← 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)

Future Gaming and Hotel Services P Ltd, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Coimbatore

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 950/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.950/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S. Future Gaming & Hotel Acit बनाम/ Services Private Limited Central Circle-2, 54, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore. Vs. Gn Mills Post, Coimbatore-641 029. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-9751-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : S/Shri S. Sridhar & N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) - Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Cit-Dr A/W Ms. Anitha (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-01-2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: S/Shri S. Sridhar & N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) - LdFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -Ld. CIT-DR a/w Ms. Anitha (Addl. CIT) – Ld.
Section 153ASection 271A

circumstances of the case, it is so warranted. The only bar is that no penalty under the provisions of section 270A or section 271(1)(c) of the Act shall be imposed in respect of the undisclosed income, as defined u/s 271AAB of the Act, unearthed during the search action ... carried out u/s 132 of the Act. It is to be noted that the provisions of section 271AAB and section 271(1)(c) of the Act simultaneously existed and were operational till the provisions of section 271AAC become effective from 1-4-2017. 10. The Assessing Officer has levied penalty

Income Tax Officer 5 (2)(1), Mumbai vs. Iora Diamonds Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 6397/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh DeshmukhFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had allowed the appeal against the Penalty Order, dated 05/01/2022, passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2008-2009. 2. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. Whether on the facts ... granted by the CIT(A) was dismissed by the Tribunal. 4. Vide Penalty Order, dated 05/01/2022, penalty of INR.67,762/-was levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of aforesaid addition of INR.2,19,292/- sustained by the CIT(A)/Tribunal. The appeal preferred

Income Tax Officer - 5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Iora Diamonds Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 6396/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh DeshmukhFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had allowed the appeal against the Penalty Order, dated 05/01/2022, passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2008-2009. 2. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. Whether on the facts ... granted by the CIT(A) was dismissed by the Tribunal. 4. Vide Penalty Order, dated 05/01/2022, penalty of INR.67,762/-was levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of aforesaid addition of INR.2,19,292/- sustained by the CIT(A)/Tribunal. The appeal preferred

Income Tax Officer - 5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Iora Diamonds Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 6395/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh DeshmukhFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had allowed the appeal against the Penalty Order, dated 05/01/2022, passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2008-2009. 2. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. Whether on the facts ... granted by the CIT(A) was dismissed by the Tribunal. 4. Vide Penalty Order, dated 05/01/2022, penalty of INR.67,762/-was levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of aforesaid addition of INR.2,19,292/- sustained by the CIT(A)/Tribunal. The appeal preferred

Capacite Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT/DCIT Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

ITA 6308/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMRJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani
Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Penalty Order, dated 24/02/2024, passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “Ground of Appeal No.1: Levy ... relevant facts in brief are that vide order, dated 24/02/2024, penalty of INR.54,51,888/-was levied on the Assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of disallowance of INR.1,57,53,261/-, made under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax( International Taxation)-3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Oxford University Press, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5742/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Asst. Cit (International M/S Oxford University Press, Taxation)-3(2)(2), 22 Workspace 2Nd Floor, 1/22 Asaf Vs. R. No. 615, Sixth Floor, Ali Road, Daryaganj Central, Delhi, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Delhi-110002. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaaco 3279 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rahul CharkhaFor Respondent: 28/01/2025
Section 1Section 2(42)Section 271(1)(c)

Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty of INR 1,28,46,270 levied under Section 1,28,46,270 levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing v inaccurate particulars of income as per the furnishing v inaccurate ... levied penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. The AO has referred to explanation 1(A) to section 271(1)(c) of the has referred to explanation 1(A) to section 271(1)(c) of the has referred to explanation 1(A) to section 271(1

ITO, New Delhi vs. Smt. Satya Bhama Kanodia, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2073/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Sh. Deepesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

learned lower authorities have held the assessee to have concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income to levy section 271(1)(c) 2 Parveen Tayal penalty in question amounting to Rs.9,28,330/- vide Assessing Officer’s order dated 24.04.2021 which stands upheld ... detailed discussion. 4. It emerges during the course of hearing that the learned Assessing Officer had issued his section 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 show-cause notice to the assessee proposing to levy the impugned penalty without even specifying as to whether it was an instance of concealment or furnishing

The Ayali Kalan Co-Op Agriculture Multi, Ludhiana vs. Income Tac Officer, Ludhiana

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 259/CHANDI/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Parveen Jindal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80P(2)

grievance is that ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming a penalty of Rs.38,97,270/- which was levied by the AO under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 3. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is a Co- operative Society. It had filed ... assessee and determined the taxable income at Rs.97,60,590/-. 4. The ld. AO has visited the assessee with penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and ultimately levied a penalty of Rs.38,97,270/-. 5. Appeal to the CIT(A) did not bring any relief

Falguni S. Mehta, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1603/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra P. Sinha

For Respondent: Shri S K Agal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

question is whether the assessee has offered any explanation for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Explanation to section 271(1)(c) raises a presumption of concealment when a difference is noticed by the AO, between reported and assessed income. The burden then ... this, the AO did not consider the arguments taken during the course of penalty proceedings. In our considered view, on plain reading of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee is eligible to set-off losses incurred in the “futures and options” segment of Rs.4,07,195/- against

Fantacy Creations, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 25, Kolkata

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

ITA 1449/KOL/2024[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jan 2025AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 274

assessee that the AO in its notice did not strike out the appropriate one. Accordingly, the issuance of notices u/s 274 read with Section 271(1)(c ) of the Act is declared to be invalid notice, as a result all the proceedings are hereby set aside. In the result

Deccan Minerals Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5829/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275(1)(c)

order dated 26/11/2018. In the assessment order ld. Assessing Officer has initiated the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) and issued notice u/s.274 read with section 271(1)(c) on 27/11/2018, on the ground that return was filed only in response to notice u/s.148, even though there was no disallowance was made ... 26/05/2021 and penalty of ₹31,34,607/- was levied vide order dated 04/09/2021. Thus, it has been stated that in terms of Section 271(1)(c), penalty order should have been passed within financial year in which the proceedings for imposition of penalty has been initiated or completed

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD)-3(4), Mumbai vs. Ambuja Cements Limited, Mumbai

ITA 312/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: the Assessing Officer to set out his defence against levy of penalty?." 3. The relevant facts in brief are that the Assessee, a public Limited company engaged, inter alia, in manufactured and sale of cement, filed original return of income for the Assessment Year 2011–2012 on 30/11/2011. Thereafter, the Assessee filed a revised return of income on 27/11/2012, which was selected for regular scrutiny.

For Appellant: Shri Vartik ChoksiFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had allowed the appeal against the Penalty Order, dated 31/03/2022, passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. Whether on the facts ... disallowing the deduction claimed in respect of Provisions for Mines Reclamation Expenses and initiated penalty proceeding for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. During the penalty proceedings, the Assessee was asked to show cause as to why penalty under Section 271(1

Akshat Bansal, Dehradun vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Dehradun

ITA 116/DDN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun29 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 50C(2)

Kanpur’s orders, both dated 22.05.2019 in case nos. CIT(A)- IV/KNP/10043/DCIT-CC/DDN/2018-19/111 and CIT(A)- IV/KNP/10050/DCIT-CC/DDN/2018-19/112 involving proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’); respectively. 2. Cases called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly ... These assessee’s twin quantum appeals ITA Nos. 3944 & 3945/Del/2016 are accepted for statistical purposes. Same order to follow in his section 271(1)(c) penalty appeal ITA No. 116/DDN/2019 pertaining to AY 2012-13 being consequential in nature. Ordered accordingly. 9. To sum up, the assessee’s first

Akshat Bansal, Dehradun vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Dehradun

ITA 115/DDN/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun29 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 50C(2)

Kanpur’s orders, both dated 22.05.2019 in case nos. CIT(A)- IV/KNP/10043/DCIT-CC/DDN/2018-19/111 and CIT(A)- IV/KNP/10050/DCIT-CC/DDN/2018-19/112 involving proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’); respectively. 2. Cases called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly ... These assessee’s twin quantum appeals ITA Nos. 3944 & 3945/Del/2016 are accepted for statistical purposes. Same order to follow in his section 271(1)(c) penalty appeal ITA No. 116/DDN/2019 pertaining to AY 2012-13 being consequential in nature. Ordered accordingly. 9. To sum up, the assessee’s first

Akshat Bansal, Dehradun vs. DCIT, Dehradun

ITA 3945/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun29 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 50C(2)

