“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)

M/S Ashapura Developers, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 1, Thane, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5795/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

1)(iii) : Rs. 25,01,730/- 3. Thus, the assessed total income was determined at Rs. 84,71,400/-. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were also initiated separately. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before

Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Thane vs. Bherulal Chunnilal Jain, Thane

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

ITA 5039/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Income Tax Officer, Mr. Bherulal Chunnilal Jain, Ward 2(1), B 201, Jay Rajleela Chs Ltd., Room No.25, B Wing, Deepak Nagar, 90 Feet Road, Vs. Ashar It Park, Bhayander West, Wagle Estate, Maharashtra – 400 101 Thane – 400 604 Pan:Afnpj6760J (Appellant) : (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, CIT DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM

Nityanand, Sant Kabir Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Basti

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

ITA 470/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2016-17 Nityanand V. The Income Tax Officer Vill. & Post Dhamaicha Basti Sant Kabir Nagar (U.P) Tan/Pan:Agzpn3158R (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Vikram Acharya, Aca Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.03.2025, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was A Teacher Employed With The Government Of U.P. & Earned Salary Income. The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits To The Tune Of Rs.2,16,55,000/- In His Bank Account No.144200101001330 Maintained With Corporation Bank During The Year Under Consideration & The Cash Deposited By The Assessee During The Demonetization Period, I.E. From 01.04.2015 To 31.302.016 Was Rs.15,05,000/-. The Assessing Officer (Ao)

For Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

No.470/LKW/2025 Page 3 of 9 2.1 The AO also invoked the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Act, separately. 2.2 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which dismissed the appeal

Dhirendra Pratap, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer-3(2), Ward-3(2), Hardoi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 467/LKW/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2011-12 Dhirendra Pratap V. The Income Tax Officer A-16/1052, Sector 15 Ward 3(2) Near Vasundhra Complex Hardoi Indira Nagar, Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Ayepp3148C (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.12.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 06.11.2018 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,75,750/-. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Deposited Cash To The Tune Of Rs.19,81,000/- In His Bank Account. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Issued A Query Letter Under Section 133(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) On 04.01.2018, Requiring The Assessee To Furnish The Source Of Cash Deposits Along With Other Evidentiary Proof, In Response To Which The Assessee Filed Reply On 07.02.2018. Since

For Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 251Section 271(1)(c)

assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.21,56,750/-. 2.1 The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, separately. 2.2 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which set aside the order of the AO and restored the matter

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Radhika Jewellers, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1263/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “CIT(A)”), arising out of the penalty order levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2013-14. I.T.A No. 1263/Ahd/2025 ... proceedings liable to be dropped. However, the assessing officer not accepted the above reply and imposed minimum penalty of Rs.62,11,054/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved against the penalty order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who deleted the penalty by holding

Abdulwahid Abdulkarim Qureshi, Sangamner vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 2085/PUN/2025[2016 - 17]Status: HeardITAT Pune07 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sanket Joshi (through virtual)For Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath, Addl.CIT

Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY

Frontline Electronics Limited, Pune vs. DCIT Central Circle 8, Pune

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

ITA 2064/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Pune07 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2011-12 Frontline Electronics Ltd. Dcit, Circle – 8, Pune Plot No.E-7 B/2, Chakan Industrial Vs. Area, Phase Iii, Nighoje, Khed, Pune – 410501 Pan: Aaacf2689P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Basavaraj Hiremath, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 05-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-01-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath, Addl.CIT

Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY

Nagaiah Kekkireni, Suryapet vs. ITO., Ward-1, Suryapet

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 932/HYD/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, dated 30/03/2025, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer (for short, “AO”) under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), 2 ITA 932/Hyd/2025 Nagaiah Kekkireni vs. ITO dated 29/08/2019 for the Assessment Year ... with an addition of agricultural income of Rs. 60,000/-. 4. The AO, while culminating the assessment, had also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of the particulars of income. Thereafter, the AO vide his order passed under section 271(1)(c

Rajroop Doshi, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1838/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sandip Sarkar, DR

Section 124(3)Section 127Section 127(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

petition is allowed. Consequential proceedings are also set aside and quashed. Accordingly, the notice dated 6th January, 2010 regarding the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2006-07 is also set aside and quashed. The application being G.A.No. 81 of 2010 is also allowed

Tamilnadu State Apex Fisheries Coop Federation Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-19(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2753/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2750, 2751, 2752 & 2753/Chny/2025 िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17

For Appellant: Mr. M. Ravi Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Latchana, JCIT

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी यस यस िव"ने

Tamilnadu State Apex Fisheries Coop Federation Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-19(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2752/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2750, 2751, 2752 & 2753/Chny/2025 िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17

For Appellant: Mr. M. Ravi Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Latchana, JCIT

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी यस यस िव"ने

Tamilnadu State Apex Fisheries Coop Federation Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-19(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2751/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2750, 2751, 2752 & 2753/Chny/2025 िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17

For Appellant: Mr. M. Ravi Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Latchana, JCIT

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी यस यस िव"ने

Tamilnadu State Apex Fisheries Coop Federation Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-19(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2750/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2750, 2751, 2752 & 2753/Chny/2025 िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17

For Appellant: Mr. M. Ravi Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Latchana, JCIT

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी यस यस िव"ने

ITO, Mumbai vs. Spark Diamonds, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 5566/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

impugned order emanated from the order of the Income-tax Officer, Ward 19(3)(4), Mumbai (for brevity, the “Ld. AO”), passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, date 26/03/2019. 2 Spark Diamonds 2. When the appeal was called for hearing none was present on behalf

Bholenath Foods Limited, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(2), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is disposed of in above terms

ITA 5777/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2012-13 Bholenath Foods Limited, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Shop No.208, Ward 47(1), Bldg. No.2612/13, Naya Bazar, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 006. Pan: Aabcb3842P

For Appellant: Shri Shivam Yadav, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in initiating the penalty proceedings under Sections 271(1)(c) of the Act The Assessee craves leave to add to, alter, amend, and/or withdraw any ground or of appeal either before or during

Bombardier Transportation Gmmh, New Delhi vs. Addldirecoootor of Inomce-Tax (International Taxation), Range-1, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4547/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.5732/धिल्ली/2011(नि.व. 2008-09) Bombardier Transportation Gmbh, C/O M/S. Bombardier Transportation India Ltd., 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Somdutt Chambers-I, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aadcb-4031-C बिाम Vs. Assistant Director Of Income Tax, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Circle 1(1), New Delhi आअसं.4547/धिल्ली/2017(नि.व. 2009-10) Bombardier Transportation Gmbh, C/O M/S. Bombardier Transportation India P. Ltd., Asset No. 2, 3Rd Floor, Novotel- Pullman Commercial Tower, Aero City, Delhi International Airport, New Delhi 110037 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aadcb-4031-C बिाम Vs. Assistant Director Of Income Tax, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Circle 1(1), New Delhi आअसं.4511/धिल्ली/2017(नि.व. 2009-10) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, (International Taxation), R. No. 409, E-2 Block, 4Th Floor, Civic Centre, Near Minto Road, ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant New Delhi बिाम Vs. Bombardier Transportation Gmbh, C/Co Asa & Associates, K S House 118, Shahpur Jat, New Delhi 110049 ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Pan: Aadcb-4031-C

For Appellant: S/Shri Deepak Chopra, Anmol Anand &For Respondent: Ms. Ekta Jain CIT-DR &

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण धिल्ली पीठ “डी”, धिल्ली श्री धिकास अिस्थी, न्याधयक सिस्य एिं श्री नवीन चंद्र, लेखाकार सिस्य के समक्ष

DCIT, Circle- 1(1)(2), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi vs. Bombardier Transportation Gmbh, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4511/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

For Appellant: S/Shri Deepak Chopra, Anmol Anand &For Respondent: Ms. Ekta Jain CIT-DR &

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

Bombardier Transportation Gmbh, New Delhi vs. ADIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5732/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

2 ITA No 5732/Del/2011 (AY 2008-09) ITA Nos.4547 & 4511/Del/2017 (AY 2009-10) अपीलार्थी द्वारा / Appellant by प्रतिवादीद्वारा /Respondent by

Anjaneya Ispat Limited, Jamshedpur vs. CIT(A), Jamshedpur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 191/RAN/2023[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.191/Ran/2023 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Anjeneya Ispat Ltd.…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant 29, Rain Basera, Sanjay Nagar Colony, Adityapur, Saraikela, Jharkhand- 831013. [Pan: Aagca1031N] Vs. Cit(A), Jamshedpur.………….....…..…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 06, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Jamshedpur (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 18.01.2019 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Instant Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.01.2019 Passed By The Cit(A) Under Section 271(1)(C) Read With Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, Whereby The Total Income Of The Assessee Was Determined At ₹37,00,000, As Against The Income Originally Assessed. Consequent To The Said Appellate Order, The Assessing Officer Initiated Penalty Proceedings & Passed An Order Dated 18.01.2019 Under Section 270A(1)(C) Of The Act, Imposing A Penalty Of ₹27,00,000, Being 200% Of The Tax Alleged To Be Evaded, On The Addition Of ₹37,00,000. I.T.A. No.191/Ran/2023 M/S Anjeneya Ispat Ltd

Section 250Section 270A(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)

assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A), Jamshedpur (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”) dated 18.01.2019 passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the instant appeal has been ... filed by the assessee against the order dated 18.01.2019 passed by the CIT(A) under section 271(1)(c) read with section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, whereby the total income of the assessee was determined at ₹37,00,000, as against the income originally assessed. Consequent

Income Tax Offier, Ward 6(1), Ludhiana vs. Balpreet Singh, Ludhiana

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

ITA 1022/CHANDI/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Jan 2026

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Balpreet Singh, AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 144Section 148Section 151Section 251Section 69A

115BBE of the Act, and the total income was assessed at Rs.33,09,10,575/-. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income and under section 271(1)(b) for failure to comply with statutory notices. 4. Against the order