← 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)

Ashadeep Industries, Patan vs. The ITO, Ward-3, Patan

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 778/AHD/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Nov 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumarms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri K C Thaker, A.RFor Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR.BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A

Rambadal Dhunmum Yadav, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(5), Vadodara

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

ITA 680/AHD/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Finally Considering The Appeal As Time Barred.

For Appellant: Adjournment ApplicationFor Respondent: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 24Section 249Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH Before: Dr. BRR Kumar , Vice President And Ms. Suchitra Kamble , Judicial Member

Ashokbhai Shankerlal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Oddicer, Ward-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1262/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumarms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri S N Divatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69C

sincere to pursue the case is wholly incorrect. [5] That the Ld. Assessing Officer has misdirected himself in law in initiating penalty under section 271(1)(c) on amount Rs. 29,26,692/- and his order is thus prima facie devoid of merits and contrary to law and needs

Rakeshkumar Shamalbhai Sharma, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-3, Gandhinagar

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

ITA 1256/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumarms. Suchitra Kambleआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1256/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 Rakeshkumar Shamalbhai Sharma The Ito बनाम/ Sampa, Dehgam Ward-3 V/S. Gandhinagar – 382 315 Gandhinagar (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Bjaps 9160 B (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tej Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/11/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Tej Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69A

charging interest under section 234A/B/C/D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. The learned A.O is not justified in initiating penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with respect to above addition. 6. That the appellant pray to stay the demand

The Jalgaon District Central Co Op Bank Ltd, Jalgaon vs. DCIT Circle-1 Jalgaon, Jalgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2082/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

appeal : “1) On facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, The CIT(A)- NFAC erred in upholding penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 with respect to the addition on account of nominal membership fees of Rs 13,69,955 even though ... penalty order. 2) On facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, The CIT(A)- NFAC erred in upholding penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 with respect to the addition on account of nominal membership fees of Rs.13,69,955 even though

ACIT-3(4), Mumbai vs. Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2898/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Reliance Industries Ltd., Dy. Cit Circle 3(4), 3Rd Floor, Maker Chamber Iv 222 Room No. 559, Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, Vs. Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr 5055 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2016-17 Acit-3(4), Reliance Industries Ltd., Room No. 481(2), 4Th Floor, 3Rd Floor, Maker Chamber Iv Aayakar Bhavan, N.M. Road, Vs. Nariman Point, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr 5055 K Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Madhur Agrawal
Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 32A

respect of claim of depreciation on assets of KGD6. In addition to that, the appellant has submitted that as per Explanation (4) to section 271(1), the tax sought to be evaded means the difference between amount of tax on total income assessed under normal provisions minus amount ... levied penalty with respect to additions/disallowances upheld by the CIT(A), which came to Rs.775,01,88,298/-. As per Explanation (4) to section 271(1), the income to the extent of Rs.775,01,88,298/- have to be reduced from the total income as the income for which inaccurate

Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -Circle 3(4), Mumbai

ITA 2767/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Ms. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 32A

respect of claim of depreciation on assets of KGD6. In addition to that, the appellant has submitted that as per Explanation (4) to section 271(1), the tax sought to be evaded means the difference between amount of tax on total income assessed under normal provisions minus amount ... levied penalty with respect to additions/disallowances upheld by the CIT(A), which came to Rs.775,01,88,298/-. As per Explanation (4) to section 271(1), the income to the extent of Rs.775,01,88,298/- have to be reduced from the total income as the income for which inaccurate

Ajit Singh Bansal, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Ghaziabad

Appeal is allowed

ITA 3403/DEL/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Nov 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. Ito, Sh. Ajit Singh Bansal, Shop No. 26/151, Sector-2, Ward-1(5), Rajendra Nagar, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad Pan :Aiypb8839J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Tanya, Advocate Ms. Shivani, Advocate Department By Sh. Yogesh Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22.11.2024 Order

Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)-NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1065083893(1), dated 22.05.2024 involving proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 3. It emerges ... during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have levied section 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs.5,18,399/- pertaining to quantum addition of section 68 unexplained cash deposits to the tune of Rs.16,95,150/-, made in the taxpayers’ hands in assessment framed

Shambhu Dayal, Kota vs. ITO, Ward -2(2), Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 988/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHA LAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69ASection 80C

Income Tax Act 7. Under the facts and circumstances, the Ld. A.O. has erred by initiating penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.’’ 2.1 Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who was serving in Rajasthan Police ... facts and circumstances, the Ld. u/s 271(1)(c) as per I.T. Act, 1961. A.O. has erred by initiating penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Submission: Consequential in nature. 3.5 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record

Paras Poonamchand Gandhi, Mumbai vs. I.T.O., Ward-29(2)(5)

ITA 2482/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Smt. Radha Halbe DeodharFor Respondent: Shri H. M. Bhatt
Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Faceless Appeals Centre] has erred in confirming the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in levying penalty amount to Rs.43,59,971/- under section 271(1)(C); desregarding the factual and legal matrix of the case. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case ... Faceless Appeals Centre] has erred in confirming the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in levying penalty amount to Rs.43,59,971/- under section 271(1)(c); without deciding the quantum appeal filed by the Appellant.” 3. The relevant facts in brief are that the order, dated 28/06/2019, passed

Palladam Krishnasamy Ganeshwar, Tirupur vs. DCIT, CC-3, Coimbatore

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 1221/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1221/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Palladam Krishnasamy Ganeshwar Dcit बनाम/ 21, Shri Ganesa Textiles, Pollachi Road, Central Circle-3 Vs. Palladam, Tirupur-641 664. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adfpg-6476-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-09-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19-11-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 132Section 132ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 271(1)(c)

refer to the previous return filed u/s 139 of the Act. For all purposes, including for the purpose of levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the return that has to be looked at is the one filed under Section 153A. In fact, the second proviso ... seen with reference to the return that it is filed by the assessee. Thus, for the purpose of levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c), what has to be seen is whether there is any concealment in the return filed by the assessee under Section 153A

Mr. Madan Mohan Mishra, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 10(3)(3), Mumbai

ITA 4175/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 15Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

under:- Page |2 ITA No. 4175/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2009-10 Madan Mohan Mishra 1) That the order dated 29.12.2017 leving penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, passed by the assessing officer is against the law and facts on the file in, as much ... fact and circumstances of the case and the prevailing legal position on the issue. 2) That the order dated 29.12.2017 levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, passed by the Ld. assessing officer is against the law and facts on the file

Vikas Sharma, Ghaziabad vs. ACIT, Circle-55(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1464/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Ms. Vimal Kumarvikas Sharma Acit Vs. Prop. M/S. Pandit Homes, Circle – 55(1), M/S. Pandit Cements & New Delhi M/S. Shri Bankey Bihari Builders & Developers, 15/103, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad – 201 012 Pan No. Avjps 8784 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate & Shri Tarun Chanana, Advocate Revenue By Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2024

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 80C

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in initiating the penalty proceedings against the Appellant under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 15. That the documents, explanations filed by the Appellant, and the material available on record have not been properly considered

Cine Corporation of India, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Nagpur

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

ITA 405/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Shikha LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

explained that the assessee did not receive any communication from the Department and came to know only when the notice under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was served on 10/08/2022. It is also brought on record by the assessee that the new Counsel changed the email i.d. while

Nageshwara Charitable Trust, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Exemption, Nagpur

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

ITA 129/NAG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Vikash Agrawal
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 271(1)(c)

Assessing Officer as anonymous donation which was taxed under section 115BBC of the Act. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of taxable income. The assessee being aggrieved, carried the matter before the first appellate authority ... grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.” 11. The issue arose in this appeal relates to levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 12. During the quantum proceedings, the learned CIT(A) did not condone the delay in filing the appeal

Nageshwara Charitable Trust, Nagpur vs. ITO WD 3, Exemp, Nagpur

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

ITA 128/NAG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Vikash Agrawal
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 271(1)(c)

Assessing Officer as anonymous donation which was taxed under section 115BBC of the Act. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of taxable income. The assessee being aggrieved, carried the matter before the first appellate authority ... grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.” 11. The issue arose in this appeal relates to levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 12. During the quantum proceedings, the learned CIT(A) did not condone the delay in filing the appeal

Ashutosh Das, Durgapur vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 1, Durgapur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1954/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. Nos. 1942 & 1954/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Ashutosh Das,……………………………….….……Appellant C/O. Jain Vinod K & Associates, 41A, A.J.C. Bose Road, Suite No. 613, 6Th Floor, Kolkata-700017 [Pan:Adfpd9215N] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,...Respondent Circle-1, Durgapur, Aayakar Bhawan, City Centre, Durgapur-734101 Appearances By: Shri Vinod Kr. Jain, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: October 24, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: November 18, 2024 O R D E R

Section 147Section 2(47)Section 250

Year 2015-16. 9. The grievance of the assessee is that ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in upholding the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act. We find that ld. Assessing Officer has issued a notice under section 142(1), but the assessee neither ... upon by the ld. Assessing Officer. There is no plausible explanation given by the assessee for his non- compliance. Therefore, penalty imposed under section 271(1)(b) is hereby confirmed. 13. In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 14. To sum up, the appeal of the assessee

Ashutosh Das, Durgapur vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 1, Durgapur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1942/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. Nos. 1942 & 1954/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Ashutosh Das,……………………………….….……Appellant C/O. Jain Vinod K & Associates, 41A, A.J.C. Bose Road, Suite No. 613, 6Th Floor, Kolkata-700017 [Pan:Adfpd9215N] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,...Respondent Circle-1, Durgapur, Aayakar Bhawan, City Centre, Durgapur-734101 Appearances By: Shri Vinod Kr. Jain, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: October 24, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: November 18, 2024 O R D E R

Section 147Section 2(47)Section 250

Year 2015-16. 9. The grievance of the assessee is that ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in upholding the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act. We find that ld. Assessing Officer has issued a notice under section 142(1), but the assessee neither ... upon by the ld. Assessing Officer. There is no plausible explanation given by the assessee for his non- compliance. Therefore, penalty imposed under section 271(1)(b) is hereby confirmed. 13. In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 14. To sum up, the appeal of the assessee

Del Monte Foods Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 9(1), New Delhi

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1749/DEL/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1749/िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2007-08) Del Monte Foods P. Ltd., Bharti Crescent 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Phase Ii, New Delhi 110070 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacf-8488-N बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Circle 9(1), Cr Building, New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Anil Bhalla, Chartered Accountant "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 18/11/2024 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 18/11/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 27.02.2024, For Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. Shri Anil Bhalla, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submits That During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings The Assessing Officer (Ao) Had Made Addition On Account Of Advances Written Off Amounting To Rs.3,20,34,757/- & Had Initiated

For Appellant: Shri Anil Bhalla, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

notice was in preprinted performa. The irrelevant clauses in the notice were not struck off; hence, the notice mentioned both limbs of section 271(1)(c) of the Act i.e. “concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income”. Non-striking off irrelevant clause in the penalty ... assessee, the same is at page 79 of the paper book. In the subsequent notice, there was no mention of any limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, for which penalty is being levied. Therefore, the second notice is also ambiguous and invalid. 3. Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay

Vikrant Goyat, Hansi vs. ITO, Ward-5, Hisar

In the result, both the Assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 2106/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, ITA NOS. 2105