← 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)

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune vs. Bank of Maharashtra, Pune

ITA 428/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

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

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(viia)

added to the total income of the assessee. Further, since the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income thereof, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) are initiated separately." In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC deleted the addition by observing as “6.5 During the appellate proceedings, the appellant

Bank of Maharashtra, Pune vs. Asst Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 259/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S Ananthan & Smt. Abarna CAFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(viia)

added to the total income of the assessee. Further, since the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income thereof, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) are initiated separately.” 34. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC deleted the addition by observing as under: “6.5 During the appellate proceedings ... ground that the detail are not furnished. Further, since the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income, therefore penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) are initiated separately." 41. In appeal the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC restored the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer by observing

Shreeji Foods Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 728/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Shreeji Foods Private Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 3(1), Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aalcs2695H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, C.A. Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09.01.2025 15.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.D.R
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Assessing Officer to the total income of the assessee under section 68 of the Act and penalty proceedings were initiated under section 271(1)(c) for concealing income. Thereafter, Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act assessing the total income at Rs.1

DCIT, Central Circle - 7(1), Mumbai vs. Triumph Securities Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 962/MUM/2024[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal (VirtuallyFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel – Spl. Counsel
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

emanated from the order of the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle- 7(1),Mumbai (for brevity the “Ld.AO”) passed under section 271(1)(c)of the Act, date of order 30/03/2019. 2. The revenue has taken the following grounds:- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances ... charge Le. neither furnishing inaccurate particulars of income nor concealment of income, was inapplicable as per the satisfaction recorded by the A.O. under section 271(1)(c) in the assessment order, which was duly served on the assessee making it aware of the charges of penalty. 3. On the facts

Ramakrishnan Vinayan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, 34(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3209/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Nirmal Mathaw, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(C)Section 274

assessed income. 16. The learned CIT(A)/AO has erred in law in initiating penalty proceedings under section 274 read with section 271(1)(C) of the Act. 3. Assessee has placed on record a written submission dated 04.01.2025 wherein he has opted to resolve the dispute in this appeal

Aditya Sharma, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-19, New Delhi

ITA 3617/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Subhash Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 143(3)Section 153DSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

5198/Del/2019 for A.Y. 2013-14 fails therefor. The assessee’s last appeal ITA No. 8404/Del/2019 also stands accepted since involving the consequential section 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings. 5.1 All other pleadings on merits herein stand rendered academic. 6. To sum up, these assessee’s seven appeals

Sadbhav Engineering Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1(3), Ahmedabad

ITA 235/AHD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarsr. No. Appellant Respondent 1-7 It(Ss)A.No./ Asstt.Year 170 To 175 & 235/Ahd/2021 Asst. Year 2012- 13 To 2018-19 Sadbhav Engineering Ltd. Nr. Havmour Restaurant Navrangpura Ahmedbad. Dcit, Cent.Cir.1(3) Ahmedabad. 8-14 183 To 189/Ahd/2021 Asst. Year 2012- 14 To 2018-19 Pan : Aadcs 0852 Q Dcit, Cent.Cir.1(3) Ahmedabad. Sadbhav Engineering Ltd. Nr. Havmour Restaurant Navrangpura Ahmedabad. (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By Shri Dhinal Shah, Ar Revenue By: Shri H. Phani Raju, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 18/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 10/01/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: The Above Cross-Appeals Of The Assessee & The Revenue Are Against The Consolidated Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) 11, Ahmedabad All Dated 04.08.2021 Passed Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act" For Short) For The

For Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 69ASection 80I

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, अहमदाबाद न्यायपीठ 'A' अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT

Mr. Chittaranjan Trimbak Gaikwad, Pune vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 759/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri B.C. MalakarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

case, subsequent return was filed voluntarily, but only after enquiry conducted by ITO (Inv) Unit-II, Pune. This clearly attracts the provision of section 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act 1961. Even judicial decisions are also to the same effect, particularly in these few cases iPolo Singh ... Commissioner Of Income Tax 358 ITR 593 has clearly observed Voluntary disclosure does not release assessee from mischief of penal proceedings under section 271(1)(c). Same arguments and case laws are applicable for the additions made in the assessment order in which Assessing Officer found a difference of profit

Narender Goud Tigulla, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 737/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Mohd.Afzal, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.Kumaran, DR
Section 153ASection 269SSection 271D

regarding penalty proceeding under Section 271E of the Act, though in that order the Assessing Officer wanted penalty proceeding to be initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could

Sumita Roy Chowdhury, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 48(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1273/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1273/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Sumita Roy Chowdhury,………….....…………Appellant C/O. Mahadev Ghosh, Advocate, Bf-199, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064 [Pan:Ahopr1722P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…..………………………...Respondent Ward-48(1), Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata-700001 Appearances By: Shri Mahadev Ghosh, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Nicholash Murmu, Addl. Cit, D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: January 07, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: January 10, 2025 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)Section 80I

assessment year. There was no compliance from the assessee and the assessment was completed under section 144 and also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was initiated for failure to comply with the terms of notices issued under section

Psb Constructions, Madurai vs. ITO, Ncw-1(5), Madurai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2013-14,

