← All Phrases

“Section 271(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 271Section 271(1)5,698 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 271(1) is CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), cited in 2,590 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 271(1)

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)

Priyaa Mohan Gurnani, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 536/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 275

addition of Rs.69,090/- on account of deemed rent on immovable property. In the assessment order, the Ld.AO initiated penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Against the quantum addition, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who confirmed the addition. The assessee then appealed against ... sought to have been allegedly concealing the particulars of income. Similar orders were passed by the Ld.AO levying penalty under section 271(1)(c ) for all the years under consideration. Against the penalty orders passed by the Ld.AO, the assessee preferred appeal for all the assessment years under consideration before

Priyaa Mohan Gurnani, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 535/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 275

addition of Rs.69,090/- on account of deemed rent on immovable property. In the assessment order, the Ld.AO initiated penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Against the quantum addition, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who confirmed the addition. The assessee then appealed against ... sought to have been allegedly concealing the particulars of income. Similar orders were passed by the Ld.AO levying penalty under section 271(1)(c ) for all the years under consideration. Against the penalty orders passed by the Ld.AO, the assessee preferred appeal for all the assessment years under consideration before

Priyaa Mohan Gurnani, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO Central Circle 5 (2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 470/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 275

addition of Rs.69,090/- on account of deemed rent on immovable property. In the assessment order, the Ld.AO initiated penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Against the quantum addition, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who confirmed the addition. The assessee then appealed against ... sought to have been allegedly concealing the particulars of income. Similar orders were passed by the Ld.AO levying penalty under section 271(1)(c ) for all the years under consideration. Against the penalty orders passed by the Ld.AO, the assessee preferred appeal for all the assessment years under consideration before

Priyaa Mohan Gurnani, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 469/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 275

addition of Rs.69,090/- on account of deemed rent on immovable property. In the assessment order, the Ld.AO initiated penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Against the quantum addition, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who confirmed the addition. The assessee then appealed against ... sought to have been allegedly concealing the particulars of income. Similar orders were passed by the Ld.AO levying penalty under section 271(1)(c ) for all the years under consideration. Against the penalty orders passed by the Ld.AO, the assessee preferred appeal for all the assessment years under consideration before

Priyaa Mohan Gurnani, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 468/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 275

addition of Rs.69,090/- on account of deemed rent on immovable property. In the assessment order, the Ld.AO initiated penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Against the quantum addition, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who confirmed the addition. The assessee then appealed against ... sought to have been allegedly concealing the particulars of income. Similar orders were passed by the Ld.AO levying penalty under section 271(1)(c ) for all the years under consideration. Against the penalty orders passed by the Ld.AO, the assessee preferred appeal for all the assessment years under consideration before

Priyaa Mohan Gurnani, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 467/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 275

addition of Rs.69,090/- on account of deemed rent on immovable property. In the assessment order, the Ld.AO initiated penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Against the quantum addition, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who confirmed the addition. The assessee then appealed against ... sought to have been allegedly concealing the particulars of income. Similar orders were passed by the Ld.AO levying penalty under section 271(1)(c ) for all the years under consideration. Against the penalty orders passed by the Ld.AO, the assessee preferred appeal for all the assessment years under consideration before

Priyaa Mohan Gurnani, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 466/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 275

addition of Rs.69,090/- on account of deemed rent on immovable property. In the assessment order, the Ld.AO initiated penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Against the quantum addition, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who confirmed the addition. The assessee then appealed against ... sought to have been allegedly concealing the particulars of income. Similar orders were passed by the Ld.AO levying penalty under section 271(1)(c ) for all the years under consideration. Against the penalty orders passed by the Ld.AO, the assessee preferred appeal for all the assessment years under consideration before

Raju Mohan Gurnani, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 248/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 246/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-15) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 247/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 248/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Raju Mohan Gurnani V/S. Ito, Central Circle 5(2) बिधम Flat No. 2101, Moraj Casa Room No. 427, 4Th Floor, Grande, Plot No. 57, Sector Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra 17, Koperkhairne Kurla Complex, Bandra Maharashtra-410209 East, Maharashtra-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aalpg9103B Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: None रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri R. R. Makwana

