← 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)

Nitu Khadariya, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Ncrb Building

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1360/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.L. Yadav, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary,JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 69A

1 SMT. NITU KHADARIYIA VS ITO,WARD 1(3), JAIPUR आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Pawan Infrahomes Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Vadodara

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

ITA 1134/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 68

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘A’ अहमदाबाद

S M Associates, Taloja vs. Income Tax Officer, Panvel

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

ITA 1748/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1748/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 S. M. Associates, Vs. Ito, National E- Shop No.6, S.M. Plaza, Assessment Centre, Sector- 23, Taloja, Delhi. Raigad- 410208. Pan : Adjfs7283H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Shridhar Achari Revenue By : Shri Bharat Andhale Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.06.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The A.O. Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Making Additions To Gross Total Income By Rs.3,02,00,000/- Which Capital Contribution By Partners To The Partnership Firm. 2. The A.O. Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Initiating Penalty U/S.271(1)(C) & U/S.271Aac(1). 3. The Order Appealed Against Is Illegal, Invalid & Void-Ab- Initio.”

For Appellant: Shri Shridhar AchariFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Dinesh Ramdas Kirve, Satara vs. ITO, Satara

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

ITA 1648/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1648/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dinesh Ramdas Kirve, V The Income Tax Officer, At Post Kudal Post-Kudal, S Ward-4, Satara. Tal-Jaoli, Dist-Satara. Maharashtra – 415514. Pan: Aawopk6845P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Tanzil Padvekar(Virtual) Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe – Jcit Date Of Hearing 06/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/10/2025 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 A.Y.2014-15 Dated 19.05.2025 Emanating From The Penalty Order Under Section 271(1)(C)Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 13.01.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :

Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Appeal(NFAC) passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y.2014-15 dated 19.05.2025 emanating from the Penalty Order under section 271(1)(c)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 13.01.2022. The Grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee are as under : ITA No.1648/PUN/2025[A] “1

Anandrao Tukaram Khobare, Pune vs. ITO, NFAC, Pune

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

ITA 1512/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15 Anandrao Tukaram Khobare Ito, Ward 4(3), Pune F 2/301, Survey No.17/1, Shivsagar Vs. Platinum, Suncity Road, Vadgaon Budruk, Pune – 411051 Pan: Afbpk9948P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Ms. Richa Gulati (Virtually) Date Of Hearing : 09-10-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-10-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati (virtually)
Section 271(1)(c)

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

Kanhaiyalal Rameshwar Das, Kota vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

ITA 1454/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Oct 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Rajnikant Bhatra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR (Thru: V.C)
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 154Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

shown in return of income filed u/s 153A of the Act. It is also submitted by the appellant that the explanation-1 to section 271 (1) (c) is not applicable as the amount was included suo moto in return u/s 153A to correct the finding of assessee ... compliance to notice u/s 153A assessee suo moto corrected any mistake/wrong claim etc. in return filed u/s 139 (1) then explanation to section 271 (1) (c) are not applicable. As against this it is seen from the penalty order that the Id. AO has noted that "During the course

Kanhaiyalal Rameshwar Das, Kota vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

ITA 1453/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Rajnikant Bhatra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR (Thru: V.C)
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 154Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

shown in return of income filed u/s 153A of the Act. It is also submitted by the appellant that the explanation-1 to section 271 (1) (c) is not applicable as the amount was included suo moto in return u/s 153A to correct the finding of assessee ... compliance to notice u/s 153A assessee suo moto corrected any mistake/wrong claim etc. in return filed u/s 139 (1) then explanation to section 271 (1) (c) are not applicable. As against this it is seen from the penalty order that the Id. AO has noted that "During the course

Dai Chand, Kaithal vs. Income Tax Officer, Kaithal

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

ITA 936/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pulkit Saini, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69A

facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. A.O. has erred in law and on facts in initiating the penalty provisions of section 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case

Jap Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(2) Previously ACIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1609/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Khandhar, ARFor Respondent: Shri B. P. Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 250Section 254Section 271(1)(c)

DCIT Asst.Year –2011-12 - 4– and computed the income at Rs. 3,94,76,330/-. Further, the Assessing Officer also initiated penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income and vide order dated 24.03.2017 levied penalty @ 300% of the tax sought to be evaded. Meanwhile ... Before us, the Counsel for the assessee has not disputed or made any arguments with regards to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act with respect to the quantum additions of Rs. 1,92,56,204/- confirmed by ITAT. The Counsel for the assessee

Mr. Arumugasamy Vasantha Vikas, Virdhunagar vs. ITO, Corp. Ward-4, Madurai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and Stay

ITA 2108/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.B. Rama Krishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Mr.Saujanya Ranjan, IRS
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

1)(c) of the Act or not? On perusal of the impugned SCN dated 03.06.2016, we note that both the faults specified in Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, are given therein 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

Mr. Arumugasamy Vasantha Vikas, Virudhunagar vs. ITO, Corp. Ward-4., Madurai, Mudrai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and Stay

ITA 2107/CHNY/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.B. Rama Krishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Mr.Saujanya Ranjan, IRS
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

1)(c) of the Act or not? On perusal of the impugned SCN dated 03.06.2016, we note that both the faults specified in Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, are given therein 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

Houlihan Lokey Ad vs. Iory (India) Private Limited, Mumbaivs.Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - 15(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3767/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Hiten Thakkar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 282Section 40

opportunity of being heard in respect of the disallowance made) 3. The learned CIT(A)/ learned AO erred in invoking penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income for the captioned AY. 3. Brief facts

Shri Parin Seventilal Shah, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3690/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2025AY 2013-14
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 'C' BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Syed Mohammad Ali Zaidi, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward 1(2)(5), Meerut

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

ITA 1048/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansyed Mohammad Ali Zaidi, Vs. Ito, Ward 1(2)(5), 218, Al Murtaza Zaidi Nagar Society, Meerut. Meerut – 250 002 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Aafpz1420J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Amit Mathur, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.07.2025 Date Of Order : 08.10.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (For Short ‘Ld. Cit (A)) For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, A Notice Under Section 148 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) Was Issued On The Assessee Through Speed Post After Obtaining Approval From Ld. Pr. Cit, Meerut. Since There Was No Response From The Assessee, Notices U/S 142(1) Along With Questionnaire Were Issued To The Assessee. Since There Was No Compliance

For Appellant: Shri Amit Mathur, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI

Crystal Thermotech Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Jamshedpur

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

ITA 78/RAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY

Zaimur Rahman, East Champaran vs. Income Tax Department, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 321/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 144BSection 147Section 148Section 149Section 250Section 68Section 69A

contentions raised by the appellant during the assessment proceeding. 14. For that the ld. assessing officer has erred in initiating penalty proceeding under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. 15. For that the ld. assessing officer has erred in initiating penalty proceeding under Section 271F

Amrendra Pratap Singh, Varanasi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- 3(1), Gaya

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

ITA 101/PAT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 250Section 251Section 69A

provisions of Section 54 and/or 54F of the Act. 15. For that the ld. assessing officer has erred in initiating penalty proceeding under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 16. For that the appellant shall place any other point/points at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. Brief

Jayantibhai Dahyabhai Patel, Bharuch vs. Income Tax Officer, Faceless Assessment Unit

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 408/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Surat07 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Jayantibhai Dahyabhai Patel, Ito, New Delhi, 283, Padm Punj, Siddhanth Bharuch-392001. Nagar Soceity, Gujarat Housing Vs. Board, Bharuch-392001. Pan No. Aebpp 3770 P Appellant Respondent : None For Assessee Assessee By : Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. Dr Revenue By : 06/10/2025 Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. DRFor Respondent: None for
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

interested in prosecuting the appeal. However, since the matter involves a pure question of law arising from the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), and all relevant material is available on record, we proceeded to hear the matter ex-parte ... wherein the Assessing Officer made an addition of ₹5,25,000/- representing unexplained cash deposits. The Assessing Officer simultaneously initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for alleged concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof. 3.1. The record reveals that in response

Late Jagdish, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 7(1), Jaipur

ITA 1437/JPR/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Oct 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan Sogani, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)

arises because the assessee challenged the order of levy 2 Late Jagdish of penalty dated 01.03.2017 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short “Act”] by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(2), Jaipur [ for short AO]. 2. The present appeal ... another was for Long-Term Capital Gains (LTCG) of Rs. 14,62,758. Based on that set of facts a penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) was passed on 01.03.2017 ordering to pay penalty of Rs. 3,96,929. 3 Late Jagdish 4. When that order was challenged before

Sanjay Jayantilal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 79/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2014-2015 Sanjay Jayantilal Shah Ito, Ward-2(1)(1) 202/A, Shivalik 10 Vs. Vejalpur Opp: Sbi Zonal Office Ahmedabad. Ambawadi, Ahmedabad 380 015 Pan : Aktps 8891 A (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Divatia & Shri Samir Vora, Ars. : Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.11.2024 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)"], For The Assessment Year 2014–15, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 31.03.2022 Passed U/S 147 Read With Section 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") By The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Assessing Officer Or Ao"].

Section 10(38)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69C

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘D’ अहमदाबाद