← 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)

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 2313/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1839/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Adit (International Taxation)- 1(2), Room No. 119, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Vs.11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1273/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent) 2

Section 143(3)

commission earned by Hong Kong Branch on ECB to Indian borrowers Levy of interest under section 234B Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) AY 2011-12 Ground No.1 AY 2010-11 Ground No.1 Ground No.2 & 3 Ground No.2 & 3 Ground No.4 Ground No.6 Ground No.5 to 12 Ground

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1273/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1839/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Adit (International Taxation)- 1(2), Room No. 119, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1273/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Respondent) 2

Section 143(3)

Indian borrowers Ground No.14 & 15 Ground No.17 & 18 Levy of interest under Section 234B Ground No.19 Ground No.22 Levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) Ground No.20 Ground No.23 45. From the above table it is clear that the grounds of the assessee and the revenue raised ... INPV was attributed) Ground No.10 Ground No.18 Levy of interest under Section 234B Ground No.26 Ground No.19 Levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) Ground No.27 Ground No.20 Cost incurred by HO/OB towards credit risk assistance, EDP assistance HO-System Implementation Charges, on behalf of Indian Branch

DCIT (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1165/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1839/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Adit (International Taxation)- 1(2), Room No. 119, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Vs.11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1273/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1165/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit (International Taxation)- 1(1)(1), Room No. 114, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Vs. Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, 11Th & 12Th & 14Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B : Respondent)

Section 143(3)

commission earned by Hong Kong Branch on ECB to Indian borrowers Levy of interest under section 234B Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) AY 2011-12 Ground No.1 AY 2010-11 Ground No.1 Ground No.2 & 3 Ground No.2 & 3 Ground No.4 Ground No.6 Ground No.5 to 12 Ground

ADIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai vs. Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1839/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Dcit (International Taxation)- Investment Bank (Formerly 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) : Respondent)

Section 143(3)

Kong Branch on ECB to 15 & 18 Indian borrowers Levy of interest under section 234B Ground No.19 Ground No.22 Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) Ground No.20 Ground No.23 45. From the above table it is clear that the grounds of the assessee and the revenue raised ... marketing of derivative products (60% of INPV was attributed) Levy of interest under section 234B Ground No.26 Ground No.19 Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) Ground No.27 Ground No.20 Cost incurred by HO/OB towards credit risk Ground No.6 - assistance, EDP assistance HO-System Implementation Charges, on behalf

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1479/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Respondent)

Section 143(3)

Indian borrowers Ground No.14 & 15 Ground No.17 & 18 Levy of interest under section 234B Ground No.19 Ground No.22 Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) Ground No.20 Ground No.23 45. From the above table it is clear that the grounds of the assessee and the revenue raised

Ram Das, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 43(1), New Delhi

ITA 2828/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year: 2015-16 Vs. Ito, Prakash, Vill.-Daulatpur, Ward-43(3), P.O.-Khari Jatmal, New Delhi Najafgarh, New Delhi Pan: Bvppp2030L (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita No.213/Del/2020 & 2828/Del/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sh. Ram Dass, Vs. Ito, H. No. 31, Vill.-Daulatpur, Ward-43(3), P.O.-Khari Jatmal, New Delhi Najafgarh, New Delhi Pan:Bhnpd4709L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Ankit Kumar, Adv. Sh. Sidhant Arora, Ca Department By Ms. Harpreet Karu Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm Instant Batch Of Three Appeals Pertain To The Twin Assesses, Herein, S/Sh. Prakash & Ram Dass. The Above Former Assessee’S

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

212/Del/2020 and 2013/Del/2020 succeed in very terms. Same order to follow in the latter assessee’s appeal ITA No.2828/Del/2023 since involving the consequential section 271(1)(c) penalty proceeding. 6. To sum up, these three assessees’ instant three appeals ITA No. 212 & 213/Del/2020 & 2828/Del/2023 are allowed in above terms

Shree Karni Education Trust, Jam Khambhalia vs. ITO Exemption Ward 2, Rajkot

ITA 208/RJT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.208/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Shree Karni Education Trust Ito Exemption Ward- 2. Vs. Little Star School, Bunglavadi, Aaykar Bhawan, Race Course, Shreeji Park, Near Telephone Ring Road, Income Tax Exchange, Jamkhambhalia, Exemption Ward-2, Devbhumi Dwarka - 361305 Rajkot - 360001

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Gohil, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. SR. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144oSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, AM. & DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JM आयकरअपीलसं

M/S Png Trading Private Limited, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh

In the result, all four appeals are allowed

ITA 832/CHANDI/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Goyal, Advocate and Shri Ashok Goyal,CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR and Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69