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

Question No. 1: If the assessment order clearly records satisfaction for imposing penalty on one or the other, or both grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c), does a mere defect in the notice-not striking off the irrelevant matter-vitiate the penalty proceedings? 181.It does. The primary burden lies ... opinion, prima facie or otherwise, to launch penalty proceedings against the Appellant. But that translates into action only through the statutory notice under section 271(1)(c), read with section 274 of IT Act. True, the assessment proceedings form the basis for the penalty proceedings, but they are not composite

Raju Mohan Gurnani, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 247/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 246/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-15) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 247/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 248/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Raju Mohan Gurnani V/S. Ito, Central Circle 5(2) बिधम Flat No. 2101, Moraj Casa Room No. 427, 4Th Floor, Grande, Plot No. 57, Sector Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra 17, Koperkhairne Kurla Complex, Bandra Maharashtra-410209 East, Maharashtra-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aalpg9103B Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: None रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri R. R. Makwana

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

Question No. 1: If the assessment order clearly records satisfaction for imposing penalty on one or the other, or both grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c), does a mere defect in the notice-not striking off the irrelevant matter-vitiate the penalty proceedings? 181.It does. The primary burden lies ... opinion, prima facie or otherwise, to launch penalty proceedings against the Appellant. But that translates into action only through the statutory notice under section 271(1)(c), read with section 274 of IT Act. True, the assessment proceedings form the basis for the penalty proceedings, but they are not composite

Raju Mohan Gurnani, Navi Mumbai vs. Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 246/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 246/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-15) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 247/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 248/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Raju Mohan Gurnani V/S. Ito, Central Circle 5(2) बिधम Flat No. 2101, Moraj Casa Room No. 427, 4Th Floor, Grande, Plot No. 57, Sector Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra 17, Koperkhairne Kurla Complex, Bandra Maharashtra-410209 East, Maharashtra-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aalpg9103B Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: None रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri R. R. Makwana

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

Question No. 1: If the assessment order clearly records satisfaction for imposing penalty on one or the other, or both grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c), does a mere defect in the notice-not striking off the irrelevant matter-vitiate the penalty proceedings? 181.It does. The primary burden lies ... opinion, prima facie or otherwise, to launch penalty proceedings against the Appellant. But that translates into action only through the statutory notice under section 271(1)(c), read with section 274 of IT Act. True, the assessment proceedings form the basis for the penalty proceedings, but they are not composite

Rajasthan Prime Steel Processing Center Pvt. Ltd., Alwar vs. DCIT, Circle- 15(1), New Delhi

Accordingly, the grounds relevant to this issue raised by the Revenue stand dismissed in both years

ITA 3293/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 271(1)(c)

appeals (ITA No.3292 & 3293/Del/2018): i. Addition on account of ALP adjustment [All grounds except the last one] ii. Initiation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act [Last ground] Revenue’s appeals (ITA No.3537 & 3538/Del/2018): i. Exclusion of preoperative and or non-recurring expenses; such as custom duty

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Aurangabad vs. Parth Multitrade Pvt Ltd, Jalna

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the CO filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1345/PUN/2024[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2025AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Anand PartaniFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari - CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)Section 68

section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5 CO No.28/PUN/2024 e. The learned AO was not justified in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. f. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, and alter any or withdraw any grounds of appeal

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Cvent India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2505/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shir S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(a)

short, the “CIT(A)”], New Delhi’s order dated 19.07.2023 passed in case no. CIT(A), Delhi-35/10015/2019-20, involving proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act?). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. ITA No.2505/Del/ 2023 2. Coming ... assessee’s sole substantive grievance canvassed in the instant appeal challenging both the learned lower authorities’ action levying section 271(1)(c) penalty’ of Rs.7,83,81,920/-; we note that there arises the first and foremost issue of validity thereof itself as the Assessing Officer had passed his penalty

Cvent India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in both the A

ITA 187/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: ShriDheeraj Kumar Jaiswal, Sr. DR
Section 92CSection 92D

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, for disallowancesmade under section 92CA(3) without recording any adequate reason for such initiation. That the above grounds are independent

Vijaylaxmi Anand Gupta, Vapi vs. ITO Ward-9, Vapi

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

ITA 1350/SRT/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Suresh K. Kabra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

passed by Ld. CIT(A) in ITA No. 1349/Srt/2024 relates to quantum addition and ITA No. 1350/Srt/2024 relates to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that during the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer observed that ... Further, we note that ITA No. 1350/Srt/2024 for A.Y. 2010-11 relates to penalty levied in the hands of the assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in relation to the aforesaid additions. Since, the appeal of the assessee relating to quantum additions has been restored

Vijaylaxmi Anand Gupta, Vapi vs. ITO, Ward-9, Vapi

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

ITA 1349/SRT/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Suresh K. Kabra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

passed by Ld. CIT(A) in ITA No. 1349/Srt/2024 relates to quantum addition and ITA No. 1350/Srt/2024 relates to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that during the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer observed that ... Further, we note that ITA No. 1350/Srt/2024 for A.Y. 2010-11 relates to penalty levied in the hands of the assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in relation to the aforesaid additions. Since, the appeal of the assessee relating to quantum additions has been restored

Jivaram Magaji Chaoudhary, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle 7, Pune

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

ITA 1392/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1392/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Jivaram Magaji Chaoudhary, Vs. Acit, Circle-7, Pune. Plot No.4, Road No.5, Snehdeep Palace, Tingrenagar, Pune- 411032. Pan : Aalpc3973B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. L. Jain Revenue By Shri Uma Shankar Prasad : Date Of Hearing : 26.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. There Is A Delay Of 48 Days In Filing Of The Present Appeal. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit. We Are Satisfied With The Explanation Of The Assessee That He Was Prevented By Reasonable

For Appellant: Shri V. L. Jain
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69BSection 69C

additional benefit claimed by the assessee is hereby disallowed and is added to the capital gain of the assessee. Further, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is hereby initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. (Add: Rs 68,32,775/-) 6. After careful perusal

Archana Achyut Sail, Mumbai vs. NFAC

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 5278/MUM/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2025

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Sumit MantriFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Chandra Sinha
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ in short) (In ITA No.5278/Mum/2024 for A.Y.2016-17 the challenge is to the order imposing penalty, under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act). 2. The appellant-assessee was employed with Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL). For assessment year 2016-17, the assessee had filed ... statutory formalities, the Assessing Officer by an order dated 29/02/2024 imposed a penalty of Rs.34,688/- for assessment year 2016-17 under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for ‘concealment of particulars of income’. 8. For assessment year 2017-18, a penalty of Rs.1,27,116/- has been imposed

Archana Achyut Sail, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 5277/MUM/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2025

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Sumit MantriFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Chandra Sinha
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ in short) (In ITA No.5278/Mum/2024 for A.Y.2016-17 the challenge is to the order imposing penalty, under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act). 2. The appellant-assessee was employed with Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL). For assessment year 2016-17, the assessee had filed ... statutory formalities, the Assessing Officer by an order dated 29/02/2024 imposed a penalty of Rs.34,688/- for assessment year 2016-17 under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for ‘concealment of particulars of income’. 8. For assessment year 2017-18, a penalty of Rs.1,27,116/- has been imposed

Five Star Impex, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 4(2), Jpr, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 20/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalfive Star Impex, F-939, Road No. 14R, Vki Area, Jaipur 302021 Pan No.:Aabff2606A ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(2), Jaipur ...... Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. S. B. Natani, C.A, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Arvind Kumar, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 144Section 145Section 250Section 250(5)Section 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 68

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is justified in confirming the order of the Assessing Authority in imposing penalty of Rs. 13,558/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 9. That the assessee craves permission to add, alter, amends or deletes any ground or grounds of appeal