← 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.H.K.Infraventures Pvt. Ltd., Allahabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Allahabad

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

ITA 28/ALLD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. H. K. Infraventure Pvt V. Acit, Central Circle Ltd Allahabad 17, Industrial Colony, Naini 38, Mahatma Gandhi Allahabad-211008. Marg, Allahabad-211001. Pan:Aacch6249K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. H. K. Infraventure Pvt V. Assistant Commissioner Ltd Of Income Tax (Appeals) 17, Industrial Colony, Naini Income Tax Department Allahabad-211008. Nfac Delhi. Pan: Aacch6249K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Praveen Godbole, (Application) Respondent By: Shri. Amalendu Nath Mishra, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 09 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 10 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Godbole, (Application)For Respondent: Shri. Amalendu Nath Mishra
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 271Section 50C

relief be allowed accordingly in interest of justice.” ITA. NO. 120/ALLD/2025 1. That in any view of the matter penalty order under section 271 (1) (C) by imposition of penalty is totally incorrect, illegal rather baseless, hence penalty is unwarranted. 2. That in any view of the matter

Kandla Steel Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Gujarat

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

ITA 569/RJT/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 569/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Kandla Steel Pvt. Ltd, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 105, Lotus Business Park, Ra Baug Plot No. 20A, Sector-8, Lane, Off. S.V. Road, Malad West, Gandhidham Mumbai-400064 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadck1337N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Saurabh Thakur, Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Thakur, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in upholding the penalty of Rs.5,74,953/- levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. ITA No.569/RJT/2025/AY.2010-11 Kandla Steel Pvt. Ltd. 2.That the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the penalty ... confirming penalty without appreciating the fact that rejection of books and estimation of income does not automatically justify imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c). 5.That the learned CIT(A) grossly erred in treating the non-compliance with notices as sufficient ground to reject the appeal, without adjudicating

Manoj Kumar Das, Begusarai vs. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department, Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 391/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: 19/07/2025. The Appeal Is Delayed By Around 37 Days. 4. That The Assessee States That The Reason For Delay Is That The Assessee Is Suffering From Hiv Aids & Is Constantly Under Treatment. Copy Of Medical Treatment Is Enclosed.

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

cash deposits as undisclosed income. 4 Manoj Kumar Das 16. For that the Id. assessing officer has erred in initiating penalty proceeding under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 17. For that the Id. assessing officer has erred in not providing the appellant the reason recorded for initiation

Madangopal Ramkumar Sikawat, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(2)(1), Surat.

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

ITA 918/SRT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Madangopal Ramkumar Sikawat, Ito, Ward 1(2)(1), 11-1572, Radhakrishna Textile Aayakar Bhavan, Majuragate, Market, Ring Road, Vs. Surat-395007. Surat-395002. Pan No. Awgps 7288 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh C. Shah, CA
Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

initiated penalty proceedings under to such addition, the AO initiated penalty proceedings under to such addition, the AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, alleging concealment of particulars of the Act, alleging concealment of particulars of the Act, alleging concealment of particulars of income ... opportunity to explain the assessee on 05.08.2022 providing an opportunity to explain as to why penalty under s as to why penalty under section 271(1)(c) should not be levied. ection 271(1)(c) should not be levied. However, no compliance was made by the assessee to the said

Jitendrakumar Ambelal Patel, Na vs. Arivs.ITO, Ward-3, Navsari

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

ITA 660/SRT/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Jitendrakumarambelal Patel Ito, Ward-3, 52, Kanbiwad. At & Po-Pananj, Room No. 108, Swapnalok Soc., Tal-Chikhli, Navsari-396521 Vs. Near Kaliawadi Bridge, Navsari - 396521 Pan No. Bncpp 7509 R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri P M Jagasheth, CA
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH “SMC” SURAT BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH

Kirti Karsandas Nayak, Umbergaon vs. ITO Ward-5, Vapi

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

ITA 659/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Kirti Karsandas Nayak, Ito Ward-5, Plot No. 244/28, Gidc, Fortune Square, Chala Road, Umbergaon-396171. Vs. Vapi-396191. Pan No. Abbpn 3355 M Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Parin Shah, CA
Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH “SMC” SURAT BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH

Raghunandan Impex Pvt Ltd, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-2(1)(1), Surat

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

ITA 641/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Raghunandan Impex Pvt. Ltd., Ito Ward 2(1)(1), 6/2037, Office No. 205, 2Nd Floor, Room No. 222, Papadwala Building, Bhoja Bhai Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Ni Sheri, Mahidharpura, Majura Gate, Surat-395003. Surat-395001. Pan No. Aaecr 5688 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Prakash Jhunjhunwala, CAFor Respondent: Mr. J.K. Chandnani, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

penalty imposed addition was premature. It was argued that the penalty imposed addition was premature. It was argued that the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) is intrinsically dependent upon the fate of under Section 271(1)(c) is intrinsically dependent upon the fate of under Section 271(1

Dhaval Indravadan Gandhi, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2, Bardoli

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

ITA 601/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Shri Dhaval Indravadan Gandhi, Ito Ward-2, At & Post Areth, Tal Mandvi, Aayakar Bhavan, Janta Nagar Surat-394160. Vs. Society, Bardoli-394601. Pan No. Ajjpg 4246 J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Shaunak K. Zaveri, CA
Section 143(3)

income of the assessee, initiating penalty ITA No. 601/SRT/2025 4 Shri Dhaval Indravadan Gandhi Shri Dhaval Indravadan Gandhi proceedings under section s under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income. for concealment of income. The relevant finding of ld AO is reproduced as under The relevant finding

