← 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)

M/S Harshvardhan International, Mumbai vs. Asstt. C.I.T.-20(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2595/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. Harshavardhan Vs. Acit – 20(1) International Piramal Chambers, 1St Floor, Sunshine Mumbai – 400012. Plaza, Naigaum Cross Road, Dadar (E), Mumbai – 400014. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaefh3134J Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Ms.Mrugakshi K Joshi.Ar Revenue By : Mr.Tejinder Pal Singh Anand.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) – Delhi / Cit(A) U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Ms.Mrugakshi K Joshi.ARFor Respondent: Mr.Tejinder Pal Singh Anand.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL

Avinash Narayan Sutar, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 28(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the three appeals filed by the asssessee are allowed

ITA 1029/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita Nos. 1029, 1030 & 1031/Mum/2020 (A.Ys: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2010-11) Avinash Narayan Sutar Vs. Ito – 28(1)(2) Plot No. 582, Laxmi Tower No.6, Vashi Niwas, Sector -1, Station, Navi Mumbai- Shiravana, Nerul, Navi 400703. Mumbai – 400706. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Arsps9036R Appellant .. Respondent Ito – 28(1)(2) Vs. Avinash Narayan Sutar Tower No.6, Vashi Plot No. 582, Laxmi Station, Navi Mumbai- Niwas, Sector -1, 400703. Shiravana, Nerul, Navi Mumbai – 400706. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Arsps9036R Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Hariom Tulsiyan.ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha.DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

therefore added to the total income of the assessee under section 69C of the Act as unexplained investment. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of Act to be initiated simultaneously for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and also for concealment of income. 6.3.2. Further, despite ample opportunities ... unaccounted income of the assessee. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.46,31,000/- is treated as unaccounted income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of Act to be initiated simultaneously for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and also for concealment of income. Similarly

Shri Rajkumar Nair, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Circle26(2) (5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed

ITA 5963/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Dec 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Devdutta MainkarFor Respondent: Ms. Megha Bhargav
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Year 2009-10, whereby the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant against the penalty order, dated 28.09.2015, passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‗the Act‘) levying penalty of INR 1,70,025/-. Assessment Year ... Penalty proceedings were also initiated against the Appellant on this issue as notice, dated 16.03.2015, was issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Vide order, dated 28.09.2015, penalty of INR 1,70,025/- was levied on the Appellant. The appeal filed by the Appellant

Atul C. Vyas, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 31, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 5018/MUM/2013[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Dec 2022AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri B.R. Basakaran & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Mr. Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha
Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ‘A’ BENCH, MUMBAI. BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASAKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY

Atul C. Vyas, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 31, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 5017/MUM/2013[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Dec 2022AY 1992-93

Bench: Shri B.R. Basakaran & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Mr. Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha
Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ‘A’ BENCH, MUMBAI. BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASAKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY

Rubberex Industries [Vt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 8(1) (2) /AO NFAC, Delhi

ITA 929/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalrubberex Industries Pvt. Ltd. Ground Floor, B-Anjirwadi, Dr Mascarenhas Road, Mazgaon, Mumbai-400010. Pan: Aabcr8644P ...... Appellant Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax-14/Nfac, Ito Ward 8(1)(2)/Ao Nfac, New Delhi. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Bhupendra Shah Respondent By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Dr Date Of Hearing : 14/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/12/2022

For Appellant: Sh. Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, DR
Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN

Torrent Petrochem Ltd( Presently Known As Blue Cross Road Solutions Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Transfer Pricing 4 (2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7373/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Dec 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Jhaveri.DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL

Siva Industries and Holdings Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

Appeal stand allowed

ITA 1391/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am.

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. ANN L.Kapthuama (CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘डी’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय ,ी महावीर िसंह

DCIT Cir-1, Kalyan vs. Shyam K Gyanchandani, Ulhasnagar

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2560/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vaibhav Jain
Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM

Mohd Arif Hamidulla Khan, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-38, Mumbai

The appeal of the appellant is dismissed

ITA 1895/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.P. Ahuja, D.R
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 234Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12

Babita Devi Kanoria, Raniganj vs. I.T.O., Ward-3(1), Asansol

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 54/KOL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 54/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-2011 Babita Devi Kajoria,..............................Appellant W/O. Unesh Kr. Kajoria, Jagannath Garden, Nsb Road, P.O. Raniganj-713347, Burdwan, West Bengal [Pan: Anfpk0759G] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,..............................Respondent Ward-3(1), Asansol, Income Tax Department, Parmar Building, 54, G.T. Road, Upper Chelidanga, P.O. Asansol-713305, Paschim Burdwan (Wb) Appearances By: Shri Aayush Gupta, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit (D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 15, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 22, 2022 O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz):- The Assessee Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Asansol Dated 18.11.2019 Passed For A.Y. 2010-11. 1 Assessment Year: 2010-2011 Babita Devi Kajoria, Raniganj 2. The Assessee Has Taken Three Grounds Of Appeal, But Her Grievances Revolve Around A Single Issue, Namely Ld. Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.3,09,766/-, Which Was Imposed By The Ld. Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C).

Section 133(6)Section 14Section 144Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

namely ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.3,09,766/-, which was imposed by the ld. Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c). 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed her return of income on 31.12.2010 declaring total income at Rs.1 ... that ideally an appeal arising from penalty order is to be decided after finalization of the quantum proceedings, because sub-clause (iii) of Section 271(1)(c) provides a mechanism for quantification of the penalty, which is dependent upon the total additions made to the declared income of the assessee

Balaji Janakiraman, Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-2, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2931/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2931/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr.Balaji Janakiraman, V. The Asst. Commissioner- Plot No.3, Door No.5, Of Income Tax (Osd), Thilagar Street, Corporate Range-2, Chennai. Kamakoti Nagar, Annex, Kamakshi Nagar Main Road, Valasaravakkam, Chennai-600 087. [Pan: Aeppj 7090 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.R.S.Balaji, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan
Section 131

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी वी. दुगा" राव, माननीय

Shri. Poonmaram K. Prajapati, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(2)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 1953/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshri Poonam Vs. Ito – 19(2)(5) K.Prajapati Matrumandir, Room 81/83, Room No. 14, 4 No. 210, Tardeo, Kumbharwada, Prabhu Mumbai – 400007. Shri Rammandir Marg, Mumbai – 400004. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agmpp5641C Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr. P.M Gang.Ar Respondent By : Mr. B. Bagchi.Dr

For Appellant: Mr. P.M Gang.ARFor Respondent: Mr. B. Bagchi.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

levied. The disallowance of purchases on ad-hoc/estimated basis does not tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income under the provisions of Section 271(1) (c) of the Act. The A.O. has not doubted the sales and made disallowance of bogus purchases and we rely on the ratio

West Coast Paper Mills Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO - 1(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result of above discussion keeping in view the provisions of statute and Memorandum to the Finance Bill 2016, we accept the arguments of assessee, and ground no

ITA 305/MUM/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalwest Cost Paper Mills Ltd., Shree Niwas House, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai - 400001. Pan: Aaact4179N ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-1(3) (4), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020. ..... Respondent Appellant/Assessee By : Sh. Alpesh Dharod & Sh. Tarun Ashok Chopda, Ars Respondent/Revenue By : Sh. Satyapal Kumar- Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 21/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/12/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai [For Short ‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 244A(1A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [For Short ‘The Act’] Vide Order Dated 29.01.2018 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sh. Alpesh Dharod &For Respondent: Sh. Satyapal Kumar- Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 244Section 244ASection 244A(1)Section 24ASection 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

M/S. Firmenich Aromatics Production India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- 9(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6116/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna/Amol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Nishant Somaiya
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 92CSection 94C

under section 234B of the Act. The Appellant prays that the consequential interest be deleted. 7. Ground No. 7: Initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred ... adjudicating on the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant prays that it has not concealed any particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income and the AO be directed to set aside the penalty proceedings initiated under section 271(1)(c

Viveck Mathreja, Mumbai vs. ACIT National Faceless Assessment Centre, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2594/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalviveck Mathreja Vs. Acit, National Face Less Plot No. 5, Trishul Assessment Centre Hatkesh Co-Op, Hsg.Sty, 2Nd Floor, Kautilya Road No. 6, Jvpd, Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Ville Parle (W), Complex, Bandra Mumbai – 400 056 Mumbai - 400050 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Acxpm8278M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: N.R. AggarwalFor Respondent: Vranda U Matkarni
Section 139(1)Section 139(2)Section 143(3)Section 22(1)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

before me at 11.00 A.M. on 24.03.2014 and show cause why an order imposing a penalty on you should not be made under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. If you do not wish to avail yourself of this opportunity of being heard in person ... show cause in writing on or before the said date which will be considered before any such order is made under Section 271(1)(c).” On perusal of the aforesaid notice it is clear that Assessing Officer has not specified whether the penalty being levied on account of concealment

Sushil Kumar Paul, Siliguri vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-2, Siliguri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2274/KOL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2016-17 Sushil Kumar Paul Acit, Circle-2, Siliguri. C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Vs. Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700 069. (Pan: Akfpp 4837 K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Siliguri Dated 23.08.2019 For A.Y. 2016-17. The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “I. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs. 23,70,000/- Imposed By The Ao By Wrongly Invoking The Provisions Of Section 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act.

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, DR
Section 271A

Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act,) to be bad in law as it did not specify Which limb of Section

Arvind Mohanlal Jain, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-3, Thane

In the result, we quash the reassessment initiation

ITA 1798/MUM/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Arvind Mohanlal Jain Cit(A)-3 Flat No.304, Room No-30, D-Wing, Vishwanath Nagar, B-Wing, Asher It Park, Vs. Gandhi Chowk, Wagle Industrial Estate, Kulgaon, Badlapur (E) Thane 400 604 Mumbai-421 503 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aarpj2456J

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ujjawal Chavan, SR AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

deal was not materialized. 4. The ld. Assessing Officer erred in levying interest under section 234A, 234B, 234C and initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the appellant denies his liability to the same.” 02. The brief fact of the case

M/S Astrazeneca Pharma India Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Large Tax Payers Unit (Ltu) Circle-1, Bangalore

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

ITA 3250/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.3250/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Susan D. George, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80G

234B of the Act. 14. Ld. AO has erred, in laws and in facts, in initiating penalty proceedings under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The first grounds for our consideration are ground Nos.1, 2 & 3, which reads as follows:- 1. “Impugned order

K. Ramalingam, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-I(3), Salem

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

ITA 2916/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 234C

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "सह, उपा"य