employees Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Ward 28(1)(3), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal ITA NO

ITA 697/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 80PSection 80P(4)

Reportable IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH

Purohit Food Products Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Ward 10(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2678/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year 2015-16 Purohit Food Products Private The Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward-10(3)(1), 1-10, Dhiraj Pen Compound, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, 58-59, Andheri Kurla Road, Mumbai. J.B. Nagar, Andheri (East), Mumbai. Pan : Aagcp5590F (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ajay Singh A/W. Shri Akshay Pawar, For Revenue : Shri H.M. Bhatt, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-08-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-08-2024 Order Per B.R. Baskaran, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh a/wFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt, Sr.DR
Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “C” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE

Pranav Vikas India Pvt Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-19(1), Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1218/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: S/Shri K. Sampath, Advocate , R.KFor Respondent: Shri M.P. Dwivedi, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 270(9)Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI VIMAL

Fiserv India P.Ltd, Pune vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal is disposed of for statistical purposes, and as a result, the appeal before Learned

ITA 910/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bhogendra Prasad, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I” DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI NARINDER

ADIT, Cirlce- 1(1), International Taxation, New Delhi vs. American Express Banking Corp. (India Branch), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 6455/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 92C(3)Section 92F

234C and 234D of the Act. 20. The Learned AO has erred, in facts and in law, by initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of Act in relation to transfer pricing adjustment and without recording any adequate reasons for such initiation. The above grounds of appeal are mutually