“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)

Ashok Popatbhai Choudhari, Mumbai vs. WD 17 (1) (2), Mumbai

ITA 29/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S.G. Bhuptani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Azhar Zain Vayal Parambath, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

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

Raju Tirathdas Ramchandani, Mum vs. Income Tax Officer-22(3)(1), Mum

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2252/MUM/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhraju Tirathdas Vs. Income Tax Officer - Ramchandani, 603, 22(3)(1), Piramal Premodyan Co-Op Chamber, Lal Baugh Housing Society, 12Th Parel, Road, Ram Krishna Maharashtra - 400012 Mission, Khar (W) Mumbai – 400 052 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aebpr3611P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shashi Bekal Respondent By : Mahita Nair Date Of Hearing 31.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Am: The Solitary Ground Of Appeal Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Nfac In Confirming The Levy Of Penalty Of Rs.4,49,922/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. 2. Fact In Brief Is That Assessment U/S 144 R.W.S 147 Of The Act Was Finalized On 04.03.2013. During The Course Assessment A.O Noticed That Assessee Has Made Total Investment Of Rs.14,00,000/- During The Year In All Templaton India Treasury Management Account Regular Plan – Weekly Dividend Plan Scheme. The A.O Stated That During The Course Of

For Appellant: Shashi BekalFor Respondent: Mahita Nair

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

ITA No.2252/Mum/2022 A.Y. 2005-06 1 Raju Tirathdas Ramchandani Vs. Income Tax Officer -22(3)(1) IN THE INCOME TAX

Keyman Advisory Services Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Centra Circle-7(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1495/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhkeyman Advisory Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Services Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Central Floor-3, Plot-90, Ganpati Circle-7(1), Niwas, Dhirubhai Parekh Aayakar Bhavan, Marg, Ladwadi, Kalbadevi Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400002 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aadck2215K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Vimal Punmiya Respondent By : Jagdish Jangid Date Of Hearing 12.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am):

For Appellant: Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Jagdish Jangid

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 274Section 68

ITA No. 1495/Mum/2022 A.Y. 2013-14 1 Keyman Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT,CC-7(1) IN THE INCOME

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centre-Circle-6(4), Mumbai-400021 vs. Shri Saurabh Mittal, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1435/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri M Balaganesh,Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.1435/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Deputy Commissioner Of Shri. Saurabh Mittal A-19, House No.A-01, A-32, Income Tax, Centre- Westend, New Delhi-110 021 Circle-6(4) बिधम/ Room No. 1925, 19Th Vs. Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400 021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No Anapm2488D (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.334 & 333/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Shri. Saurabh Kumar Deputy Commissioner Of Mittal Income Tax, Centre-Circle- Room No.543, 5Th Floor, बिधम/ 6(4) Ayankar Bhavan, Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Vs. M.K.Road, Air India Building, Nariman Mumbai-400 020. Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No Anapm2488D (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Jitendra Joshi, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. A. B. Koli, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 25.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 31.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Joshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri. A. B. Koli, Ld. DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 3Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM & SHRI M BALAGANESH,AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A

Gaurishankar Chaudhary, Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-4(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No

ITA 6112/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Harmesh Lal

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

supplied with the findings recorded in the order of re- assessment, which was passed on the same date on which the notice under section 271(1)(c) was issued, initiating the proceedings of imposing the penalty. The assessee had sufficient notice of the action of imposing penalty, therefore, there ... supplied with the findings recorded in the order of re-assessment, which was passed on the same date on which the notice under Section 271(1)(c) was issued, initiating the proceedings of imposing the penalty The assessee had sufficient notice of the action of imposing penalty. We, therefore

Gaurishankar Chaudhary, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC-4(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No

ITA 6110/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Harmesh Lal

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Ashok Jasraj Jain, HUF, Mumbai vs. ACIT-19(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5609/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ashok Jasraj Jain, Huf, Acit-19(1), 45/12, Rajkotwala Bldg., 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir Bldg., 1St Carpenter Street, C.P. Tank, Vs. Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400 004. Mumbai-400 007. Pan No. Aaahj 0191 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Mehul Shah, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Sinha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Mehul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Sinha, DR

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH

Shri Rajesh Sanwalchand Bafna, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5445/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Bafna, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gupta, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

under section 234A, 234B, 234C which is erred and bad in Law. (4) The income tax Officer erred in initiating Penalty proceeding under section 271(1) (c). (5) The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has also erred in Law in initiating Penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Creation Publicity Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 5304/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.5302, 5303 & 5304/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S. Creation Publicity Income Tax Officer- Limited., Ward-2(1)(2), बिधम/ 4, Parekh Vora Chamber, 66, Room No.543, 5Th Floor, Vs. Nagindas Master Road, Fort, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- 400 001 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aabcc2192B (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri. Hemant Vora(Ca) प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Praveen Shekhar, Sr.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 02.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 31.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 20.05.2019, Passed By Ld. Cit (A)-4, Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) /147 For The Ay 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2

For Appellant: Shri. Hemant Vora(CA)For Respondent: Shri. Praveen Shekhar, Sr.AR

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

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

Income Tax Officer -2(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Creation Publicity Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 5303/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri. Hemant Vora(CA)For Respondent: Shri. Praveen Shekhar, Sr.AR

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

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

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Creation Publicity Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 5302/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri. Hemant Vora(CA)For Respondent: Shri. Praveen Shekhar, Sr.AR

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

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

Rga International Reinsurance Company Designated Activity Company, Mumbai vs. ACIT (It) - RG. 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 6935/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Us Are As Follows:

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 9(1)(i)

circumstances of the case and in law, and based on the directions of the Hon'ble DRP, erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The above grounds of objections are all independent and without prejudice to one another. 3. The assessee before

Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Mumbai vs. JCIT, Central Range-8, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is having ITA No

ITA 6124/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Dcit-Cc 8(3), 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Jcit, Central Range-8, 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit- Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Rushabh Mehta, AR

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 50Section 68Section 69C

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

Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Range-8 (3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is having ITA No

ITA 6123/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Rushabh Mehta, AR

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 50Section 68Section 69C

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

Magnaram Choudhary, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 17(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7077/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7077/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11) Shri Magnaram Choudhary बिधम/ Ito-17(2)(3) Flat No. 304, Building No. Matru Mandir, Mumbai. Vs. B-2/D, Nav Maharashtra Nagar Co-Op Society, M. P. Mill Compound, Tardeo, Mumbai-400034. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ainpc0320L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee An Individual Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-28 Mumbai Dated 03.05.2017 For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Against The Penalty Confirmed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

271(1)(c) of the Act or not. On perusal of the SCN dated 20.12.2012, we note that both the faults specified in Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is given i.e. “the assessee have concealed the particulars of his income” or “furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income ... 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

Shirish M Dalvi, Kalyan vs. DCIT Cir 29(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, we uphold the finding of Ld CIT(A). The ground No. four of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly dismissed

ITA 4640/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shirish M. Dalvi, Dcit Circle-23(3), D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala 3Rd Floor, C-10, Pratyaksha Vs. Complex, Sahajanand Kar Bhavan, Bandra East, Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit Circle-23(3), Shirish M. Dalvi, Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, C-10 D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala Vs. Bldg., Pratyakshakar Complex, Sahajanand Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shirish M. Dalvi, Dcit-29(3), D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, C- Vs. Complex, Sahajanand 10, Pratyaksha Kar Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H

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

DCIT Cir 23(3), Mumbai vs. Shirish M Dalvi, Mumbai

Accordingly, we uphold the finding of Ld CIT(A). The ground No. four of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly dismissed

ITA 4317/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

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

M/S. Samira Habitats India Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Central Circle-35(Now DCIT, CC-6(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 531/MUM/2022[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri.Ri Om Prakashri. Kant & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopalआ.अ.सं.529 /मुं/2022 िन.व.2006-07 आ.अ.सं.531/मुं/2022 (िन.व.2006-07)

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav KabraFor Respondent: Smt. USha Gaikwad, Sr.AR

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153A

Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Learned Assessing Officer in imposing of penalty by invoking provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is bad, illegal, void abinitio or without jurisdiction. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case ... circumstances of the case.” 12. In the grounds raised, the assessee is aggrieved with the penalty amounting to ₹ 10, 29, 613/-levied under section 271(1)(c ) of the Act in relation to addition of ₹ 30, 58, 864 in assessment under section 147 of the Act. 13. Since we have

M/S. Samira Habitats India Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cent. Cir-35(Now DCIT CC-6(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 529/MUM/2022[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri.Ri Om Prakashri. Kant & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopalआ.अ.सं.529 /मुं/2022 िन.व.2006-07 आ.अ.सं.531/मुं/2022 (िन.व.2006-07)

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav KabraFor Respondent: Smt. USha Gaikwad, Sr.AR

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153A

Basf India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 553/MUM/2017[]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022

Section 195(2)Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)(vii)

levying interest under section 234B of the Act, without considering the fact that the Appellant is non- resident. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 6. Erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant craves leave