ITA 2288/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2286, 2287 & 2288/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 P S B Constructions, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Plot No. 356, 5Th Cross Street, Non Corporate Ward 1(5), Gandhi Nagar (P.O.), K.K. Nagar, Madurai. Madurai 625 020. [Pan: Aaffp6937J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Thulasiram, Advocate & Shri S. Kumarasubramanian, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.01.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate, But Identical Orders All Dated 30.06.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri R. Thulasiram, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 264Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. 2 I.T.A. Nos.2286, 2287 & 2288/Chny/24 2. Since issues raised in these appeals are similar ... which, the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in confirming the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Brief facts leading to case are that the assessee

Psb Constructions, Madurai vs. ITO, Ncw-1(5), Madurai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2013-14,

ITA 2287/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2286, 2287 & 2288/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 P S B Constructions, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Plot No. 356, 5Th Cross Street, Non Corporate Ward 1(5), Gandhi Nagar (P.O.), K.K. Nagar, Madurai. Madurai 625 020. [Pan: Aaffp6937J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Thulasiram, Advocate & Shri S. Kumarasubramanian, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.01.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate, But Identical Orders All Dated 30.06.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri R. Thulasiram, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 264Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. 2 I.T.A. Nos.2286, 2287 & 2288/Chny/24 2. Since issues raised in these appeals are similar ... which, the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in confirming the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Brief facts leading to case are that the assessee

Psb Constructions, Madurai vs. ITO, Ncw-1(5), Madurai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2013-14,

ITA 2286/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2286, 2287 & 2288/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 P S B Constructions, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Plot No. 356, 5Th Cross Street, Non Corporate Ward 1(5), Gandhi Nagar (P.O.), K.K. Nagar, Madurai. Madurai 625 020. [Pan: Aaffp6937J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Thulasiram, Advocate & Shri S. Kumarasubramanian, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.01.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate, But Identical Orders All Dated 30.06.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri R. Thulasiram, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 264Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. 2 I.T.A. Nos.2286, 2287 & 2288/Chny/24 2. Since issues raised in these appeals are similar ... which, the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in confirming the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Brief facts leading to case are that the assessee

Sri Sankaranarayanan Krishnamoorthy, Chennai vs. ITO-1(2) International Taxation, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 178/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. R. Viswanathan, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 269SSection 271D

regarding penalty proceeding under Section 271E of the Act, though in that order the Assessing Officer wanted penalty proceeding to be initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Non-Corporate Circle vs. Akmg Alloys Private Ltd., Dindigul

In the result, Cross-Objection filed by the assessee is allowed and

ITA 873/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri T. Srinivasa, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement –
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 274

regarding penalty proceeding under Section 271E of the Act, though in that order the Assessing Officer wanted penalty proceeding to be initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could

Bipin Pranjivandas Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 27(1)(1), Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 1661/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

estimation and enhancing the GP does not lead to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and invoking the jurisdiction of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In this respect, he relied on various decision of Hon’ble High Courts and Hon’ble Supreme Court and submitted that ... this case and the same is hereby confirmed. Ground of appeal Nos. 1 to 9 are dismissed. 10. The provisions of section 271 (1) (c) of the Act would be applicable only where the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. However

Bipin Pranjivandas Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 27(1)(1), Navi Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly

ITA 1660/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

estimation and enhancing the GP does not lead to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and invoking the jurisdiction of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In this respect, he relied on various decision of Hon’ble High Courts and Hon’ble Supreme Court and submitted that ... Rs.31,268/- in this case and the same is hereby confirmed. Ground of appeal Nos. 1 to 9 are dismissed. The provisions of section 271 (1) (c) of the Act would be applicable only where the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such

Jarnail Singh Gill, Jagraon vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jagraon

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

ITA 941/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: The Tribunal & The Matter Was Remanded Back To Ao For Fresh Adjudication. Thereafter, The Assessment Order Was Passed

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(b)

pertaining to Assessment Year 2011-12 wherein the limited issue relates to sustenance of levy of penalty amounting to Rs. 50,000/- under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 2. At the outset, there is a delay in filing of the appeal as pointed out by the Registry. After ... issued on five different occasions. As per the AO, there was no compliance on the part of the assessee and penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(b) were separately initiated by issuing notice under section 271(1)(b) dt. 30/03/2022. In response, the assessee submitted that since the quantum proceedings

Khosla Machines Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Circle 1 (1), Chandigarh

In the result, the penalty so levied and sustained u/s 271(1)(c) is hereby directed to be deleted

ITA 726/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Krishan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35

Assessment Year 2015-16 wherein the sole ground of appeal relates to sustenance of levy of penalty amounting to Rs. 59,249/-under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income claiming deduction under section ... income and after calling for the explanation from the assessee but not finding the same acceptable, order dt. 24/03/2022 was passed under section 271(1)(c) levying penalty amounting to Rs. 59,249/- for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which on appeal has been sustained

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Circle-1, Aurangabad vs. Tapadiya Constructions Ltd, Aurangabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 976/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: MS.ASHTA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 281A

specified the Limb of the penalty. Ld.DR submitted that ld.CIT(A) has erred in relying on various case laws which pertain to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which had various Limbs, whereas Section 271AAB(1A) do not have any such. Therefore, ld.CIT(A) erred. Ld.DR relied ... order of ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is allowed. 4.7.1 The case laws relied by ld.AR are pertaining to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, and hence will not be applicable to the present case which pertains to Section 271AAB of the Act, specially when