← 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)

Owens-Corning(Singapore)Pte.Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax (Internatioal Taxation) Circle-3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2049/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Us Is A Company Incorporated In & Fiscally Domiciled In, The Republic Of Singapore. During The Relevant Previous Year, The Assessee Company Provided Bushing & Fabrication Services To Its

Section 143(3)

ITA Nos.: 2049/Mum/2016, 5731/Mum/2019, and 742/Mum/2021 Assessment years: 2012-13, 2016-17 and 2017-18 Page 1 of 11 INCOME

M.S Scania Cv Ab, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 3432/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jul 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 192Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

Pritesh Jitendra Mehta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer WD, 27(2) (5), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 295/MUM/2022[2009-10`]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022
For Appellant: Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai (Sr. AR)
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

Pritesh Jitendra Mehta respect of bogus purchases wherein profit embedded therein was computed @25%], had come to the conclusion that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) be imposed and the view so taken by the coordinate bench has been consistently followed in a large number of cases (refer

Bhavna Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT -Cir- Panvel, Panvel

The appeal is treated as dismissed for statistical purposes

ITA 290/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(C)Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BASKARAN BR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH

Asstt. CIT-32(1), Mumbai vs. Sunitaben Shantilal Patel, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed in terms of aforesaid findings

ITA 111/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalasst. Commissioner Of Income Tax-32(1), Room No. 702, 7Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. ...... Appellant Vs. Sunitaben Shantilal Patel, 1903, Siddhivinayak Tower Chs Ltd. Link Road, Sudhendra Nagar, Dahisar (E), Mumbai-400068. Pan: Afhpp0267N ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. B.K. Bagchi, Sr. Dr Respondent By : Sh. Jigaar Mehta, Ar Date Of Hearing : 30/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/07/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-44, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit (A)’] Vide Order Dated 13.08.2020 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. “Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Rejecting The Audited Books Of Accounts & Reducing The Turnover To Rs. 9,50,35,865/- Against Turnover Of Rs. 12,05,07,568/- As Disclosed In The Audited Books Of Accounts.” 2. “Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Eliminating He Profits To 8% Of The Reduced Turnover Against Addition Of Rs. 8,49,87,993/- Made By The Ao.”

For Appellant: Sh. B.K. Bagchi, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Jigaar Mehta, AR
Section 142(1)Section 271(1)

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

DCIT Cir 3, Thane vs. The Thane District Central Co. Op. Bank Ltd, Thane

In the result, appeal by Revenue is dismissed being devoid of any merit

ITA 2512/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 2512/मुं/2019 ("न. व .2011-12) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -3, Thane, Room No.02, 6Th Floor, Aashar It Park, B-Wing, Wagle Industrial Estate, Road No.16Z, Thane (W)- 400 604. ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Thane District Central Co Operative Bank Ltd. 01, Chhatrapati Shivaji Path, Post Box No.19, Thane (W)- 400 601. Pan: Aaaat-0739-N ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Manoj Sinha ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Ashok Patil सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 01/07/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 01/07/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Manoj SinhaFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Patil
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(viia)

book. The ld.Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed that the Assessing Officer while issuing said notice has not struck off irrelevant limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act in proforma notice. The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee in support of his contentions placed reliance on the decision ... notice dated 24/03/2014 issued u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act examined. In appeal filed by the assessee against levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the CIT(A) has deleted penalty by placing reliance on the order of Tribunasl in assessee’s own case

Advantage Overseas Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 1(1), Bhopal

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 922/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 919/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 920/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 922/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2010-11) बिधम/ Advantage Overseas Pvt. Dcit-1(1) Ltd. Bhopal. Vs. 414, A- Wing Express Zone, Off Western Express Highway Malad (E), Mumbai-400097. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaeca8925F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-53, Mumbai Dated 18.02.2022 For Ays. 2014-15 & 2013-14; & Order Dated 11.02.202 For Ay 2010-11. For Ay. 2014-15 (Ita. No. 919/Mum/2022) 2. The Ground No. 1 Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Passing The Impugned Order Without Providing The Assessee Adequate Opportunity Of Being Heard. Having Gone Through The

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)
Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VP AND SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM

Advantage Overseas Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(1), Bhopal

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 920/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 919/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 920/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 922/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2010-11) बिधम/ Advantage Overseas Pvt. Dcit-1(1) Ltd. Bhopal. Vs. 414, A- Wing Express Zone, Off Western Express Highway Malad (E), Mumbai-400097. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaeca8925F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-53, Mumbai Dated 18.02.2022 For Ays. 2014-15 & 2013-14; & Order Dated 11.02.202 For Ay 2010-11. For Ay. 2014-15 (Ita. No. 919/Mum/2022) 2. The Ground No. 1 Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Passing The Impugned Order Without Providing The Assessee Adequate Opportunity Of Being Heard. Having Gone Through The

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)
Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VP AND SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM

Advantage Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(1), Bhopal

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 919/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 919/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 920/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 922/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2010-11) बिधम/ Advantage Overseas Pvt. Dcit-1(1) Ltd. Bhopal. Vs. 414, A- Wing Express Zone, Off Western Express Highway Malad (E), Mumbai-400097. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaeca8925F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-53, Mumbai Dated 18.02.2022 For Ays. 2014-15 & 2013-14; & Order Dated 11.02.202 For Ay 2010-11. For Ay. 2014-15 (Ita. No. 919/Mum/2022) 2. The Ground No. 1 Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Passing The Impugned Order Without Providing The Assessee Adequate Opportunity Of Being Heard. Having Gone Through The

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)
Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VP AND SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM

Venkatesh Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer WD 3(3) (4), Mumbai

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

ITA 448/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri A K Tekriwal/For Respondent: Ms. Vranda U Matkari
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 253(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Assessment Year 2009-10, whereby the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant against the order, dated 16.03.2018, passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act levying penalty of INR 4,73,079/-. Assessment Year: 2009-10 Though the appeal has been filed after the expiry ... Appeals) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.4,73,079/ levied by the Ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3)(4), Mumbai, under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.4

M/S. Camoron Finance & Investments, Mumbai-400057 vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-17(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 1062/MUM/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2008-09
Section 271(1)(c)

appellant has challenged the order dated 14th 1. March 2022 passed by the National Faceless Appeals Centre, in the matter of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2008-09, but without granting an opportunity for personal hearing, though specifically prayed

ACIT-24(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Atul Properties, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 4394/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 4393 & 4394/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2010-11 & 2011-12) Acit-24(1) बिधम/ M/S. Atul Properties Room No.604, Piramal 501-502, Trade Avenue, Off Vs. Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Suren Road, Western Express Mumbai-400012. Highway, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aamfa3756F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Damor (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Naresh Jain/Mahaveer Jain & Ms. Carmi Shroff सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeal Preferred By Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-36, Mumbai Dated 29.12.2017 For A.Y.2010-11 & 2011- 12 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Jain/Mahaveer Jain &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Damor (DR)
Section 80Section 801B(10)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN

ACIT-24(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Atul Properties, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 4393/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 4393 & 4394/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2010-11 & 2011-12) Acit-24(1) बिधम/ M/S. Atul Properties Room No.604, Piramal 501-502, Trade Avenue, Off Vs. Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Suren Road, Western Express Mumbai-400012. Highway, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aamfa3756F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Damor (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Naresh Jain/Mahaveer Jain & Ms. Carmi Shroff सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeal Preferred By Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-36, Mumbai Dated 29.12.2017 For A.Y.2010-11 & 2011- 12 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Jain/Mahaveer Jain &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Damor (DR)
Section 80Section 801B(10)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN

M/S. Xerox Business Services India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2595/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2022AY 2013-14
For Respondent: Shri Nageshwar Rao
Section 133(6)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd. ITA No. 2043/Mum/2016 (Mum-ITAT) 7. The Ld. AO erred in proposing to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The aforesaid grounds are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, delete ... hereinabove. 7. Ground No.6-7 is consequential in nature as it is in respect of levy of interest under section 234B and penalty under section 271 (1) (c) of the act, accordingly, do not require any adjudication. In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order

DCIT Central Cir -1(2), Mumbai vs. Saunak Jitendra Parikh, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1243/MUM/2022[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mahita NairFor Respondent: None
Section 131Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai (in short ‘ld. CIT(A)’) in relation to penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). In both the years, Revenue is aggrieved by deletion of penalty of Rs.2 ... Rs.27,99,64,660/- in Assessment Year 2006-07 on account of peak credit in HSBC Bank. Accordingly, penalty has been levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for both the assessment years by the Assessing Officer. The ld. CIT(A) noted that the ITAT Mumbai vide order

DCIT Central Cir -1(2), Mumbai vs. Saunak Jitendra Parikh, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1242/MUM/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mahita NairFor Respondent: None
Section 131Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai (in short ‘ld. CIT(A)’) in relation to penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). In both the years, Revenue is aggrieved by deletion of penalty of Rs.2 ... Rs.27,99,64,660/- in Assessment Year 2006-07 on account of peak credit in HSBC Bank. Accordingly, penalty has been levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for both the assessment years by the Assessing Officer. The ld. CIT(A) noted that the ITAT Mumbai vide order

DCIT Central Circle -1(2), Mumbai vs. Milan Kavin Parikh, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1241/MUM/2022[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal: A.Y : 2006-07

For Appellant: Mahita NairFor Respondent: None
Section 131Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai (in short ‘ld. CIT(A)’) in relation to penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). Revenue is aggrieved by deletion of penalty of Rs.9,42,29,730/-. 2. Facts ... Officer, accordingly, made addition of Rs.27,99,45,729/- on account of peak credit in HSBC Bank. Accordingly, penalty has been levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by the Assessing Officer. The ld. CIT(A) noted that the ITAT Mumbai vide order dated

Hiren Bechar Patel, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Ward-2(5), Kalyan, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1135/MUM/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal: A.Y : 2012-13 Hiren Bechar Patel Vs. Income Tax Officer, Plot No. 111, Akshardam, Ward-2(5), Kalyan Floor 5/6, Kansai Section, (Respondent) Ambernath East, Ambernath 421 501, Maharashtra. (Appellant) Pan : Aolpp7438Q

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mahita Nair
Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

dated 28.04.2022 passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Pune (in short ‘ld. CIT(A)’) in relation to penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year 2012-13. In its appeal, assessee has raised ... perusal of the assessment order we find that, nowhere the Assessing Officer has specified the charge as to under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act he is initiating the penalty whether for furnishing of ‘inaccurate particulars of income’ or for ‘concealment of income’. In para

Anurag Chandra, Noida vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2407/MUM/2021[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Tejveer SinghFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 143(3)

that interest computation be deleted accordance the law. 7. It is hereby submitted that the Ld. ITO has erred in initiating penalty proceeding section 271(1)(c) Income Tax Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate of income. Since correct and full details of income are shown/mentioned in the Income Tax Return

Texas Instruments (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 852/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Kumar S. K, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80JSection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. PADMAVATHY S