Kanpur’s orders, both dated 22.05.2019 in case nos. CIT(A)- IV/KNP/10043/DCIT-CC/DDN/2018-19/111 and CIT(A)- IV/KNP/10050/DCIT-CC/DDN/2018-19/112 involving proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’); respectively. 2. Cases called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly ... These assessee’s twin quantum appeals ITA Nos. 3944 & 3945/Del/2016 are accepted for statistical purposes. Same order to follow in his section 271(1)(c) penalty appeal ITA No. 116/DDN/2019 pertaining to AY 2012-13 being consequential in nature. Ordered accordingly. 9. To sum up, the assessee’s first

Akshat Bansal, Dehradun vs. DCIT, Dehradun

ITA 3944/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun29 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 50C(2)

Kanpur’s orders, both dated 22.05.2019 in case nos. CIT(A)- IV/KNP/10043/DCIT-CC/DDN/2018-19/111 and CIT(A)- IV/KNP/10050/DCIT-CC/DDN/2018-19/112 involving proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’); respectively. 2. Cases called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly ... These assessee’s twin quantum appeals ITA Nos. 3944 & 3945/Del/2016 are accepted for statistical purposes. Same order to follow in his section 271(1)(c) penalty appeal ITA No. 116/DDN/2019 pertaining to AY 2012-13 being consequential in nature. Ordered accordingly. 9. To sum up, the assessee’s first

East West Finvest India Ltd., Indore vs. ACIT Central Circle, Bilaspur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA

ITA 9/RPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 6, 8 & 9/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2018-19 & 2019-20 East West Finvest India Ltd. 852, Sudama Nagar, In Front Of Jain Mandir, Indore-452 009 Pan : Aadec1236G

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Tarannum Verma, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

compliance of notice u/s.142(1) of I.T. Act and failed to offer any explanation for the default committed. Thus, provision of Section 271(1)(b) of I.T. Act, 1961 is attracted in this case. Therefore, penalty for failure of comply with above three notices of Rs.10,000/- (Rs.10 ... challenged “that on the facts and circumstances of the case, initiation of penalty proceedings against the assessee under section 274 read with section 271(1)(b) and imposition of penalty of Rs.10,000/- upon the assessee under Section 271(1)(b) is illegal and unjustified and, therefore, penalty imposed should

East West Finvest India Ltd., Indore vs. ACIT Central Circle, Bilaspur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA

ITA 8/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 6, 8 & 9/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2018-19 & 2019-20 East West Finvest India Ltd. 852, Sudama Nagar, In Front Of Jain Mandir, Indore-452 009 Pan : Aadec1236G

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Tarannum Verma, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

compliance of notice u/s.142(1) of I.T. Act and failed to offer any explanation for the default committed. Thus, provision of Section 271(1)(b) of I.T. Act, 1961 is attracted in this case. Therefore, penalty for failure of comply with above three notices of Rs.10,000/- (Rs.10 ... challenged “that on the facts and circumstances of the case, initiation of penalty proceedings against the assessee under section 274 read with section 271(1)(b) and imposition of penalty of Rs.10,000/- upon the assessee under Section 271(1)(b) is illegal and unjustified and, therefore, penalty imposed should

East West Finvest India Ltd., Indore vs. ACIT Central Circle, Bilaspur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA

ITA 6/RPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 6, 8 & 9/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2018-19 & 2019-20 East West Finvest India Ltd. 852, Sudama Nagar, In Front Of Jain Mandir, Indore-452 009 Pan : Aadec1236G

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Tarannum Verma, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

compliance of notice u/s.142(1) of I.T. Act and failed to offer any explanation for the default committed. Thus, provision of Section 271(1)(b) of I.T. Act, 1961 is attracted in this case. Therefore, penalty for failure of comply with above three notices of Rs.10,000/- (Rs.10 ... challenged “that on the facts and circumstances of the case, initiation of penalty proceedings against the assessee under section 274 read with section 271(1)(b) and imposition of penalty of Rs.10,000/- upon the assessee under Section 271(1)(b) is illegal and unjustified and, therefore, penalty imposed should

Dev Diamonds, Mumbai vs. ITO NFAC, Delhi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6339/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: The Authorities. Accordingly, Appeal Of The Assessee Is Dismissed As Withdrawn, However, Liberty Is Given To The Assessee In Case The Application For Vsvs Does Not Materialize & Is Not Accepted, Assessee May File An Application For Restoration Of The Appeal. Accordingly, Appeal Of The Assessee Is Dismissed In Limine.

Section 271(1)(c)

aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against order passed by NFAC, Delhi dated 18/11/2024 in relation to penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. In the aforesaid appeal the ld. Counsel for the assessee