← 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)

Patliputra Builders Ltd, Patna vs. ACIT Central Circle-2, Patna

In the result, all the captioned appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 51/PAT/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Patna15 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. Nos.49,50&51/Pat/2021 Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 Patliputra Builders Limited………....….....................…..........….…… Appellant 301, Maharaja Kameshwar Complex, Frazer Road, Patna. [Pan: Aaccp0629B] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna…....…………........….....…...…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Shravan Kumar Jha, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Rinku Singh, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 06, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 15.03.2021 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In These Appeals Has Agitated The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Invited Our Attention To The Impugned Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A) To Submit That The Impugned Orders In All The Three Appeals Are Ex Parte Orders. The Ld. Counsel Has Submitted That In Fact The Assessee Did Not Receive Any Of The Notice Of Hearing Issued By The Ld. Cit(A). Moreover, The Alleged Dates Of Hearing Mentioned By The Cit(A) Were During The Covid

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “PATNA BENCH, PATNA VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and

Patliputra Builders Ltd, Patna vs. ACIT Central Circle-2, Patna

In the result, all the captioned appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 50/PAT/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Patna15 May 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. Nos.49,50&51/Pat/2021 Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 Patliputra Builders Limited………....….....................…..........….…… Appellant 301, Maharaja Kameshwar Complex, Frazer Road, Patna. [Pan: Aaccp0629B] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna…....…………........….....…...…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Shravan Kumar Jha, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Rinku Singh, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 06, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 15.03.2021 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In These Appeals Has Agitated The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Invited Our Attention To The Impugned Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A) To Submit That The Impugned Orders In All The Three Appeals Are Ex Parte Orders. The Ld. Counsel Has Submitted That In Fact The Assessee Did Not Receive Any Of The Notice Of Hearing Issued By The Ld. Cit(A). Moreover, The Alleged Dates Of Hearing Mentioned By The Cit(A) Were During The Covid

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “PATNA BENCH, PATNA VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and

Patliputra Builders Ltd, Patna vs. ACIT Central Circle-2, Patna

In the result, all the captioned appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 49/PAT/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Patna15 May 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. Nos.49,50&51/Pat/2021 Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 Patliputra Builders Limited………....….....................…..........….…… Appellant 301, Maharaja Kameshwar Complex, Frazer Road, Patna. [Pan: Aaccp0629B] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna…....…………........….....…...…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Shravan Kumar Jha, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Rinku Singh, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 06, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 15.03.2021 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In These Appeals Has Agitated The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Invited Our Attention To The Impugned Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A) To Submit That The Impugned Orders In All The Three Appeals Are Ex Parte Orders. The Ld. Counsel Has Submitted That In Fact The Assessee Did Not Receive Any Of The Notice Of Hearing Issued By The Ld. Cit(A). Moreover, The Alleged Dates Of Hearing Mentioned By The Cit(A) Were During The Covid

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “PATNA BENCH, PATNA VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and

Indore Mandal Dak Tar Karamchari Sahakari Sanstha My. Indore, Indore vs. The Additional CIT, Indore

ITA 96/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 80P

appeals are directed against the two separate orders of CIT(Appeals) NFAC Delhi both dated 30/01/2023 arising from the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the income tax act for ITA NO. 92-93/Ind/2023 assessment years 2015-16 and 16–17 respectively. In the appeal filed ... these appeals after giving appropriate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 5. As regards the appeals arising from penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of Act for the assessment year 2015–16 and 2016–17 we find that the assessee has raised common grounds as under: (1)That

Indore Mandal Dak Tar Karamchari Sahakari Sanstha My. Indore, Indore vs. The Additional CIT, Indore

ITA 95/IND/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 80P

appeals are directed against the two separate orders of CIT(Appeals) NFAC Delhi both dated 30/01/2023 arising from the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the income tax act for ITA NO. 92-93/Ind/2023 assessment years 2015-16 and 16–17 respectively. In the appeal filed ... these appeals after giving appropriate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 5. As regards the appeals arising from penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of Act for the assessment year 2015–16 and 2016–17 we find that the assessee has raised common grounds as under: (1)That

Indore Mandal Dak Tar Karamchari Sahakari Sanstha My. Indore, Indore vs. The Additional CIT, Indore

ITA 94/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 80P

appeals are directed against the two separate orders of CIT(Appeals) NFAC Delhi both dated 30/01/2023 arising from the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the income tax act for ITA NO. 92-93/Ind/2023 assessment years 2015-16 and 16–17 respectively. In the appeal filed ... these appeals after giving appropriate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 5. As regards the appeals arising from penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of Act for the assessment year 2015–16 and 2016–17 we find that the assessee has raised common grounds as under: (1)That

Indore Mandal Dak Tar Karamchari Sahakari Sanstha My. Indore, Indore vs. The Additional CIT, Indore

ITA 93/IND/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 80P

appeals are directed against the two separate orders of CIT(Appeals) NFAC Delhi both dated 30/01/2023 arising from the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the income tax act for ITA NO. 92-93/Ind/2023 assessment years 2015-16 and 16–17 respectively. In the appeal filed ... these appeals after giving appropriate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 5. As regards the appeals arising from penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of Act for the assessment year 2015–16 and 2016–17 we find that the assessee has raised common grounds as under: (1)That

