← 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)

Shri Vipul Bansal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 7(1)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5628/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 69C

alleged fictitious profit and made an addition of Rs.2,66,633/- under section 69C of the Act as unexplained expenditure. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were also initiated separately. 9. Aggrieved by the reassessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The appeal was dismissed

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. R Mehta & Co, Mumbai

ITA 5301/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Assessee by
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 690

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "याय पीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA

Lalitadevi Giriraj Kishore Malpani, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(4)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5023/MUM/2025[2015 - 16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year : 2015-16 Lalitadevi Giriraj Kishore Income Tax Officer, Malpani, Ward-41(4)(2), 502, 5Th Floor,Sea View Chs, Vs. R.No. 116,Kautilya Bhawan, Near Ram Mandir Temple, C-41 To C-43,G Block, Bkc, Bangur Nagar,Goregaon (W), Bandra (E), Mumbai-400090. Mumbai-400051. Pan : Aadpm9211C (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ajay Daga , Ld. Ld. Ar For Revenue : Shri Vikas Chandra, Ld. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 10-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-12-2025 O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Againstthe Order Dated 28-06-2024 Impugned Herein Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-6, Kolkata/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (In Short “Ld.Commissioner”) U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short „The Act‟) For The Ay. 2015-16. 2 2. At The Outset It Is Observed That There Is A Delay Of 346 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal On Which The Assessee Has Claimed As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Daga , Ld. Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Chandra, Ld. Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “SMC” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2015

Shri Sanjay Haresh Mulchandani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee succeeds in the present appeal

ITA 4751/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Sanjay Haresh The Income Tax Officer, Mulchandani Ward, 19 (3) (1), 4-C Ajanta Apartments, M L Vs. Piramal Chamber, Dhanukar Marg, Peddar Road, Mumbai – 400013. Mumbai – 40026 Pan – Aadpm 3393 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Harsh Kapadia & Nitin Khinchi, Ld. Ars Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Jumale, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.12.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.07.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2011-12. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessee Along With His Uncle Had Purchased A Flat In Iscon Platinum, Ahmedabad On A Consideration Of Rs. 59,30,000/- Through Cheques. Subsequently, Search Under Section 132 Of The Act Was Conducted By The Investigation Wing, In The Case Of Jp Iscon

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kapadia & Nitin KhinchiFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Jumale, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011

Sanjay Bansal, Uttar Pradesh vs. ACIT Circle-2(2)(1), Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh

In the result appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1619/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 48

claimed as cost of acquisition for want of supporting evidence. Consequently, the assessed income was determined at Rs.69,48,472/-. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated and interest under sections 234B, 234C and 234D was charged as per law. 4. Aggrieved by the asses sment order

Salim, Panipat vs. ITO, Ward-4, Panipat

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 5816/DEL/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2009-2010

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69A

income from undisclosed sources. 3.7 The total income of the assessee was thus assessed at Rs.1,82,46,780/-. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated for concealment of income, penalty notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(b) was issued for non-compliance, and interest

Achanak Associates Realtors Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1221/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

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

Achanak Associates Realtors Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1220/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

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

Sankar Rudrasenan, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-1, Namakkal

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2895/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. K. Ilaiyaraja, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एबी ट" वक", "या

Sankar Rudrasenan, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-2, Namakkal

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2894/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. K. Ilaiyaraja, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एबी ट" वक", "या

Vanraj Ranchhoddas Merchant (Through Legal Heir Harshit Merchant), Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 30(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5234/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 50CSection 54F

Rs.31,70,000/-, and completed the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were also initiated. 8. The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee reiterated his submissions regarding

DCIT-1(2)1, Mumbai vs. Patil Construction and Infrastucture Limited., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5908/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Akash Kumar (vritually appear), CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 801ASection 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

DCIT-1(2)1, Mumbai vs. Patil Construction and Infrastructure Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5907/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Akash Kumar (vritually appear), CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 801ASection 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

M/S.U.S.Reality Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-10(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1959/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 37(1)Section 68

held that tax under the normal provisions was higher than tax under section 115JB, and penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated separately. 10. Aggrieved by the assessment order passed, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings, the assessee challenged the rejection

Anshu Priyadarshini, Dwarka vs. Ward No. 43(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 7351/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.7351/धिल्ली/2025 (नि.व. 2011-12) Anshu Priyadarshini, Flat No.532, Excellence Apartments, Plot No.4, Sector-18A, Dwarka, Delhi 110078 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Akrpp-8355-N बिाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-43(4), R. No. 2611, 26Th Floor, E-2 Block, Civic Centre, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Delhi 110002 अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant By : Shri Abhinarayan Mishra, Advocate प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Shri Keshav Kishore Anand, Sr. Dr सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 17/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissions Of Income Tax-(Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 18.09.2025 Confirming Penalty Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), For Ay 2011-12. 2. Shri Abhinarayan Mishra, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submitted That The Tribunal In Assessee’S Appeal On Merits In Ita 1576/Del/2024 Vide Order 14.08.2024 Has Restored The Case Back To The Assessing Officer (Ao) For De-Novo Assessment. The Present Appeal Is In Respect Of Penalty Levied By The Ao On The Additions Made In Assessment Order Dated 15.12.2018 Passed U/S.144/147 Of The 2 Act. Since, The Assessment Order Has Been Set Aside By The Tribunal, The Penalty Proceedings Arising Therefrom Would Not Survive.

For Appellant: Shri Abhinarayan Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Keshav Kishore Anand, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 271(1)(C)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण धिल्ली पीठ “एस एम सी”, धिल्ली श्री धिकास अिस्थी, न्याधयक सिस्य IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

M/S Thdc India Limited, Rishikesh vs. PCIT, Dehradun

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 69/DDN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun24 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 270ASection 80

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN “DB” BENCH: DEHRADUN ITA No.69/DDN/2024 BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH

Yashpal Kishorsinh Chauhan, Rajkot vs. Commissioner of Incometax Appeals, Rajkot

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

ITA 674/RJT/2025[2013-2014]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot24 Dec 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Fenil H. Mehta, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234Section 271(1)(B)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN

Nishant Goyal, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 765/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.763/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.764/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.765/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Nishant Goyal Income Tax Officer-Ward 2(1) बनाम/ House No.3135, Sector 20-D Sector-17 Vs. Chandigarh - 160020 Chandigarh - 160017 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aqmpg-0609-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Rahul Khurana (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.12.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 24.12.2025 : आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013- 14 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Khurana (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 271B

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH HYBRID HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM AND

Sh. Nishant Goyal, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 764/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.763/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.764/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.765/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Nishant Goyal Income Tax Officer-Ward 2(1) बनाम/ House No.3135, Sector 20-D Sector-17 Vs. Chandigarh - 160020 Chandigarh - 160017 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aqmpg-0609-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Rahul Khurana (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.12.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 24.12.2025 : आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013- 14 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Khurana (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 271B

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH HYBRID HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM AND

Nishant Goyal, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 763/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.763/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.764/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.765/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Nishant Goyal Income Tax Officer-Ward 2(1) बनाम/ House No.3135, Sector 20-D Sector-17 Vs. Chandigarh - 160020 Chandigarh - 160017 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aqmpg-0609-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Rahul Khurana (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.12.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 24.12.2025 : आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013- 14 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Khurana (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 271B

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH HYBRID HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM AND