← 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)

Amitabha Sanyal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-58(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the penalty levied is hereby deleted

ITA 359/KOL/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Nov 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2011-12 Amitabha Sanyal, Income Tax Officer, 108B, Block-F, New Alipore, Ward – 58(4), Kolkata, Kolkata – 700053 Vs Aayakar Bhawan, (Pan: Aleps2352J) Bamboo Villa, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata - 700014 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Amitabha Sanyal, AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, CIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 250Section 254(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

under: “1. That the impugned order dated 11th April 2022 passed by the Ld. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Kolkata (the Assessing Officer) under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, levying penalty of Rs. 4,56,362 is without jurisdiction, illegal, invalid, bad in law being passed against the facts ... That the Ld. Assessing Officer erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.4,56,362 levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act without recording proper satisfaction within the meaning of section 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3 That on the facts and circumstances

Yogita Chandrakant Ghuse, Hinganghat vs. ITO Ward-2, Wardha

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

ITA 77/NAG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Ms. Srishti PandeFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

physical delivery of notices were received. ii. When the Deponent received physical copy of show cause notice for Penalty Proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on 02/02/2024, I came to know that appellate order had being passed against myself on 17/03/2023 itself. 7. It is submitted that

Daga Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle -18, Delhi

ITA 790/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roydaga Commodities Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-18 Private Limited Ara Centre, Jhandewalan 114 New Delhi House, 27 Delhi Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, Delhi - 110001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcs5420N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Pranav Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Central Circle-18, New Delhi arising out of the penalty order dated 16.01.2024 passed by the CIT(A)-27, New Delhi, under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2016-17. P a g e | 2 Daga Commodities Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT ... limbs. It is a settled principle of law that the Assessing Officer should issue notice against the assessee alleging violation of provision under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and in this particular case the Assessing Officer was not sure while issuing show cause notice under Section 271(1

Ashok Kumar Grover, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-61(1), Delhi

ITA 2893/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roysh. Ashok Kumar Grover Vs. Acit 19, Siri Fort Road Circle 61(1) New Delhi-110049 Delhi-110001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aagpg6935L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Somil Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, arising out of the Penalty order dated 07.12.2021 passed by ACIT-61(1) New Delhi, Under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The matter relates to an order ... limbs. It is a settled principle of law that the Assessing Officer should issue notice against the assessee alleging violation of provision under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and in this particular case the Assessing Officer was not sure while issuing show cause notice under Section 271(1

Hakikat Saraf, Kanpur vs. Income Tax Officer-2(5), Kanpur

ITA 247/LKW/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary, Member A.Y. 2014-15 Hakikat Saraf, Income Tax Officer-2(5), 124/B/168, Govind Nagar, Vs. Kanpur Kanpur-208006 Pan:Afpps4419H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.10.2024 O R D E R Per Sh. Nikhil Choudhary: This Is An Appeal Against The Order Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Passed By The Cit(A)-1, Kanpur Dated 24.01.2017. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “01. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.47,33,000/- Under Section 56(2)(Vii)(B)(Ii) Of The I.T. Act, 1961, Which Addition Is Contrary To Facts, Bad In Law & Be Deleted. 02. Because The Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Has Arbitrarily Held, That The Difference Between The Actual Gross Consideration Rs. 1,09,34,000/- & The Stamp Value Estimated By The Stamp Valuation Authorities, Subsequently Reduced By The District Valuation Officer At Rs. 1,56,67,600/- Is Deemed Income Under Section 56(2)(Vii)(B)(Ii) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl CIT DR
Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

Rs.47,33,000/- needed to be brought to tax as per the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii). Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were also initiated. 3. The assessee was aggrieved at the addition and therefore, filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before

Ayyappankavu Chandrasekharan Vijayalakshmi, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-14(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2136/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2136/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ayyappankavu Chandrasekharan Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Vijayalakshmi, 4, Thiruvengadam Income Tax, Street, West Mambalam, Corporate Circle 14(1), Chennai 600 033. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aadpv3516D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Kumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.05.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. We Find That This Appeal Was Filed With A Delay Of 22 Days. On Perusal Of The Petition Filed In Support Of Notarized Affidavit, Submissions Of The Ld. Ar & Ld. Dr, We Find The Reasons Explained By The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri R. Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)

time. Thus, the delay of 22 days is condoned. 3. At the outset, we note that the Assessing Officer imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] for concealment of particulars of income. On perusal of the penalty order, we note that ... confirmed the addition to an extent of ₹.9,55,706/- for want of vouchers and the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same. The ld. AR argued that no penalty is maintainable

Hatim Glazing & Cladding Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 5(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 907/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shalin S. DivatiaFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 251(2)Section 269TSection 271ESection 40

Assessee challenging the Order, dated 09/02/2024 passed by the CIT(A) dismissing the appeal against the Penalty Order, dated 03/03/2022, passed under Section 271(1)(E) of the Act on the ground of non-prosecution. 12. We have, hereinabove, already restored the appeal against the quantum order before

Hatim Glazing & Cladding Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 5(1)(1). Mumbai, Mumbai

ITA 906/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shalin S. DivatiaFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 251(2)Section 269TSection 271ESection 40

Assessee challenging the Order, dated 09/02/2024 passed by the CIT(A) dismissing the appeal against the Penalty Order, dated 03/03/2022, passed under Section 271(1)(E) of the Act on the ground of non-prosecution. 12. We have, hereinabove, already restored the appeal against the quantum order before

Anil Kumar, Sirsa, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-, Sirsa

Appeal is allowed for statical purposes

ITA 262/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2012-13 Vs. Income Anil Kumar, 10, Near Tax Officer, Bus Stand Huda Ward, Sirsa Complex, Sirsa, Haryana-125 055 Pan :Anhpk2367C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Parth Singhal, Ca Department By Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr, Dr

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), New Delhi arising out of the order dated 20.12.2019 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Sirsa, under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2012-13. Page1 2. At the time of hearing the instant appeal the Learned

Sukumar Buildwell Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle 26, New Delhi

ITA 2101/DEL/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. Dcit Central Circle 26 M/S Sukumar Buildwell Private Limited, 914, 9Th New Delhi Floor, D-Mall, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi- 110034 Pan :Aaics7517H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms Shilpi Jain, Ca Department By Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr, Dr

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Delhi arising out of the penalty order dated 04.08.2021 passed by the DCIT, Central Circle-26, New Delhi, under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2008-09. Page1 2. The matter relates to an order of penalty imposed on the assessee dated ... limbs. It is a settled principle of law that the Assessing Officer should issue notice against the assessee alleging violation of provision under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and in this particular case the Assessing Officer was not sure while issuing show cause notice under Section 271(1

Parexel International Services India Pvt.Ltd, Chandigarh vs. ACIT, Circle-5(1), (Neac), Chandigarh

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

ITA 129/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, CAFor Respondent: Shri Reuben Mathew Jacob, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(C)

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO erred in imposing penalty under Section 271(1)(C) of the Act. The Appellant prays that appropriate relief be granted. The above grounds are without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave

Alok Joshi, Uttrakhand vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3219/MUM/2024[AY 2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2024

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Ms. Kshipra Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 246ASection 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

Yogender Mohan Rustagi, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle 28, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 461/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Yogender Mohan Rustagi Vs Acit Central Circle -28 548/549 Katra Ishwar Bhawan Delhi Khari Baoli Delhi-110006 Pan No. Agupr9629J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271A

Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section ... Ginning Factory (supra) their lordship had observed as under:- "Notice under section 274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. Sending printed form where all the grounds

Sudhir Shankar Halwasiya, Lucknow vs. ACIT-3, Lucknow

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

ITA 201/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Sudhir Shankar Halwasiya, The Acit-Iii, Halwasiya Court, Hazratganj, Vs. Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226001 Lucknow-226001 Pan:Aanph9171L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024 O R D E R Per Sh. Nikhil Choudhary: This Is An Appeal Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, On 3.11.2023, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee, Which Was Filed Against The Order Passed By The Acit-3, Lucknow Under Section 143(3) On 20.12.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. CIT DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250

ledger, of Rs. 3,85,73,095/-, to the income of the assessee, charged interest on the same and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). 5. Aggrieved with the said addition, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), Lucknow on 23.01.2019. The case was subsequently

Vadodara Enviro Channel Ltd., (Formerly Known As Effluent Channel Project Ltd.), Vadodara vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(2), Vadodara

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2094/AHD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

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

separate appellate orders dated 19.06.2015 and 16.06.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Ahmedabad confirming the levy of Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income I.T.A Nos. 2387/Ahd/15 & 2094/Ahd/17 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 2 Vadodara Enviro Channel Ltd. vs. ACIT Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter

Vadodara Enviro Channel Ltd. (Formerly Known As Effluent Channel Project Ltd.), Baroda vs. The ACIT., Circle-1(2), Baroda

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2387/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

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

separate appellate orders dated 19.06.2015 and 16.06.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Ahmedabad confirming the levy of Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income I.T.A Nos. 2387/Ahd/15 & 2094/Ahd/17 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 2 Vadodara Enviro Channel Ltd. vs. ACIT Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter

Shri Prakash Jiwandas Wanjari, Nagpur vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur

In the result, we are of the considered view that the case on hand does not warrant levy of penalty under Section 271D of the Act

ITA 232/NAG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 269SSection 271DSection 273ASection 80C

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

Vimal Todi, Indore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Indore

Appeals are allowed

ITA 190/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 153ASection 253(5)Section 269SSection 271D

190/Ind/2024 - AY 2012-13 to 2014-15 11. The only case of the assessee is that if the period of limitation prescribed in Section 271(1)(c) is reckoned from the date of the assessment order dated 6.11.2007, the penalty order passed by the Joint Commissioner on 29.7.2008 is beyond

Vimal Todi, Indore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Indore

Appeals are allowed

ITA 189/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 153ASection 253(5)Section 269SSection 271D

190/Ind/2024 - AY 2012-13 to 2014-15 11. The only case of the assessee is that if the period of limitation prescribed in Section 271(1)(c) is reckoned from the date of the assessment order dated 6.11.2007, the penalty order passed by the Joint Commissioner on 29.7.2008 is beyond

DCIT, Central Cir-2, Madurai vs. J S Nihar Banu, Palakkad

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

ITA 445/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355, 356, 357 & 358 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 32, 33, 34 & 35 /Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S.Achu Traders, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, No. 11/1288, Madurai M.Pudur Main Road, Vs. Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 [Pan: Aapfa8131B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.359, 360, 361 & 362 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 36, 37, 38 & 39/Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri M.Shahjahan, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Prop. M/S. Madeena Traders Madurai No.Vii/561, M.Pudur Main Road, Vs Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aiyps1815P]

For Appellant: D. Anand, Advocate
Section 40A(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘बी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरि, न्यागिक