Indore Mandal Dak Tar Karamchari Sahakari Sanstha My. Indore, Indore vs. The Additional CIT, Indore

ITA 92/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 80P

appeals are directed against the two separate orders of CIT(Appeals) NFAC Delhi both dated 30/01/2023 arising from the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the income tax act for ITA NO. 92-93/Ind/2023 assessment years 2015-16 and 16–17 respectively. In the appeal filed ... these appeals after giving appropriate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 5. As regards the appeals arising from penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of Act for the assessment year 2015–16 and 2016–17 we find that the assessee has raised common grounds as under: (1)That

Subramanian Swaminathan, New Delhi vs. ACIT (International Taxation), Circle-3(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7904/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Sankalp Malik, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 54BSection 54F

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Sh. Yogesh

Linklaters LLP, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (It) 3(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 7307/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/wFor Respondent: Shri Lovish Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)

Deduction for expenses 16. The learned AO erred in restricting the deduction for expenses to Rs. 2,51,457. Initiation of Penalty under section 271(1)(c) 17. The learned AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). General 18. Each one of the above grounds

Taj Exim International Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 6356/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannushri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri D.C. Agarwal a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

Mumbai, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2006–07, which in turn, arose from the penalty order dated 10/03/2011, passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. M/s. Taj Exim International Limited ITA no.6356/Mum./2012 2. The present appeal has been listed for hearing before us pursuant ... c) of Income Tax Act, 1961.” 5. The only grievance of the assessee, in the present appeal, is against the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available. The brief facts of the case are that

Mohd. Jawed, Bijnor vs. ITO Ward - 3(3), Bijnor

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is Allowed

ITA 126/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2023AY 2011-12
Section 271

1 Mohd. Jawed Vs. ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI

Rudra Buildwell P.Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

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

ITA 3215/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2023AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Parth Dawar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

pertaining to Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. In the grounds of appeal, at the outset, it is mentioned that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') amounting to Rs.40,44,810/- has been wrongly sustained ... 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

Bina Silk Mills, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 705/MUM/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Bina Silk Mills Ito 23(2)(1) 1St Floor, Behind Manisha Heights, Mumbai Vs. Balrajeshwar Road, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400 080 Pan/Gir No. Aabfb 8748 B (Appellant) : (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Satish R. ModyFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M Kacha
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)Section 50Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM

R Vit & Co, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(3)(5), Mumbai

ITA 696/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2023AY 2015-16
Section 143Section 234Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘ SMC‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER R VIR & Co. Vs. ITO

Shri Rajeshkumar C Jain, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 586/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.586 & 585/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year 2009-10 & 2010-11) Shri Rajesh Kumar C National Faceless Assessment Centre. Jain. Nfac, New Delhi - 110002 बिधम/ R C Metal Corporation, Shop No.8, 289, Shri Vs. Bhuvan, 4Th Khetwadi, Mumbai- 400 004 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aacpj7705P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Rajesh Kumar C Jain प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mahita Nair Sr. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 03.05.2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2023

For Appellant: Rajesh Kumar C JainFor Respondent: Mahita Nair Sr. AR
Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM & MS. PADMAVATHY S, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A

Shri Rajeshkumar C Jain, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 585/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.586 & 585/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year 2009-10 & 2010-11) Shri Rajesh Kumar C National Faceless Assessment Centre. Jain. Nfac, New Delhi - 110002 बिधम/ R C Metal Corporation, Shop No.8, 289, Shri Vs. Bhuvan, 4Th Khetwadi, Mumbai- 400 004 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aacpj7705P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Rajesh Kumar C Jain प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mahita Nair Sr. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 03.05.2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2023

For Appellant: Rajesh Kumar C JainFor Respondent: Mahita Nair Sr. AR
Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM & MS. PADMAVATHY S, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A

M/S Trine Entertainment Ltd, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 276/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal: A.Y : 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms. Bhavya Bansal GoyalFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 40

aggrieved by the decision of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the penalty of Rs.38,40,000/- levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2 M/s. Trine Entertainment Ltd. 2. We heard the parties and perused the record ... Disallowance of capital expenditure u/s 37(1) Rs.5,84,698/- Total Rs.112,92,731/- The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in respect of above said three additions. After hearing the assessee, the Assessing Officer levied

Chaturbhoj, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Ghaziabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is disposed of in the manner as indicate above

ITA 2301/DEL/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2009-10 Chaturbhoj, Ito, Ward-2(1), C/O Sanjeev Anand & Associates, Ghaziabad Uttar 136, Navyug Market, Ghaziabad, Vs. Pradesh Uttar Pradesh, Pin 201001 Pan Beqpc 8131 M (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : None Revenue For : Shri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: None
Section 271(1)(c)

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

Phi Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Telangana vs. ACIT, Spl. Range-7, New Delhi

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6018/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 10Section 271(1)(c)

Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) erred in law in upholding the order passed by the assessing offer of imposing the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as none of the conditions for initiating penalty gets satisfied. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred ... order. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the fact that the notice issued by the Ld. AO under Section 271(1)(c) in the printed form without specifically mentioning whether the proceedings are initiated on the ground of concealment of income or on account of furnishing