← 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)

Discovery Estates Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-2, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2131/DEL/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganesh[Assessment Year: 2008-09]

Section 271(1)(c)

against the order dated 31.05.2023 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi, in relation to penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The assessee is aggrieved by levy of penalty

Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Cirecle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 318/AHD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M. J. Shah, A.R. & Shri Jimi Patel , A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 271(1)(c)

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts has dismissed the ground relating to the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the I T Act. 3.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming

Suresh Productions, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 641/HYD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 641/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Suresh Productions, Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax, Vs. [Pan No. Aajfs7306J] Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas, Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Waseem Ur Rehman, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/02/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement On: 29/02/2024 आदेश / Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, J.M: Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad, (“Learned Cit(A)”), In The Case Of Suresh Productions (“The Assessee”) For The Assessment Year 2015-16, Assessee Preferred This Appeal With A Delay Of One Day. Learned Ar Explained That The Delay Is Due To Calculation Error. Heard Learned Dr. Delay Is Condoned.

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, ARFor Respondent: Shri Waseem UR Rehman, DR
Section 153CSection 271Section 271(1)(c)

calculation error. Heard learned DR. Delay is condoned. 2. Only issue involved in this matter is whether the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) is leviable when ITA 641/Hyd/2023 the assessee had offered additional income following search and such income had been ... 25/09/2021, the assessment was made accepting the returned income and demand payable at NIL. 4. Learned Assessing Officer, however, initiated the proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and concluded the same with the levy of penalty of Rs. 1.2 lakhs. In appeal, learned CIT(A) confirmed

Prakash Lal Potluri, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, (Int Taxn)-2, Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 567/HYD/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad29 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Prakash Lal Potluri, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. (International Taxation)-2, Hyderabad. Pan : Gnkpp1085B. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Sri M. Vijay Kumar – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.02.2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri M. Vijay Kumar – CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144C(15)Section 147Section 148Section 48

information submitted by the assessee, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had concealed income from this sale, leading to penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c) and 271F. Despite the assessee's explanations, the Assessing Officer did not accept, as the assessee failed to prove that

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nellore vs. Gopisetty Satyanarayana, Nellore

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

ITA 652/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyनिर्धारण आ.अपी.सं अपीलधर्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / वर्ा / A.Y. Appellant Respondent / Ita No. Gopisetty Deputy Commissioner Satyanarayana, Of Income Tax, 2010-11 441/Hyd/2019 Nellore Circle-1, [Pan: Aiipg4150B] Nellore Deputy Commissioner Gopisetty Of Income Tax, Satyanarayana, 652/Hyd/2019 2010-11 Circle-1, Nellore Nellore [Pan: Aiipg4150B] निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Waseem Ur Rehman, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/02/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement On: 29/02/2024 आदेश / Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, J.M: Aggrieved By The Order(S) Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Tirupati (“Learned Cit(A)”), In The Case Sri G. Satyanarayana (“The Assessee”) For The Assessment Year 2010-11, Both Assessee & Revenue Preferred These Appeals. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Are Decided By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Waseem UR Rehman, DR
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

allowed for statistical purposes. Revenue’s Appeal: 9. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against deletion of the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, by the learned CIT(A), pursuant to the assessment order dated 25/03/2014. Since the assessment made under section 143(3) r.w.s

Gopisetty Satyanarayana, Nellore vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nellore

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

ITA 441/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyनिर्धारण आ.अपी.सं अपीलधर्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / वर्ा / A.Y. Appellant Respondent / Ita No. Gopisetty Deputy Commissioner Satyanarayana, Of Income Tax, 2010-11 441/Hyd/2019 Nellore Circle-1, [Pan: Aiipg4150B] Nellore Deputy Commissioner Gopisetty Of Income Tax, Satyanarayana, 652/Hyd/2019 2010-11 Circle-1, Nellore Nellore [Pan: Aiipg4150B] निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Waseem Ur Rehman, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/02/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement On: 29/02/2024 आदेश / Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, J.M: Aggrieved By The Order(S) Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Tirupati (“Learned Cit(A)”), In The Case Sri G. Satyanarayana (“The Assessee”) For The Assessment Year 2010-11, Both Assessee & Revenue Preferred These Appeals. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Are Decided By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Waseem UR Rehman, DR
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

allowed for statistical purposes. Revenue’s Appeal: 9. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against deletion of the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, by the learned CIT(A), pursuant to the assessment order dated 25/03/2014. Since the assessment made under section 143(3) r.w.s

Kalli Narayana Appa Rao, W.G.Dist vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Eluru

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

ITA 197/VIZ/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.197 /Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15) Kalli Narayana Appa Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.4-57-1, Bavi Veedhi, Ward-2 Poola, Bhimadole Mandal Eluru West Godavari [Pan : Alppk9004Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री दुव्वूरु आर एल रेड्डी, न्याधयक सदस्य

K P Sanghvi & Sons LLP, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-19(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3565/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm K P Sanghvi & Sons Llp Asst. Cit-19(2) 12A-03, Crescenzo, C-38/39, Mumbai Vs. G – Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaafk 8390 F (Assessee) (Respondent) :

For Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

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

ACIT -14 (1) (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals India P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Appeals and Cross Objections filed by the Revenue Department and the Assessee are allowed in part and full respectively for the statistical purposes

ITA 1644/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm & Acit, Circle- 14(1)(2) M/S. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Room No. 455, 4Th Floor, India Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 1802/ 1901, G-Block, Road, Mumbai- 400020 Vs Capital Plot No. C-70, Bandra- Kurla Complex, Bandra-East, Mumbai- 400051

For Appellant: Shri. Vishal Kalra, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Shri. Prakash Kishinchandani
Section 143(1)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, AM & SHRI N. K. CHOUDHRY, JM & ACIT

Umkal Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-27(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2873/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Feb 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadumkal Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Circle 27 (1), W-33, Greater Kailash, Part I, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 048. (Pan : Aaacu7727R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anil Kumar Gupta, Ca Shri Tarun Rohtagi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.02.2024 Date Of Order : 29.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

against the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals)-9, New Delhi dated 06.08.2018 for the assessment year 2007-08 confirming the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) amounting to Rs.8,41,500/-. 2. Although assessee has raised various grounds ... Court held as under :- “Head Note only : S.271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment –Non-striking off of the irrelevant part while issuing notice under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, - Order is bad in law – Assessee must be informed of the grounds of the penalty proceedings only through

Vasdev, Sangrur vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 422/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ritesh Anand, Advocate and Shri Deepak Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR for Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT,DR
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Delhi dt. 09/06/2023 pertaining to Assessment Year 2012-13, wherein the assessee has challenged the sustenance of penalty of Rs. 12,386/- under Section 271(1)(C) of the Act. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee did not file any original return of income within ... assessment order, the AO also recorded his satisfaction that the assessee has willfully concealed particulars of his income and therefore penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were separately initiated and notice under section 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) dt. 28/12/2019 was issued and served on the assessee. Thereafter

ACIT(E), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Vadodara Urban Development Authority, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 389/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 12ASection 22Section 271(1)(c)

orders dated 14.12.2022 and 19.12.2022 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals], National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi deleting the Penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years ... disguise of it being capital receipt. 7. In response the Assessee made a detailed reply stating that as per the provisions of Section 271[1][c] of the Act penalty can be levied only if the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income or has offered an explanation which they

ACIT(E), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Vadodara Urban Development Authority, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 388/AHD/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 12ASection 22Section 271(1)(c)

orders dated 14.12.2022 and 19.12.2022 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals], National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi deleting the Penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years ... disguise of it being capital receipt. 7. In response the Assessee made a detailed reply stating that as per the provisions of Section 271[1][c] of the Act penalty can be levied only if the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income or has offered an explanation which they

ACIT(E), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Vadodara Urban Development Authority, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 386/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 12ASection 22Section 271(1)(c)

orders dated 14.12.2022 and 19.12.2022 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals], National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi deleting the Penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years ... disguise of it being capital receipt. 7. In response the Assessee made a detailed reply stating that as per the provisions of Section 271[1][c] of the Act penalty can be levied only if the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income or has offered an explanation which they

The ACIT(E), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Vadodara Urban Development Authority, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 379/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 12ASection 22Section 271(1)(c)

orders dated 14.12.2022 and 19.12.2022 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals], National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi deleting the Penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years ... disguise of it being capital receipt. 7. In response the Assessee made a detailed reply stating that as per the provisions of Section 271[1][c] of the Act penalty can be levied only if the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income or has offered an explanation which they

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Pune, Pmt Building Swargate vs. Vishnu Pundlik Pashankar, Pune

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 873/PUN/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rohit ShahFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE : [VIRTUAL HEARING] BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND

M/S Siddhula;L, Bhopal vs. The ITO 2(2) Bhopal, Bhopal

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 110/IND/2023[2011-12d]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Siddhulal Patidar, Income-Tax Officer, 01,Gram Sallaiya, 2(2), बनाम/ Bawadia Kalan, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Dhypp1740N Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28.02.2024

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 50C(1)Section 50C(2)Section 54B

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर "ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO

DCIT-Circle-4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. India Bullion and Jewellers Association Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2475/MUM/2023[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND

The Boston Consulting Group India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1760/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blethe Boston Consulting Group (India) V. Dcit – 3(3)(2) Private Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 14Th Floor, Nariman Bhavan Mumbai - 400020 227, Nariman Point Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aabcb3524G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri J.D. Mistri Department Represented By : Shri Rajesh Pardeshi

Section 144C(5)Section 234DSection 244ASection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO erred in initiating penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant, therefore, prays that the learned AO be directed to drop the initiation of the aforesaid penalty proceeding. The Appellant craves leave ... pressed, accordingly, the same is dismissed. 32. With regard to Ground No. 7 which is in respect of penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, this ground is premature and requires no specific adjudication, accordingly, the same is dismissed. Ground No. 7 raised by the assessee

Iomedia India Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-12(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 995/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usm/S. Iomedia India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, Level-4, Regus Rectangle Circle-12(3), No. 1, D-4, Saket, New Delhi Commercial Complex, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aacci5116N

For Appellant: Mr. Pancham Sethi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 92C

Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in issuing penalty notice under section 271(1)(c) of the Act against the Assessee 6. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred