“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)

Baiju Roy, Patna vs. ITO, Ward-4(2), Patna

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

ITA 13/PAT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna02 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 10(37)Section 133(6)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 45(5)Section 54BSection 54F

ITA No. 13/PAT/2022 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Baiju Roy IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA-PATNA ‘e-COURT’, KOLKATA

ACIT, Central Circle-3, Patna vs. Subhash Pd. Yadav, Patna

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 97/PAT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna02 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 139Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 275

observed as under:- “Office may please issue DN/refund and challan accordingly. Penalty proceedings 2 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Subhash Pd. Yadav under section 271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated for concealment of income”. 5. Ld. Assessing Officer thereafter imposed a penalty under section 271AAB(1A) of the Income ... Explanation appended to section 271AAB(1A). The penalty is not imposable upon the assesesee under this section. It could have been possible under section 271(1)(c) at the most. Even otherwise, the penalty was initiated for imposing under section 271(1)(c) but that was not imposed upon

Murliwala Agrotech Private Limited, Rajasthan vs. DCIT Circle-14, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 609/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2015-16 Murliwala Agrotech Private Limited, Vs Dcit, G-20-245, Ricco Industrial Area, Circle-14, Gudli Udaipur, Delhi. Rajasthan – 313024. Pan: Aaccm0796Q (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Susheel Kumar, Ca & Ms Archana Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms Raja Rajeshwari R. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.06.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: This Appeal In Ita No.609/Del/2022 For Ay 2015-16 Arises Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-26, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit(A)’, In Short] In Appeal No.10255/19-20 Dated 10.12.2021 Against The Order U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 27.06.2019 Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer, Circle-2, Udaipur (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’). 2. The Only Effective Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Was Justified In Confirming The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Instant Case.

For Appellant: Shri Susheel Kumar, CA &For Respondent: Ms Raja Rajeshwari R. Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

case of a mandatory provision of law which is conceived not only in individual interest but also in the public interest". 190. Here, section 271(1)(c) is one such provision. With calamitous, albeit commercial, consequences, the provision is mandatory and brooks no trifling with or dilution. For a further

Mini Tradex Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 16(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8029/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2015-16 Mini Tradex Private Limited, Vs Ito, C/O Rohit Tiwari, Ward-16(4), 8024, Ats Greens Paradiso, New Delhi. Chi Iv, Noida, Uttar Pradesh – 201310. Pan: Aagcm0239E (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Tanya, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Raja Rajeshwari R. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.06.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: This Appeal In Ita No.8029/Del/2019 For Ay 2015-16 Arises Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit(A)’, In Short] In Appeal No.Cit(A), Delhi-6/10103/18-19 Dated 07.05.2019 Against The Order U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 18.06.2018 Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer, Ward-16(4), New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’). 2. The Only Effective Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Was Justified In Confirming The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Instant Case.

For Appellant: Ms Tanya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Raja Rajeshwari R. Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Income Tax Officer-17(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Chetan Shashikant Shah, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the revenue is stand dismissed

ITA 813/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhito-17(1)(2)(1) Vs. Chetan Shashikant Shah 1St, Floor, Room No. 104, 1St, Floor, Office No. 101, Kautilya Bhavan, G. 33, Dariyastan Street, Block, Bkc, Bandra(E) Masjid, Mumbai, Mandvi Mumbai 400051 S.O 400003 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacps9153Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Rajesh S. Shah Respondent By : Shri. Krishna Kumar Date Of Hearing 30.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am):

For Appellant: Shri. Rajesh S. ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Krishna Kumar

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

P a g e | 1 ITO vs Chetan Shashikant Shah IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE

Joseph Leslie & Company LLP, Mumbai vs. Circle 22(1), Mumbai, Lalbaug

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

ITA 297/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Joseph Leslie & Company Llp, Circle 22(1), 3Rd Floor, Leslico House, Piramal Chamber, Vs. Bhavani Shankar Road, Lalbaug, Parel, Dadar West, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400028. Pan No. Aahfj 7149 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Richa Gulati Date Of Hearing : 23/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/05/2023 Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati

Section 2Section 36Section 43B

Gold Coin Health Food (P) Ltd., (2008) 304 ITR 308 (SC) In the case of Virtual Soft Systems Ltd. amendment to section 271(1)(c) was held to be prospective by the Apex Court, as the statute categorically stated that it would apply w.e.f. 01.04.2003. On this ground, the Supreme ... However, subsequently while deciding the case of Raman Lal C. Hathi, the Apex Court once again examined the same amendment to section 271(1)(c), and came to the conclusion that the law laid down by the Division Bench in the case of Virtual Soft Systems Ltd. (supra) needed reconsideration

Maneken Keshvalla Patel, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Department, Ministry of Finance, Delhi

ITA 1107/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Maneken Keshvalla Patel, National Faceless Appeal 1 Manekkunj, Anandpur Vas Centre (Nfac) Vs. At Pundhara Ta : Mansa- Income Tax Department, 382855 Gandhiangar, Gujarat Ministry Of Finance, India-382855 Delhi-110001. Pan No. Alfpp 7410 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Mehul Talera, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Richa Gulati, Dr : Date Of Hearing 25/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 31/05/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Mehul Talera, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA

Thomas Cook (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 1 (3)92), Mumbai

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

ITA 7807/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Thomas Cook (India) Ltd., Dy. Cit-1(3)(2), A Wing, 11Th Floor, Marathon Room No. 540, 5Th Floor, Vs. Futurex, N.M. Joshi Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Lower Parel (East), Road, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaact 4050 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ketan Ved Revenue By : Ms. Richa Gulati, Dr : Date Of Hearing 30/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 31/05/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Ketan VedFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati, DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 14ASection 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA

Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwanathan, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT CC-5(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

ITA 4387/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Nilesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Neehar Ranjan Pandey, CIT-DR

Section 132(1)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL

Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwanathan, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC-5(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

ITA 4386/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Nilesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Neehar Ranjan Pandey, CIT-DR

Section 132(1)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL

Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwanathan, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC-5(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

ITA 4385/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Nilesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Neehar Ranjan Pandey, CIT-DR

Section 132(1)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL

Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwanathan, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC-5(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

ITA 4384/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Nilesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Neehar Ranjan Pandey, CIT-DR

Section 132(1)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL

Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwanathan, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC-5(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

ITA 4383/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Nilesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Neehar Ranjan Pandey, CIT-DR

Section 132(1)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL

Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwanathan, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC-5(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

ITA 4382/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Nilesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Neehar Ranjan Pandey, CIT-DR

Section 132(1)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL

Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwanathan, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC-5(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

ITA 4381/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Nilesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Neehar Ranjan Pandey, CIT-DR

Section 132(1)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL

Sabharwal Food Industries Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-22(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6027/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2012-13 Sabharwal Food Industries Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, Circle-22(1), New Delhi A-309, Basement, New Subzi Mandi, 110001 Azadpur, Delhi 110033 Vs. Pan Aabcs 0763 L (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Rohit Tiwari, Adv. Ms. Tanya, Adv. Revenue For : Ms. Rajareswari R, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2023 Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Of Cit(A)-8, New Delhi Dated 24.04.2019 For Ay 2012-13. 2. First Of All, The Ld. Counsel Of Assessee Submitted The Assesse Does Not Want To Press Its Application Dated 26.12.2022 For Admission Of Additional Ground Hence, The Same Is Dismissed Has Not Pressed. The Ground Of Assessee Is As Follows:- 1. The Ld. Ao Has Erred In Levying Penalty As The Payment In Cash Was Made For Hospital Bills As The Hospitals Did Not Accept Payment Through Cheques.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, Adv

Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: G: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Sushila Goyal, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 22(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3012/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Chandra Mohan Gargsushila Goyal Vs. Ito Flat No.4, Rr Apartments Ward – 22(3), 3-4, Mangalpuri, Mehrauli New Delhi New Delhi – 110 030 Pan No. Ajspg 2559 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ajit Gandhi, C.A. Revenue By Shri Pankaj Khanna, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.05.2023

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

Appeals)-25, has erred both in law and on facts in confirming penalty of Rs.1,71,411/ levied by assessing officer under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-25, has erred both in law and on facts ... confirming penalty of Rs. 1,71,411/- levied by assessing officer under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating that the order passed by Ld AO was in absence of granting proper opportunity of being heard to appellant. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income

Kakrla Surya Gangadhar Tilak, Visakhapatnam vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 178/VIZ/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 May 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.177/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Smt.Kakarla Guna Vidya Saraswathi Vs. Income Tax Officer C/O Kakrla Surya Gangadhar Tilak Ward-3(3) A-1, Janani Apartments Visakhapatnam Pandurangaswamy Temple Backside Pandurangapuram Visakhapatnam [Pan : Apjpk5999N] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.178/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Sri Kakarla Surya Gangadhar Tilak Vs. Income Tax Officer A-1, Janani Apartments Ward-1(2) Pandurangaswamy Temple Backside Visakhapatnam Pandurangapuram Visakhapatnam [Pan : Ahbpk5319G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri I.Kama Sastry, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)]-1 Visakhapatnam

For Appellant: Shri I.Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR

Section 1Section 144Section 148Section 274

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम “एसएमसी”पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM “SMC” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री दुव्वूरु आर एल रेड्डी

Kakarla Guna Vidya Saraswathi, Visakhapatnam vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 177/VIZ/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 May 2023AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri I.Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR

Section 1Section 144Section 148Section 274

Gtpl Rajwadi Network Pvt. Ltd., Bamroli vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir-1(1)(2), Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 95/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), DR. A. L. SAINI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr- DR

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

Delhi (in short, NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) dated 05.01.2023 which in turn arises out of a penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), dated 28.06.2017. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows