← 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)

Khanna Rayon Industries Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed is allowed

ITA 6454/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms. Padmavathy S.Khanna Rayon Industries Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit – 4(2)(1) 6/7, Silk House, Silk Bazar, Jss Road, Room No. 422, Aayakar Bhavan, Girgaon, Mumbai-400 002 Vs. M. K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaack 1890 P (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Ms. Ritu Punjabi, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.12.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Dated 26.08.2025, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi, Confirming The Penalty Imposed Of Rs.16,88,670/- U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17. 2. We Have Considered The Rival Submissions & Perused The Materials Available On Record. Briefly Stated, The Assessee Is A Resident Corporate Entity. For The Assessment Year Under Dispute, The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 15.10.2016, Declaring Nil Income Under The Normal Provisions & Book Profit Of Rs.9,12,562/- U/S. 115Jb Of The Act. The Return So Filed By The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny. In Course Of Assessment Proceeding, The Assessing Officer (A.O. For Short) Noticed That An Amount Of Rs.56,28,900/-

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Punjabi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 271(1)(c)Section 3

fail to understand in such a scenario how the A.O. can record a satisfaction of concealment of income while invoking the provision of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Further, a reading of the order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act reveals that the A.O. has imposed ... both concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the A.O. himself was in doubt regarding the actual limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act which is applicable to assessee’s case. It is fairly well settled through various judicial precedents that there cannot

ACIT-15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Lionbridge Technologies LLP, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue bearing ITA

ITA 6191/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Paras SavlaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

impugned order arises from the order of the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax- 15(2)(1), Mumbai (in short, ‘Ld.AO’) passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, date of order 31/03/2019. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessment was completed under section

Hotel Pranaminn Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 267/CTK/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कटक "यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING

Trijal Enterprise Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 263/CTK/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.261, 262 & 263/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Trijal Enterprise Private Limited Vs Acit, Central Circle-2, At-Hall No.6, Block-2, Bmc Bhubaneswar Bhawani Mall, Saheed Nagar, Khordha-751007, Bhubaneswar Pan No. :Aafct 9662 B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2, All Dated 25.03.2025 For The Assessment Years 2017-2018, 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 Confirming The Penalty Levy Under 270A Of The Act. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That For The Impugned Assessment Years The Assessee Has Filed Original Return For The Assessment Year 2017- 18 Disclosing A Loss Of Rs.8,30,930/-, For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Income Of Rs.20,46,140/- & For Assessment Year 2019-20 An Income Of Rs.17,27,850/-. There Was A Search On The Premises Of The Assessee On 03/04/2019. In Response To Notice Issued U/S.153A Of The Act, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Disclosing A Loss

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 153ASection 270ASection 271A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) श्री जाजज

Trijal Enterprise Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 262/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.261, 262 & 263/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Trijal Enterprise Private Limited Vs Acit, Central Circle-2, At-Hall No.6, Block-2, Bmc Bhubaneswar Bhawani Mall, Saheed Nagar, Khordha-751007, Bhubaneswar Pan No. :Aafct 9662 B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2, All Dated 25.03.2025 For The Assessment Years 2017-2018, 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 Confirming The Penalty Levy Under 270A Of The Act. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That For The Impugned Assessment Years The Assessee Has Filed Original Return For The Assessment Year 2017- 18 Disclosing A Loss Of Rs.8,30,930/-, For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Income Of Rs.20,46,140/- & For Assessment Year 2019-20 An Income Of Rs.17,27,850/-. There Was A Search On The Premises Of The Assessee On 03/04/2019. In Response To Notice Issued U/S.153A Of The Act, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Disclosing A Loss

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 153ASection 270ASection 271A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) श्री जाजज

Trijal Enterprise Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 261/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.261, 262 & 263/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Trijal Enterprise Private Limited Vs Acit, Central Circle-2, At-Hall No.6, Block-2, Bmc Bhubaneswar Bhawani Mall, Saheed Nagar, Khordha-751007, Bhubaneswar Pan No. :Aafct 9662 B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2, All Dated 25.03.2025 For The Assessment Years 2017-2018, 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 Confirming The Penalty Levy Under 270A Of The Act. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That For The Impugned Assessment Years The Assessee Has Filed Original Return For The Assessment Year 2017- 18 Disclosing A Loss Of Rs.8,30,930/-, For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Income Of Rs.20,46,140/- & For Assessment Year 2019-20 An Income Of Rs.17,27,850/-. There Was A Search On The Premises Of The Assessee On 03/04/2019. In Response To Notice Issued U/S.153A Of The Act, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Disclosing A Loss

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 153ASection 270ASection 271A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) श्री जाजज

Gajamfar Ali, Rohru vs. Income Tax Officer Ward Rampur, Rampur

ITA 1248/CHANDI/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: us.2. The Ld. AR, drawing attention to assessee's background, pleaded for adjudication of appeal on merits. It has been stated that quantum appeal is already pending for adjudication before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Sr. DR pleaded for dismissal of the appeals.3. Considering the fact that the quantum appeal would have direct bearing on impugned penalties as levied by Ld. AO u/s 271(1)(c) & u/s 271A, these penalties are to be adjudicated on merits in the light of quantum appeal. Therefore, the appe

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Sharma (Advocate) (Virtual)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, CHANDIGARH HYBRID HEARING HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM 1

Gajamfar Ali, Rohru vs. Income Tax Officer Ward Rampur, Ward Rampur

ITA 1247/CHANDI/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: us.2. The Ld. AR, drawing attention to assessee's background, pleaded for adjudication of appeal on merits. It has been stated that quantum appeal is already pending for adjudication before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Sr. DR pleaded for dismissal of the appeals.3. Considering the fact that the quantum appeal would have direct bearing on impugned penalties as levied by Ld. AO u/s 271(1)(c) & u/s 271A, these penalties are to be adjudicated on merits in the light of quantum appeal. Therefore, the appe

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Sharma (Advocate) (Virtual)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, CHANDIGARH HYBRID HEARING HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM 1

Gajanfar Ali, Shimla vs. Income Tax Officer Rampur, Ward Rampur

ITA 1246/CHANDI/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: us.2. The Ld. AR, drawing attention to assessee's background, pleaded for adjudication of appeal on merits. It has been stated that quantum appeal is already pending for adjudication before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Sr. DR pleaded for dismissal of the appeals.3. Considering the fact that the quantum appeal would have direct bearing on impugned penalties as levied by Ld. AO u/s 271(1)(c) & u/s 271A, these penalties are to be adjudicated on merits in the light of quantum appeal. Therefore, the appe

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Sharma (Advocate) (Virtual)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, CHANDIGARH HYBRID HEARING HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM 1

Liz Hemangbhai Bhatt, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(1)(2), Present Jao - the Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1377/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

arising out of the exprate assessment orders passed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Penalty orders under section 271(1)(c) of the Act I.T.A Nos. 1374 to 1377/Ahd/2025 A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2011-12 Page No 2 Liz Hemangbhai Bhatt VS. ITO (hereinafter referred

Liz Hemangbhai Bhatt, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(1)(2), Present Jao - the Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1376/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

arising out of the exprate assessment orders passed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Penalty orders under section 271(1)(c) of the Act I.T.A Nos. 1374 to 1377/Ahd/2025 A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2011-12 Page No 2 Liz Hemangbhai Bhatt VS. ITO (hereinafter referred

Liz Hemangbhai Bhatt, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(1)(2), Present Jao - the Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1375/AHD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

arising out of the exprate assessment orders passed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Penalty orders under section 271(1)(c) of the Act I.T.A Nos. 1374 to 1377/Ahd/2025 A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2011-12 Page No 2 Liz Hemangbhai Bhatt VS. ITO (hereinafter referred

Liz Hemangbhai Bhatt, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(1)(2) Present Jao- the Dycit, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1374/AHD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

arising out of the exprate assessment orders passed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Penalty orders under section 271(1)(c) of the Act I.T.A Nos. 1374 to 1377/Ahd/2025 A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2011-12 Page No 2 Liz Hemangbhai Bhatt VS. ITO (hereinafter referred

Simco Developers, Thane vs. Ward 1(1), Kalyan, Thane

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

ITA 6305/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Ms. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed , Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Virbhadra S. Mahajan, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. RENU

Simco Developers, Thane vs. Ward 1(1), Kalyan, Thane

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

ITA 6304/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Ms. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed , Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Virbhadra S. Mahajan, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. RENU

DCIT 19.1 Mumbai, Lalbag Mumbai vs. Ambika Diamonds, Bkc Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5873/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: None
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144rSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

disallowance was confirmed @ 12.5% of the bogus purchases vide ITA No. 5355/M/2015 & 5689/M/3016 dated 18.08.2017. 3. The Assessing Officer levied the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessing officer levied the penalty @ 100% of tax sought to be evaded. In appeal against the penalty levied under ... section 271(1)(c), the ld.CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the levy of penalty to the extent of addition confirmed in the appeal. Therefore, further aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before us. 4. We have heard

Etesh P. Jain(Karta), Shree Darshan Pipes vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Kalyan

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 5847/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh O Rajora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

Etesh Prakash Jain (Karta), Shree Darshan Pipes vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1), Kalyan

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 5819/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh O Rajora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

Etesh Prakash Jain(HUF), Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Kalyan

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 5734/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh O Rajora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

Mahendra Jethalal Mamtora, Mumbai vs. ITO, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3114/MUM/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VP & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No