← 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)

Bank of India, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS, Circel-51(1), Nagpur

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

ITA 393/NAG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri Pratik Sadrani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Singhai, Sr.DR
Section 191Section 194ASection 197ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH :: NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY

Income Tax Officer, Surat vs. Amitkumar Mathurdas Kaneria, Surat

In the result, this appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 457/SRT/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) I.T.O., Amitkumar Mathuradas Kaneria, Ward-1(1)(3) 64, Himgiri Bunglows, Near Rajhans Vs. Surat. Cinema, Piplod, Surat. Pan No. Adppk 7315 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Income Tax (Appeals) (in short, the ld. CIT(A)) dated 12/05/2023 in deleting the penalty of Rs. 65,40,420/- levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11. 2. At the outset of hearing ... assessee. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the Assessing Officer, after passing the order giving effect has further initiated penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, therefore, the earlier penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act would not otherwise survive

Brijesh Singh Rawat, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 2096/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasl. Ita/Co No(S) Assessment Appeal(S) By No Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 2014-15 Acit Shri Brijesh Singh Circle – 2(1), Rawat Ghaziabad, Up 603, Millenia Emrald Heights, Ramprastha Greens, Sector – 7, Vaishali, Ghaziabad. 2. Co No.124/Del/2022 -Do- Shri Brijesh Singh Dcit (In Ita No.1746/Del/2020) Rawat Circle – 2(1), Ghaziabad, Up 3. -Do- -Do- Dcit Circle – 1 Ghaziabad, Up Assessee By Shri Bhimanshu Kansal, Adv. Revenue By Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 25.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.09.2023 O R D E R

Section 271(1)(c)

against the Revenue appeal arises from the First Appellate order passed by the CIT(A) dated 28.06.2018 against the penalty order passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y. 2014-15 in question. In this regard, it was submitted that it is case of the Revenue that

DCIT Circle-2(1), Ghaziabad vs. Brijesh Singh Rawat, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 1746/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasl. Ita/Co No(S) Assessment Appeal(S) By No Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 2014-15 Acit Shri Brijesh Singh Circle – 2(1), Rawat Ghaziabad, Up 603, Millenia Emrald Heights, Ramprastha Greens, Sector – 7, Vaishali, Ghaziabad. 2. Co No.124/Del/2022 -Do- Shri Brijesh Singh Dcit (In Ita No.1746/Del/2020) Rawat Circle – 2(1), Ghaziabad, Up 3. -Do- -Do- Dcit Circle – 1 Ghaziabad, Up Assessee By Shri Bhimanshu Kansal, Adv. Revenue By Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 25.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.09.2023 O R D E R

Section 271(1)(c)

against the Revenue appeal arises from the First Appellate order passed by the CIT(A) dated 28.06.2018 against the penalty order passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y. 2014-15 in question. In this regard, it was submitted that it is case of the Revenue that

Jaikumar Bhagwantprasad Bajaj, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -3(4), Nagpur

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 356/NAG/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Sept 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Abhay Agrawal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Agrawal, DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

arises against the CIT(A)-2, Nagpur’s order dated 11.09.2019, passed in Case No.CIT(A)-2/29/2015-16, in proceedings under section 271(1)(c)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“In short Act”]. 2. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 3. Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive ... grievance challenging correctness of both the lower authorities’ action imposing Section 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs.5,00,000/- in the Assessing Officer’s corresponding order dated 12.03.2015 as upheld in the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion, we note at the outset that 2 ITA.No.356/Nag./2019 Jaikumar

Yoonus Kadavath Peedikayil, Kannur vs. ITO Ward 1 & Tps, Kannur

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 913/COCH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasyoonus Kadavath Peedikayil The Income Tax Officer M/S. Modern Enterprises Ward – 1 & Tps Kakkad Road Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Kannur 670005 Kannothumchal [Pan:Ccwpk6415P] Chovva P.O., Kannur 670006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 44A

Sanjay Arora, AM This is an Appeal by the Assessee agitating the confirmation of penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) by the assessing authority for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17 per order dated 19.03.2019, by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC ... case was two-fold. Firstly, notice u/s.274 of the Act, inasmuch as it does not strike out one of the two limbs of section 271(1)(c), for which penalty there-under stands to be levied, i.e., concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income

J.P Tobacco Product Pvt. Ltd., Damoh vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Sagar

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

ITA 155/JAB/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Sept 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. J.P.Tobacco Products Vs Acit, Pvt. Ltd., Patharia Phatak, Circle-Sagar. Damoh (M.P.). (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj7141G Assessee By Shri G.N.Purohit, Sr.Adv. & Shri Abhijeet Shrivastava, Adv. Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2023

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

expenditure, which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the Revenue, that by itself would not, attract the penalty under section 271(1)(c). If we accept the contention of the revenue then in case of every return where the claim mad is not accepted ... reason, the assessee will invite penalty under section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature. (4) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the levy of penalty is perverse unjustified and uncalled for.” 2 | P a g e J.P.Tobacco Product Pvt.Ltd

Meena Ramkrishna Chavan, Vashi vs. ACIT-28(2), Vashi

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 1828/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Kirit Sheth, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

credit under section 68 of the Act and added the same in the income of the Assessee and also initiated the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealing particulars of income AND furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, by passing Assessment order dated 02.03.2016 under section ... Meena Ramkrishna Chavan income to the tune of Rs. 3,90,571/- being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded, under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The Assessee being aggrieved challenged the said penalty order before the Ld. Commissioner, who vide impugned order affirmed the same

Ravindra Walia, Mumbai vs. Asstt Commissioner of Income Tax-11(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1100/MUM/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

ground that the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income by furnishing inaccurate particulars as per the provision of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 11. The ld.CIT(A), on the other hand, has upheld the penalty levied by the ld. A.O. on the ground that

Ravindra Walia, Mumbai vs. Asstt Commissioner of Income Tax -16(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1099/MUM/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

ground that the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income by furnishing inaccurate particulars as per the provision of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 11. The ld.CIT(A), on the other hand, has upheld the penalty levied by the ld. A.O. on the ground that

Schindler India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7493/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Ms. Padmavathy.Sआअसं.7492 /मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2004-05) आअसं.7493 /मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2005-06) M/S. Schindler India P. Ltd. E-401, Delphi, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai – 400 076. Pan: Aaecs-1548-J ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range – 8(3), Aaykar Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms.Sakshi Dande Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Kumar सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/09/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Mumbai [In Short ‘ The Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Years 2004-05 & 2005-06, Respectively Confirming Penalty Levied U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [ In Short ‘The Act’]. Both The Impugned Orders Are Of Even Date I.E. 10/09/2014. Since, The Facts

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar &For Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar
Section 271(1)(c)

Assessing Officer The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order made no adjustment in respect of non AE expenditure. He initiated penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of the adjustment made by the TPO. 3.1 The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee pointed that ... erroneous or false. Such not being the case, there would be no question of inviting 7 ITA NO.7493/MUM/2014 (A.Y.2005-06) the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. A mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars

Schindler India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7492/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Ms. Padmavathy.Sआअसं.7492 /मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2004-05) आअसं.7493 /मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2005-06) M/S. Schindler India P. Ltd. E-401, Delphi, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai – 400 076. Pan: Aaecs-1548-J ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range – 8(3), Aaykar Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms.Sakshi Dande Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Kumar सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/09/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Mumbai [In Short ‘ The Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Years 2004-05 & 2005-06, Respectively Confirming Penalty Levied U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [ In Short ‘The Act’]. Both The Impugned Orders Are Of Even Date I.E. 10/09/2014. Since, The Facts

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar &For Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar
Section 271(1)(c)

