← 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)

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Bp India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4907/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Bp India Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax , Circle-1(2)(1), P B No 19411, Mumbai Vs. Technopolis Knowledge Park, Andheri, Mumbai - 400043 (Pan: Aaccb2030Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 276/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Bp India Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of Income P B No 19411, Tax , Circle-1(2)(1), Technopolis Knowledge Park, Vs. Mumbai Andheri, Mumbai - 400043 (Pan: Aaccb2030Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Ms. Chandni Shah, Mr. Amol Mahajan & Ms. Nidhi Agarwal, Cas Revenue : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.03.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit (A) 55, Mumbai, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2025-26/1076574916(1), Dated 30/05/2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Acit - 9(2)(1), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 144(C)(3)(B) Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 13.04.2015, For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2

For Appellant: Ms. Chandni Shah, Mr. Amol Mahajan and Ms. Nidhi Agarwal, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Chintan Vrajlal Mangukiya, Surat vs. Assessment Unit ITO Jurisdictional A O Ward-3(3)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 859/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.859/Srt/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Chintan Vrajlal Mangukiya Assessment Unit Ito बनाम B-76 Ramkrishna Society Jurisdictional Ao / L.H. Road Ward-3(3)(1) V/S. Varachha Surat – 395 006 Ito Ward-3(3) Surat – 395 001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Blppm 3876 F (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) (!) यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/03/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 25/03/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2016-17. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Time-Barred By 79 Days. A Separate Application For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed, Wherein, It Has Been Chintan Vrajlal Mangukiya Vs.Ito Asst. Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,सूरत "ायपीठ, सूरत । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT ‘SMC’ BENCH, SURAT [conducted through Hybrid mode

Rajendrakumar Ichubhai Kothari, Bharuch vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bharuch

In the result, quantum appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 836/SRT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.835/Srt/2025 आयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.836/Srt/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Rajendrakumar Ichubhai The Ito बनाम/ Kothari Ward-1(4) V/S. 2 119 Parkhetiafaliyu Kervada Bharuch – 356 069 Amod Bharuch Bharuch – 392 025 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Cfupk 6177 B (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) (!) यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Surendra Modiani, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/03/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Two Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 11/06/2025 (Quantum Appeal) & 12/06/2025 (Penalty Appeal) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2013-14. Ita Nos.835 & 836/Srt/2025 Rajendrakumar Ichubhai Kothari Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Modiani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.DR
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 56

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,सूरत "ायपीठ, सूरत । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT ‘SMC’ BENCH, SURAT [conducted through Hybrid mode

Rajendrakumar Ichubhai Kothari, Bharuch vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bharuch

In the result, quantum appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 835/SRT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.835/Srt/2025 आयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.836/Srt/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Rajendrakumar Ichubhai The Ito बनाम/ Kothari Ward-1(4) V/S. 2 119 Parkhetiafaliyu Kervada Bharuch – 356 069 Amod Bharuch Bharuch – 392 025 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Cfupk 6177 B (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) (!) यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Surendra Modiani, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/03/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Two Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 11/06/2025 (Quantum Appeal) & 12/06/2025 (Penalty Appeal) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2013-14. Ita Nos.835 & 836/Srt/2025 Rajendrakumar Ichubhai Kothari Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Modiani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.DR
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 56

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,सूरत "ायपीठ, सूरत । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT ‘SMC’ BENCH, SURAT [conducted through Hybrid mode

Shreyans Anilkumar Shah, Na vs. Arivs.CIT(A), Ward 5, Navsari

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 786/SRT/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.786/Srt/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shreyans Anilkumar Shah The Ito बनाम 504, Rushabh Residency Ward-5 / Maneklal Road Navsari – 396 445 V/S. Nr. Telephone Exchnage Navsari – 396 445 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aiqps 6441 P (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) (!) यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Chaitali Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/03/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 16/05/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2010-11. 2. The Assessee, In This Appeal, Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Shreyans Anilkumar Shah Vs. Cit(A) Asst. Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Ms. Chaitali Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.DR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,सूरत "ायपीठ, सूरत । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT ‘SMC’ BENCH, SURAT [conducted through Hybrid mode

Bhagwan Singh, Kinaaur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Rampur

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 747/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.747/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Bhagwan Singh Ito Ward-01 बनाम/ Vs. Vpo Brua, Tehsil Sangla Khaneri, Rampur Bhushahar Himachal Pradesh - 172105 Himachal Pradesh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abups-9864-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Parveen Sharma (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-02-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 09-03-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 24-01-2024 Confirming Penalty Of Rs.4,83,694/- As Levied By Ld. Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Vide Order Dated 09-03- 2020. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of Approx. 10 Months In The Appeal, The Condonation Of Which Has Been Sought By Ld. Ar On The Strength Of Condonation Petition Which Is Accompanied By An Affidavit Of The Assessee. The Ld. Ar Also Pleaded For Restoring The Appeal Back To Ld.

For Appellant: Sh. Parveen Sharma (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

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

Achala Punja, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Non Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2630/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

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

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 194Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

cannot be construed as concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In view of the fact that the substantial addition forming the basis of penalty has already been deleted by this Tribunal and considering that

Ilove Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-2, Chennai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2005/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2005/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 37Section 68

Assessing Officer to allow the set-off of current year losses and brought forward losses. 4. Quash the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. Grant any other relief(s) as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case

Ramesh Kanhayalal Lodha, Godiji Building, Kika Street, Masjid Bunder Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 23(3)(6), Piramal Chambers Dr. Ss Rao Marg Parel Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal is allowed

ITA 8294/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms. Shivali Mhatre, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, SR DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI PRABHASH

Basant Lal Gupta, Sidhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Rewa

In the result, ITA. No. 129/JAB/2024 & ITA

ITA 132/JAB/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur06 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 147Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)

I.T.A. No.129, 130 to 132/JAB/2024 Assessment Year:2010-11 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH “SMC”, JABALPUR

Basant Lal Gupta, Sidhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Rewa

In the result, ITA. No. 129/JAB/2024 & ITA

ITA 131/JAB/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur06 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 147Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)

I.T.A. No.129, 130 to 132/JAB/2024 Assessment Year:2010-11 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH “SMC”, JABALPUR

Basant Lal Gupta, Sidhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Rewa

In the result, ITA. No. 129/JAB/2024 & ITA

ITA 130/JAB/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur06 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 147Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)

I.T.A. No.129, 130 to 132/JAB/2024 Assessment Year:2010-11 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH “SMC”, JABALPUR

Basant Lal Gupta, Sidhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Rewa

In the result, ITA. No. 129/JAB/2024 & ITA

ITA 129/JAB/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur06 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 147Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)

I.T.A. No.129, 130 to 132/JAB/2024 Assessment Year:2010-11 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH “SMC”, JABALPUR

Toman Singh Sahu, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Raipur

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

ITA 499/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.499/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Toman Singh Sahu H. No.1246, Vivekanand Ashram, Ram Kund Para, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Epyps2394L ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI PARTHA

Vimal Todi, Indore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Indore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 188/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshishri Vimal Todi, Additional Commissioner बनाम/ 501, Darshan Residency, Of Income-Tax, Vs. 104-105, Anand Bazar, Indore Indore

Section 132Section 254(2)Section 271DSection 275Section 275(1)(c)

which he has filed his reply. 11. The only case of the assessee is that if the period of limitation prescribed in Section 271(1)(c) is reckoned from the date of the assessment order dated 6.11.2007, the penalty order passed by the Joint Commissioner on 29.7.2008 is beyond

Puneet Katiyar, Kanpur vs. Income Tax Officer-1(3)(5), Kanpur

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

ITA 1007/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)

I.T.A. No.1007/LKW/2025 Assessment Year:2016-17 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘A’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Tax)- 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Marriott International Inc, Mumbai

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 34/MUM/2026[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Krishna KumarFor Respondent: Shri Pratik Poddar, Shri Karan Jain
Section 144CSection 271(1)(c)

No.34/Mum/2026 & C.O. No.89/Mum/2026 Assessment Year 2010-2011 the Learned CIT(A) had allowed the appeal against the Penalty Order, dated 31/03/2023, passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’]. The Assessee has filed Cross-Objections in the aforesaid appeal ... outset, stated that Revenue has preferred the present appeal challenging the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2010-2011. It was submitted that the Learned CIT(A) had deleted the penalty levied under

M/S. Supreme Infrastructure India Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 15(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 8172/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita Shah (Virtually appear)For Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Bhagat Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Supreme Infrastructure India Limited amount of Rs. 9,58,82,483/-. The Ld. AO initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) and the penalty was duly levied amount to Rs. 1,96,48,818/- i.e. 100% of the tax short to be emanated. The aggrieved assessee filed

M/S. Supreme Infrastructure India Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 15 (3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 8171/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita Shah (Virtually appear)For Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Bhagat Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Supreme Infrastructure India Limited amount of Rs. 9,58,82,483/-. The Ld. AO initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) and the penalty was duly levied amount to Rs. 1,96,48,818/- i.e. 100% of the tax short to be emanated. The aggrieved assessee filed

M/S. Supreme Infrastructure India Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 15 (3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 8170/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita Shah (Virtually appear)For Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Bhagat Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Supreme Infrastructure India Limited amount of Rs. 9,58,82,483/-. The Ld. AO initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) and the penalty was duly levied amount to Rs. 1,96,48,818/- i.e. 100% of the tax short to be emanated. The aggrieved assessee filed