Nos.238 & 239/CHD/2015 & ITA Nos. 831 & 832/CHD/2018 A.Y.2005-6 & 2006-07 2 27.03.2018 passed in assessment year 2005-06, 2006-07 [penalty appeal under Section 271(1)(c)]. 2. First we take ITA 238/CHD/2015 in assessment year 2005-06. The assessee has raised six grounds of appeal, out of which Ground ... addition of Rs.25,00,000/-. 12. Now we take ITA 831/CHD/2018 and ITA 832/CHD/2018. 13. The ld. AO has imposed penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by way of a separate order of even date i.e. 15.02.2016. The AO has imposed a penalty of Rs.39

M/S Png Trading Private Limited, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh

In the result, all four appeals are allowed

ITA 831/CHANDI/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Goyal, Advocate and Shri Ashok Goyal,CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR and Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69

Nos.238 & 239/CHD/2015 & ITA Nos. 831 & 832/CHD/2018 A.Y.2005-6 & 2006-07 2 27.03.2018 passed in assessment year 2005-06, 2006-07 [penalty appeal under Section 271(1)(c)]. 2. First we take ITA 238/CHD/2015 in assessment year 2005-06. The assessee has raised six grounds of appeal, out of which Ground ... addition of Rs.25,00,000/-. 12. Now we take ITA 831/CHD/2018 and ITA 832/CHD/2018. 13. The ld. AO has imposed penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by way of a separate order of even date i.e. 15.02.2016. The AO has imposed a penalty of Rs.39

M/S Png Trading Private Limited, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Chandigarh

In the result, all four appeals are allowed

ITA 239/CHANDI/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Goyal, Advocate and Shri Ashok Goyal,CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR and Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69

Nos.238 & 239/CHD/2015 & ITA Nos. 831 & 832/CHD/2018 A.Y.2005-6 & 2006-07 2 27.03.2018 passed in assessment year 2005-06, 2006-07 [penalty appeal under Section 271(1)(c)]. 2. First we take ITA 238/CHD/2015 in assessment year 2005-06. The assessee has raised six grounds of appeal, out of which Ground ... addition of Rs.25,00,000/-. 12. Now we take ITA 831/CHD/2018 and ITA 832/CHD/2018. 13. The ld. AO has imposed penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by way of a separate order of even date i.e. 15.02.2016. The AO has imposed a penalty of Rs.39

M/S Png Trading Private Limited, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Chandigarh

In the result, all four appeals are allowed

ITA 238/CHANDI/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Goyal, Advocate and Shri Ashok Goyal,CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR and Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69

Nos.238 & 239/CHD/2015 & ITA Nos. 831 & 832/CHD/2018 A.Y.2005-6 & 2006-07 2 27.03.2018 passed in assessment year 2005-06, 2006-07 [penalty appeal under Section 271(1)(c)]. 2. First we take ITA 238/CHD/2015 in assessment year 2005-06. The assessee has raised six grounds of appeal, out of which Ground ... addition of Rs.25,00,000/-. 12. Now we take ITA 831/CHD/2018 and ITA 832/CHD/2018. 13. The ld. AO has imposed penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by way of a separate order of even date i.e. 15.02.2016. The AO has imposed a penalty of Rs.39

Daggubati Venkatesh, Chennai vs. DCIT., Central Circle -1(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 643/HYD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia(Hybrid Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, ARFor Respondent: Smt. M.Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act he completed the assessment. 3. Learned Assessing Officer, however, initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)( c ) of the Act read with explanation 5A and concluded the same by order dated 27/3/2022 with the levy of penalty of Rs.1 ... order upheld the penalty and dismissed the appeal. Hence this appeal by the assessee stating that the levy in confirmation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad under law. 5. At the outset, learned AR submitted that in as much as the search in this

Allied Finance P. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Delhi

ITA 4089/DEL/1994[1990-91]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Mar 2025AY 1990-91

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2015-16 Co-Operative Cane Vs. Income Tax Officer, Development Union Ltd., Ward-1(2), Cane Union, Hapur, Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh Pan: Aaajc0224M (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2010-11 With Assessment Year: 2010-11 With Assessment Year: 2011-12 With Assessment Year: 2011-12 With Assessment Year: 2012-13 With Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

assessee’s corresponding quantum appeals ITA No.4083, 4085, 4087 & 4089/Del/2024 allowing the very issue of section 80P deduction as well as its corresponding section 271(1)(c) consequential penalty appeals ITA Nos. 4084, 4086, 4088/Del/2024, respectively. No other ground or argument has been pressed before

Balaji Bullions & Commodities (I) Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. The DCIT, CC-7(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5976/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Girish Agrawalbalaji Universal Tradelink Vs. The Dcit, Cc-7(1) Pvt Ltd Room No. 653, 6Th Floor 3Rd Floor, Ashok House, Opp Aayakar Bhavan, Khara Kuwa, 118/120, Maharishi Karve Road, Shaikh Menon St, Zaveri Mumbai – 400020. Bazar, Mumbai – 400 002. Pan/Gir No. Aabcl0236H (Applicant) (Respondent) Balaji Bullions & Vs. The Dcit, Cc-7(1) Commodities (I) Pvt Ltd Room No. 653, 6Th Floor 3Rd Floor, Ashok House, Opp Aayakar Bhavan, Khara Kuwa, 118/120, Maharishi Karve Road, Shaikh Menon St, Zaveri Mumbai – 400020. Bazar, Mumbai – 400 002. Pan/Gir No. Aadcb0236F (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 250Section 251Section 271(1)(c)

