← 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)

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the

ITA 5628/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar BindalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271A

this consolidated order. 3. In present appeals, the solitary grievance of the assessee is against the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c)/ 270A/ 271AAB(1A)(b)/ 271AAC(1) of the Act. 4. The brief facts of the case as emanating from the record are: A search/survey action ... also made an addition on account of unexplained brokerage income. 5. In the meanwhile, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for the assessment years 2012-13 to 2016-17. Further, penalty proceedings under section 270A and section 271AAC(1) were initiated for the assessment

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle -4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the

ITA 5627/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar BindalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271A

this consolidated order. 3. In present appeals, the solitary grievance of the assessee is against the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c)/ 270A/ 271AAB(1A)(b)/ 271AAC(1) of the Act. 4. The brief facts of the case as emanating from the record are: A search/survey action ... also made an addition on account of unexplained brokerage income. 5. In the meanwhile, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for the assessment years 2012-13 to 2016-17. Further, penalty proceedings under section 270A and section 271AAC(1) were initiated for the assessment

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle -4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the

ITA 5626/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar BindalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271A

this consolidated order. 3. In present appeals, the solitary grievance of the assessee is against the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c)/ 270A/ 271AAB(1A)(b)/ 271AAC(1) of the Act. 4. The brief facts of the case as emanating from the record are: A search/survey action ... also made an addition on account of unexplained brokerage income. 5. In the meanwhile, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for the assessment years 2012-13 to 2016-17. Further, penalty proceedings under section 270A and section 271AAC(1) were initiated for the assessment

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle -4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the

ITA 5625/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar BindalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271A

this consolidated order. 3. In present appeals, the solitary grievance of the assessee is against the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c)/ 270A/ 271AAB(1A)(b)/ 271AAC(1) of the Act. 4. The brief facts of the case as emanating from the record are: A search/survey action ... also made an addition on account of unexplained brokerage income. 5. In the meanwhile, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for the assessment years 2012-13 to 2016-17. Further, penalty proceedings under section 270A and section 271AAC(1) were initiated for the assessment

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC-4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the assessment years

ITA 5624/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar BindalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271A

this consolidated order. 3. In present appeals, the solitary grievance of the assessee is against the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c)/ 270A/ 271AAB(1A)(b)/ 271AAC(1) of the Act. 4. The brief facts of the case as emanating from the record are: A search/survey action ... also made an addition on account of unexplained brokerage income. 5. In the meanwhile, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for the assessment years 2012-13 to 2016-17. Further, penalty proceedings under section 270A and section 271AAC(1) were initiated for the assessment

Karan Rajan Bahl, Mumbai vs. ITO -24(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4171/MUM/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhial & Smt. Renu Jauhrikaran Rajan Bahl V/S. Cit/Nfac, Mumbai बनाम 222, Kewal Industrial Maharashtra Estate, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Agppb9301E Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh KothariFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1) The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of penalty passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and erred in not treating the impugned order as bad in law even though it is not discernible from the notice issued ... particulars of income or for concealing the particulars of income. 2) The learned CIT(A) erred in not deleting the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) as the penalty was imposed without issuing notice to the appellant under section 274 read with section 271 of the Act and that

Holictics Urban Innovatives Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 10(1), Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 3719/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraholictics Urban Innovaties Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, A-49, Sarita Vihar, South Delhi-11007 Circle-10(1), Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabch9682B Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24/12/2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

parte. 3. Mr. Bansal vehemently argues during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have rightly levied the impugned Section 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs. 2,51,174/- related to quantum disallowance/ addition of Rs. 812857/- which represents difference between its gross receipts in Profit

Jindal Padding Private Limited, Village Mannpura, Tehsil Nalag vs. Income Tax Officer Parwano, Parwano

ITA 100/CHANDI/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

period is from 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010. The ld. AO order dated 04.02.2022 had imposed penalty of Rs.12,36,000/- on the assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Factual Matrix 1. The return of income declaring loss of Rs.6,62,737/- and book profit under Section 115JB ... issued on 23.09.2013 calling upon the assessee company to show cause and explain as to why penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act should not be levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. After hearing the assessee, the ld. AO levied minimum penalty of Rs.12

Satwinder Kaur, Sangrur vs. ITO, Ward, Sangrur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 301/CHANDI/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Dec 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

16/03/2023 pertaining to Assessment Year 2012-13 wherein the limited issue relates to levy of penalty amounting to Rs. 30,000/- under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 2. None has appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment application has been filed. Further, from the perusal ... issued to the appellant on 28.11.2019 to show cause why an order imposing a penalty should not be made under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Also further opportunity was accorded to the appellant to explain vide notice dated 09.07.2021 and in response to the said

Prakashbapu Patil Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd, Sangli vs. ACIT, Circle- Sangli, Sangli

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1328/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1325& 1328/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Prakashbapu Patil Gramin V The Acit, Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat S Circle-Sangli. Sanstha Ltd., Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd., Savali Miraj, Sangli – 416410. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaaap1616N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare – Ar Revenue By Shri Rajesh Gawali – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16; Dated 05.04.2024 & 10.04.2024 Respectively; Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Since The Issue Involved Is Common

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

1262/PUN/2023 for A.Y.2013-14 to A.Y.2015-16 set-aside the order of ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. 2.1 However, Assessing Officer passed penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on 23.09.2022. Ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) for the Assessee submitted that the ITAT Pune Bench has already held that Interest Earned ... various banks. Therefore, Assessing Officer disallowed assessee’s claim of deduction u/sec.80P of Rs.3,46,986/-. 4.1 The Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) vide order dated 23.09.2022. The relevant paragraph of the penalty order is reproduced here as under : “05. From the Assessment Order

Prakashbapu Patil Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd, Sangli vs. ACIT Circle Sangli, Sangli

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1325/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1325& 1328/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Prakashbapu Patil Gramin V The Acit, Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat S Circle-Sangli. Sanstha Ltd., Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd., Savali Miraj, Sangli – 416410. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaaap1616N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare – Ar Revenue By Shri Rajesh Gawali – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16; Dated 05.04.2024 & 10.04.2024 Respectively; Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Since The Issue Involved Is Common

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

1262/PUN/2023 for A.Y.2013-14 to A.Y.2015-16 set-aside the order of ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. 2.1 However, Assessing Officer passed penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on 23.09.2022. Ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) for the Assessee submitted that the ITAT Pune Bench has already held that Interest Earned ... various banks. Therefore, Assessing Officer disallowed assessee’s claim of deduction u/sec.80P of Rs.3,46,986/-. 4.1 The Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) vide order dated 23.09.2022. The relevant paragraph of the penalty order is reproduced here as under : “05. From the Assessment Order

Jayappa Reddy, Bengaluru vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru - 1, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1331/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2013-14 Sri Jayappa Reddy No.1, Cholanayakanahalli R.T. Nagar Vs. Pcit Bangalore 560 032 Bengaluru-1 Bengaluru Pan No : Agapj9691E Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Prathik, A.R. Respondent By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 19.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2024

For Appellant: Sri Prathik, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

Counsel for the assessee contended that it is not a mistake of AO for not initiating the penalty under section 271(1)(C) rather a conscious decision as evident from the fact that the AO has levied penalty under section 271-F of the Act. 7. The ld. D.R. appearing ... relevant to note that the ld. AO has initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271F of the Act. We further note that provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are not mandatory and automatic provision as held by so many courts. Further, in this case, no addition has been

Atiq Ahmed, Hapur vs. ITO, Ward-2(3)(4), Hapur

ITA 3679/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: BEFORESHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 271B

Officer, Ward and Order No. 2(3)(4), ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- Hapur 25/1065767179(1), dated 19.06.2024, involving proceedings under section 271(1)(c). 2. 3674/Del/2024 Atiq Ahmed Income-tax CIT(A)-NFAC Delhi’s DIN for A.Y. 2012-13 Officer, Ward and Order No. 2(3)(4), ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- Hapur 25/1065768563(1), dated ... advert to assessee’s lead assessment year 2012-13 wherein he is aggrieved against the action of learned lower authorities levying sections 271(1)(c) and 271B proceedings imposing penalties of Rs.63,900/- and 1,50,000/-, on account of concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof

Atiq Ahmed, Hapur vs. ITO, Ward-2(3)(4), Hapur

ITA 3678/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: BEFORESHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 271B

Officer, Ward and Order No. 2(3)(4), ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- Hapur 25/1065767179(1), dated 19.06.2024, involving proceedings under section 271(1)(c). 2. 3674/Del/2024 Atiq Ahmed Income-tax CIT(A)-NFAC Delhi’s DIN for A.Y. 2012-13 Officer, Ward and Order No. 2(3)(4), ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- Hapur 25/1065768563(1), dated ... advert to assessee’s lead assessment year 2012-13 wherein he is aggrieved against the action of learned lower authorities levying sections 271(1)(c) and 271B proceedings imposing penalties of Rs.63,900/- and 1,50,000/-, on account of concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof

Atiq Ahmed, Hapur vs. ITO, Ward-2(3)(4), Hapur

ITA 3677/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: BEFORESHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 271B

Officer, Ward and Order No. 2(3)(4), ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- Hapur 25/1065767179(1), dated 19.06.2024, involving proceedings under section 271(1)(c). 2. 3674/Del/2024 Atiq Ahmed Income-tax CIT(A)-NFAC Delhi’s DIN for A.Y. 2012-13 Officer, Ward and Order No. 2(3)(4), ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- Hapur 25/1065768563(1), dated ... advert to assessee’s lead assessment year 2012-13 wherein he is aggrieved against the action of learned lower authorities levying sections 271(1)(c) and 271B proceedings imposing penalties of Rs.63,900/- and 1,50,000/-, on account of concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof

Atiq Ahmed, Hapur vs. ITO, Ward-2(3)(4), Hapur

ITA 3674/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: BEFORESHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 271B

Officer, Ward and Order No. 2(3)(4), ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- Hapur 25/1065767179(1), dated 19.06.2024, involving proceedings under section 271(1)(c). 2. 3674/Del/2024 Atiq Ahmed Income-tax CIT(A)-NFAC Delhi’s DIN for A.Y. 2012-13 Officer, Ward and Order No. 2(3)(4), ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- Hapur 25/1065768563(1), dated ... advert to assessee’s lead assessment year 2012-13 wherein he is aggrieved against the action of learned lower authorities levying sections 271(1)(c) and 271B proceedings imposing penalties of Rs.63,900/- and 1,50,000/-, on account of concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof

Atiq Ahmed, Hapur vs. ITO, Ward-2(3)(4), Hapur

ITA 3673/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2024AY 2012-13
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 271B

Officer, Ward and Order No. 2(3)(4), ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- Hapur 25/1065767179(1), dated 19.06.2024, involving proceedings under section 271(1)(c). 2. 3674/Del/2024 Atiq Ahmed Income-tax CIT(A)-NFAC Delhi’s DIN for A.Y. 2012-13 Officer, Ward and Order No. 2(3)(4), ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- Hapur 25/1065768563(1), dated ... advert to assessee’s lead assessment year 2012-13 wherein he is aggrieved against the action of learned lower authorities levying sections 271(1)(c) and 271B proceedings imposing penalties of Rs.63,900/- and 1,50,000/-, on account of concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof

Suchitra Shashikant Khavare, Hatkanangle, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ichalkaranji

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

ITA 1426/PUN/2024[AY 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Dec 2024

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1426/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Suchitra Shashikant Khavare, V The Income Tax Officer, At Post Shiroli Pulachi S Ichalkaranji. Htkanangle, Konhapur – 416122. Pan: Aowpk8959A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Rajesh Gawalil – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 17.05.2024 For The A.Y.2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Cit(A), Nfac Erred In, Not Condoning The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Thereby Confirming The Penalty Levied U/S 271(1)(C) On The Addition Made By The Ao Of Rs.15,00,000/- U/S 69 Representing Investment In Immovable Property.” Submission Of Ld.Ar : 2. The Ld.Ar For The Assessee Submitted That This Is An Appeal Against Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act. The Quantum Addition Has Been Set-Aside By Itat To Ld.Cit(A) Vide Its Order In Ita No.1410/Pun/2024 For A.Y. 2013-14. Submission Of Ld.Dr : 3. Ld.Dr For The Revenue Submitted That Penalty May Also Be Set-Aside To The Ld.Cit(A).

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

representing investment in immovable property.” Submission of ld.AR : 2. The ld.AR for the assessee submitted that this is an appeal against penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The quantum addition has been set-aside by ITAT to ld.CIT(A) vide its order in ITA No.1410/PUN/2024 ... Revenue submitted that Penalty may also be set-aside to the ld.CIT(A). Findings &Analysis : 4. In this case, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y.2013-14 has been levied vide order dated 21.09.2022. Assessee filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal

Ramasamy Jagadishkumar, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

ITA 2739/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2734/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year-2007-8 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2735/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year-2009-10 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2736/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year-2010-11 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2737/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year-2011-12 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2738/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year-2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2739/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year-2013-14 Ramasamy Jagadishkumar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Old No.5, New No.41, Vs. Tax, Post Office Road, Central Circle-1, Krishnasamy Nagar, Coimbatore Coimbatore-641045 [Pan: Acapj0483C] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri S.Sridhar, Advocate अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.V.Aswathy, Jcit : 17.12.2024 सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing घोर्णध की तधरीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2024

For Respondent: Ms.V.Aswathy, JCIT
Section 1Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ’डी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री जॉजज जॉजज के, उपाध्यक्ष

Ramasamy Jagadishkumar, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1., Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

ITA 2738/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2734/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year-2007-8 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2735/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year-2009-10 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2736/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year-2010-11 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2737/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year-2011-12 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2738/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year-2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2739/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year-2013-14 Ramasamy Jagadishkumar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Old No.5, New No.41, Vs. Tax, Post Office Road, Central Circle-1, Krishnasamy Nagar, Coimbatore Coimbatore-641045 [Pan: Acapj0483C] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri S.Sridhar, Advocate अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.V.Aswathy, Jcit : 17.12.2024 सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing घोर्णध की तधरीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2024

For Respondent: Ms.V.Aswathy, JCIT
Section 1Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ’डी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री जॉजज जॉजज के, उपाध्यक्ष