Assessing Officer The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order made no adjustment in respect of non AE expenditure. He initiated penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of the adjustment made by the TPO. 3.1 The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee pointed that ... erroneous or false. Such not being the case, there would be no question of inviting 7 ITA NO.7493/MUM/2014 (A.Y.2005-06) the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. A mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars

Shriprakash Pralhadrai Agrawal, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Nagpur

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 40/NAG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Abhay Agrawal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Agrawal, DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

arises against the CIT(A)-2, Nagpur’s order dated 18.11.2019, passed in Case No.CIT(A)-2/163/2016-17, in proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“In short Act”]. 2. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 3. Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive ... grievance challenging correctness of both the lower authorities’ action imposing Section 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs.4,25,010/- in the Assessing Officer’s corresponding order dated 31.03.2009 as upheld in the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion, we note at the outset that the former’s show cause notice

D.C.I.T. Amravati Circle, Amaravati vs. The Amravati Zilla Parishad Shikshak Sahakari Bank Ltd., Amaravati

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 239/NAG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Kapin Hirani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Kanojiya, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

arises against the CIT(A)-1, Nagpur’s order dated 03.07.2018, passed in Case No.CIT(A)-1/10300/2016-17, in proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“In short Act”]. 2. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 3. Coming to the Revenue’s sole substantive

Shri Kirtikumr Bhangdiya, Nagpur vs. Assistant Cmmisisonr of Income Tax Central Circle -2(1), Nagpur

ITA 115/NAG/2018[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Sept 2023AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Agrawal, DR
Section 271(1)(c)

Case files perused. 3. Coming to the identical substantive issue amongst the parties herein regarding correctness of both the learned lower authorities imposing Section 271(1)(c) penalties hereinabove, it emerges at the outset that there is hardly any need for us to delve with the relevant factual matrix

Shri Kirtikumar Mitesh Bhangadia, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -2(1), Nagpur

ITA 114/NAG/2018[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Sept 2023AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Agrawal, DR
Section 271(1)(c)

Case files perused. 3. Coming to the identical substantive issue amongst the parties herein regarding correctness of both the learned lower authorities imposing Section 271(1)(c) penalties hereinabove, it emerges at the outset that there is hardly any need for us to delve with the relevant factual matrix

Shri Sanjay Rameshchandraji Heda, Amaravati vs. Assistnt Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -2(1), Nagpur

ITA 113/NAG/2018[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Sept 2023AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Agrawal, DR
Section 271(1)(c)

Case files perused. 3. Coming to the identical substantive issue amongst the parties herein regarding correctness of both the learned lower authorities imposing Section 271(1)(c) penalties hereinabove, it emerges at the outset that there is hardly any need for us to delve with the relevant factual matrix

Shri Mitesh G. Bhangdiya, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commisisoner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur

ITA 112/NAG/2018[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Sept 2023AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Agrawal, DR
Section 271(1)(c)

Case files perused. 3. Coming to the identical substantive issue amongst the parties herein regarding correctness of both the learned lower authorities imposing Section 271(1)(c) penalties hereinabove, it emerges at the outset that there is hardly any need for us to delve with the relevant factual matrix

Ramesh Kumar Jain, Astha vs. The ITO, Sehore

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

ITA 131/IND/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniramesh Kumar Jain Ito, Adinath Traders, Mandi Prangan Sehore Vs. Astha (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aaspj 0162 G Assessee By Shri Arpit, Gaur, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.09.2023

Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY

Naresh Kumar Jain, Delhi vs. JCIT (OSD), Central Circle-26, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1262/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Delhi21 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. Raghunath, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

erred both on facts and in laws in confirming the penalty of Rs. 17,55,954/- levied by the AO under section 271(1 )(c) of the Act. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has erred both on facts ... confirming the penalty and rejecting the contention of the assessee that on an addition made on the basis of estimation no penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be levied. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has erred both on facts