1292/MUM/2018 for the AY 2009-10. Since, the quantum appeal is allowed in favour of appellant (Assessee), the action under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is infructuous. And hence, the impugned Order dated 16.12.2019 passed by Ld. CIT(A) is liable to be quashed. It is settled position ... that when the quantum addition is deleted by the appellate authorities, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 1961 for the said quantum addition cannot be survived. 2. That the penalty order is barred by limitation of time. The penalty order was passed after

Balaji Unversal Tradelink Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. The DCIT. CC-7(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5975/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Girish Agrawalbalaji Universal Tradelink Vs. The Dcit, Cc-7(1) Pvt Ltd Room No. 653, 6Th Floor 3Rd Floor, Ashok House, Opp Aayakar Bhavan, Khara Kuwa, 118/120, Maharishi Karve Road, Shaikh Menon St, Zaveri Mumbai – 400020. Bazar, Mumbai – 400 002. Pan/Gir No. Aabcl0236H (Applicant) (Respondent) Balaji Bullions & Vs. The Dcit, Cc-7(1) Commodities (I) Pvt Ltd Room No. 653, 6Th Floor 3Rd Floor, Ashok House, Opp Aayakar Bhavan, Khara Kuwa, 118/120, Maharishi Karve Road, Shaikh Menon St, Zaveri Mumbai – 400020. Bazar, Mumbai – 400 002. Pan/Gir No. Aadcb0236F (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 250Section 251Section 271(1)(c)

1292/MUM/2018 for the AY 2009-10. Since, the quantum appeal is allowed in favour of appellant (Assessee), the action under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is infructuous. And hence, the impugned Order dated 16.12.2019 passed by Ld. CIT(A) is liable to be quashed. It is settled position ... that when the quantum addition is deleted by the appellate authorities, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 1961 for the said quantum addition cannot be survived. 2. That the penalty order is barred by limitation of time. The penalty order was passed after

The Govt. Tele Communication Employees Co-Op. Society Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-11(1), Chennai

ITA 2743/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56Section 57Section 80P

savings bank at Rs. 98,63,341/-. The Assessing officer while completing the said regular assessment has not initiated any penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The matter came before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the ITAT has passed order on 10/02/2022 ... inaccurate particulars of income. During the course of penalty proceedings, the appellant had submitted its response against the proposal to levy penalty under section 271(1)(c). The Assessing officer however levied penalty of Rs.7,34,291/-u/s 271(1) by taking the above income assessed

The Govt. Tele Communication Employees Co-Op. Society Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-11(1), Chennai

ITA 2742/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56Section 57Section 80P

savings bank at Rs. 98,63,341/-. The Assessing officer while completing the said regular assessment has not initiated any penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The matter came before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the ITAT has passed order on 10/02/2022 ... inaccurate particulars of income. During the course of penalty proceedings, the appellant had submitted its response against the proposal to levy penalty under section 271(1)(c). The Assessing officer however levied penalty of Rs.7,34,291/-u/s 271(1) by taking the above income assessed

The Govt. Tele Communication Employees Co-Op. Society Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-11(1), Chennai

ITA 2741/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56Section 57Section 80P

savings bank at Rs. 98,63,341/-. The Assessing officer while completing the said regular assessment has not initiated any penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The matter came before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the ITAT has passed order on 10/02/2022 ... inaccurate particulars of income. During the course of penalty proceedings, the appellant had submitted its response against the proposal to levy penalty under section 271(1)(c). The Assessing officer however levied penalty of Rs.7,34,291/-u/s 271(1) by taking the above income assessed

The Govt. Tele Communication Empoloyees Co-Op. Society Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-11(1), Chennai

ITA 2740/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56Section 57Section 80P

savings bank at Rs. 98,63,341/-. The Assessing officer while completing the said regular assessment has not initiated any penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The matter came before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the ITAT has passed order on 10/02/2022 ... inaccurate particulars of income. During the course of penalty proceedings, the appellant had submitted its response against the proposal to levy penalty under section 271(1)(c). The Assessing officer however levied penalty of Rs.7,34,291/-u/s 271(1) by taking the above income assessed

Here Solutions India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 10 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5919/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(3)Section 250Section 92CSection 92D

General 4:1 On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) r.w.s.274 of the Act.” Ground No. 1, is general in nature, and therefore, the same needs no separate adjudication. 5. The issue arising ... raised in assessee's appeal is decided accordingly. 39. Ground No. 4 raised in assessee's appeal pertains to levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) r.w. Section 274 of the Act, which is premature in nature. Therefore, the same is dismissed. 40. The application dated 10/02/2025 filed