Smt. Pushpa Agrawal, Indore vs. ITO Ward 5(2), Indore, Aaykar Bhawan, Opposite White Church, Residency Area

Appeal is allowed

ITA 499/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 54B

arrest eur, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH

Ankit Jain, Tonk vs. Income Tax Officer, Tonk

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1303/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Jaideep Malik, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (through V.C.)
Section 115BSection 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69C

unexplained investment of property amounting to Rs.6,00,000/- and 69C i.e., unexplained expenses of LIC Premium and initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). 4. That the impugned additions have been made by the Learned Assessing Officer solely on the basis of certain alleged incriminating material and/or loose ... liable to be quashed in the interest of justice. GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 5: Ground No. 5: Invalid Initiation of Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) The appellant respectfully submits that the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is legally

Ankit Jain, Tonk vs. Income Tax Officer, Tonk

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1302/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Jaideep Malik, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (through V.C.)
Section 115BSection 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69C

unexplained investment of property amounting to Rs.6,00,000/- and 69C i.e., unexplained expenses of LIC Premium and initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). 4. That the impugned additions have been made by the Learned Assessing Officer solely on the basis of certain alleged incriminating material and/or loose ... liable to be quashed in the interest of justice. GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 5: Ground No. 5: Invalid Initiation of Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) The appellant respectfully submits that the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is legally

Anshul Jain, Tonk vs. Income Tax Officer, Tonk

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1301/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Jaideep Malik, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (through V.C.)
Section 115BSection 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69C

unexplained investment of property amounting to Rs.6,00,000/- and 69C i.e., unexplained expenses of LIC Premium and initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). 4. That the impugned additions have been made by the Learned Assessing Officer solely on the basis of certain alleged incriminating material and/or loose ... liable to be quashed in the interest of justice. GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 5: Ground No. 5: Invalid Initiation of Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) The appellant respectfully submits that the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is legally

Tejas Shivaji Adsul, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Kolhapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 59/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri A.R. Naik (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva
Section 115JSection 143Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 270A(6)

levied can't be accepted. 7.10 It is noticed that all judicial pronouncements relied on by appellant were rendered in the context of section 271(1)(c) but not in the context of 270A, hence not applicable to facts of present case. Hence, I am of considered view that

Jetsynthesys Private Limited, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle-7, Pune

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

ITA 346/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.346/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Jetsynthesys Private Vs. Dcit, Circle-7, Pune. Limited, 101-104, 1St Floor, Metro House, Mangaldas Road, Pune- 411001. Pan : Aaicm1358A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sarvesh Khandelwal Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions Of The Act It Be Held That The Penalty Imposed U/S 270A

For Appellant: Shri Sarvesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 271(1)(c)

claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the revenue, that by itself would not, in our opinion, attract the penalty under section 271(1)(c). If we accept the contention of the revenue then in case of every Return where the claim made is not accepted by Assessing ... Officer for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty under section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature.” 8. Respectfully following the above judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT, Ahmedabad vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. [2010] 189 Taxman

Amit Suresh Agrawal, Satara vs. ITO Ward-2, Satara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2225/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2225/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Amit Suresh Agrawal, V The Income Tax Officer, Amit Trading Co, Plot No.35, S Ward-2, Satara. Satara – 415002. Maharashtra. Pan: Abgpa2925D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Kulkarni – Advocate Revenue By Shri Eknath Abhang – Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 30/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2016-17 Dated 02.04.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 10.05.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 151ASection 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

required to be quashed or remanded for fresh adjudication on merits. 8. The Assessing Officer has erroneously initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without any legal basis. The penalty proceedings are not sustainable in law as the primary addition itself is unjustified

Rashmi Arun Chougule, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Kolhapur

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

ITA 1892/PUN/2025[A.Y. 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2025

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1892/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Rashmi Arun Chogule, V The Income Tax Officer, 1557, D Ward, Dhanawade S Ward-2(1), Kolhapur. Galli, Shukrawarpeth, Kolhapur – 416002. Maharashtra. Pan: Aehpc4149R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Eknath Abhang – Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 30/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2014-15 Dated 20.06.2025 Emanating From The Penalty Order Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 14.09.2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

NFAC] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2014-15 dated 20.06.2025 emanating from the Penalty Order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 14.09.2022. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA No.1892/PUN/2025 [A] “1 ... ITAT, Pune Bench, vide appeal no. ITA No.2202/PUN/2024 dated 10.12.2024 and hence, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) is premature and liable to be deleted. 2 The learned authorities below failed to appreciate that the alleged unexplained investment of ₹25,96,575/- was sourced from a loan

Deepak Sarda, Pune, Maharashtra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(2), Pune, Maharashtra

ITA 1580/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Adv. Simran Dhawan (virtually)For Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY

Deepak Sarda, Pune, Maharashtra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(2), Pune, Maharashtra

ITA 1579/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Adv. Simran Dhawan (virtually)For Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY

Deepak Sarda, Pune, Maharashtra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(2), Pune, Maharashtra

ITA 1578/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Adv. Simran Dhawan (virtually)For Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY

Shashikala Shivashankar Gujare, Solapur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Solapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1189/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1189/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shashikala Shivashankar V Dcit, Gujare, S. Circle-1, Solapur. 48 Laxmi Nagar, Jule Solapur, Maharashtra – 413004. Pan: Bhnpg2807E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Mrs Deepa Khare - Advocate Revenue By Shri Dayanand Jawalikar – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 16/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2013-14, Dated 18.03.2025 Emanating From Penalty Order U/S.271(1)(C) Of The I.T.Act, Dated 24.02.2017. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “Grounds Of Appeal

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ”बी” न्यायपीठ पुणेमें। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE BEFORE DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE