“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)

Bindu Ketan Dhami, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 29(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 4005/MUM/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2024AY 2013-2014

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Singh

Section 2Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

whereby the CIT(A) had dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Assessee against the penalty order, dated 26/08/2016, passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act levying penalty of INR 3,66,225/- for the Assessment Year 2013-14. A.Y.2013-14 2. The Appellant has raised following grounds of appeal ... merit of the case. 2. Under the facts and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") of Rs 3,66,225/- 3. Under the facts

Kothari Jewels Private Limied, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal, file filed by the assessee stands party allowed with no order as to cost

ITA 964/JPR/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary,JCIT-DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

return of income which was accepted without any additions vide order 31 March 2013. Thereafter penalty amounting to 4.00.00 was levied under section 271(1)© of the income tax act. 2.2 Being aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) but the appeal was dismissed. 2.3 Thereafter, during ... No.1 raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order of Ld CIT (A) in confirming the action of AO in imposing penalty section 271(1)(c ) of the Act without specifying or pointing out in the show cause notice as to whether the penalty was proposed on concealment

Jignesh Pravinbhai Rana, Gandhinagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 913/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Nargas, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 2Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

assessee has also filed the similar affidavit as to the delay of filing the appeal by 94 days in the matter of Section 271(1)© and 124 days in the matter of Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. It may be noted that the assessee was ex-parte before

Mr. Kantilal Laxmichand Jain, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 800/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 799 & 800/Ahd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15) बनाम/ Mr. Kantilal Laxmichand Ito Jain Ward - 1(2)(3), Vs. 22 Jakorbal Chamber, Opp. Ahmedabad Madhubaug Panchkuwa, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380002 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abbpj6013E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Malay Kalavadia, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. Dr 19/09/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 03/10/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’), Dated 29.12.2023 & 28.12.2023 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Malay Kalavadia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249Section 249(4)Section 69A

facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in confirming initiation of penalty proceedings by learned AO under section 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act.” 7. Shri Malay Kalavadia, Ld. AR appearing for the assessee submitted that the assesse being senior

Mr. Kantilal Laxmichand Jain, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 799/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Malay Kalavadia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249Section 249(4)Section 69A

Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 899/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Ecospace, Campus 2B, 11F/12 Aayakar Bhavan, P-7, (Old Plot No. Aa Ii/Blk 3), Chowringhee Square, Vs New Town, Rajarhat, Kolkata - 700069 North 24 Paragans, Kolkata - 7000156 (Pan: Aaccs5491A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Abhishek Sureka, Ar Respondent By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, Dr Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.10.2024 O R D E R Per Rakesh Mishra: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-I, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Ays 2009-10 & 2013- 14, Dated 28.02.2018 & 13.03.2018 Respectively. Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of Vide This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience. Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Limited.: Ays: 2009-10 & 2013-14 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Sureka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR

Section 234CSection 250Section 37Section 40

towards sale of land while computing capital gains as per Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 7) For that, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in treating the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1

Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1145/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Sureka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR

Section 234CSection 250Section 37Section 40

M/S. Vijay Jewellers, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax -19(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4204/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Hrithik Yadav / Shri DevangFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon SRDR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

impugned orders were emanated from the orders of the Learned National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (in brevity the ld. AO), orders passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, date of orders 16/03/2022 for A.Y. 2012-13 and 17/03/2022 for A.Y. 2011-12. 2. Both the appeals have common ... assessee filed appeals before the ld. CIT(A). But later on, the appeals were withdrawn. The ld.AO, by invoking the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, initiated the concealment penalty proceedings by issuance of notice under section 274 read with section 271(1

M/S. Vijay Jewellers, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax -19(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4203/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Hrithik Yadav / Shri DevangFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon SRDR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Narangi Land Development Corporation, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-17(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2735/MUM/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaranarangi Land Ito-Ward –25(3)(1) Developmentcorporation, R.No.116, Kautilya बनाम/ 407B, Gokul Arcade “A”, Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Swamy Nityanand Marg, Bandra (East) Vile Parle (E), Mumbai – 400051. Mumbai-400057. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaan3465B (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh Desai.ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

appeal , the CIT(A) has granted the relief and partly allowed the assessee appeal. 5. Subsequently the Assessing Officer has issued notice under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and has initiated the levy of penalty on the land development expenses claim sustained ... explanations. The Assessing Officer considering the information on record has levied a penalty of Rs.11,99,227/- and passed the order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act 30.01.2020. 6. Aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A), whereas

M/S. Shree Swaminarayan Enterprises, Thane vs. ITO- 2(4), Thane

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

ITA 462/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Smt Renu Jauhrim/S. Shree Swaminarayan Ito Ward 2(4), Enterprises, Room No. 25, B Wing, बनाम/ Plot No.30, Jeevandeep, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park Vs. Opp: Shivdham Complex, Road No 162,Wagle Suryodaya Housing Society, Industrial Estate Ambernath (E) Thane (W)-421301 Thane-421501. Maharashtra. Maharashtra. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abofs3402K (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri.Niraj Seth.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Krishna kumar.Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-21 has erred in confirming the order of Assessing officer, imposing penalty of Rs. 9,28,086 under section 271(1)(c) of Income tax Act, unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law stating that the 2 ITA.No.462/Mum/2024. M/s Shree Swaminarayan Enterprises., Mumbai Appellant ... months from the date of receipt of order of Honorable CIT(A) which was passed on 21.08.2018 and the passing of order under Section 271(1)(c) expired on 31.03.2019. 1.3 The Ld. AO has passed the order of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on 25.03.2022 i.e. after lapse

Jagdishchandra Prahladdas Pasari, Thane vs. ITO Ward 14, Thane

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6263/MUM/2019[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2024AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal, Accountantjagdishchandra Prahaladdas Pasari 503/D, Santoor Apts., Pokhran Road No. 2, Thane West, Thane Maharashtra – 400 601 Pan No.: Aagpp0103M ...... Appellant Vs. Ito Ward 14, 6Th Floor, Aksar It Park, Road No. 16Z, Nehru Nagar, Wagle Estate, Thane (W), Maharashtra – 400 604 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Ld. DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)Section 68

assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 2 Jagdishchandra Prahaladdas Pasari 1. On facts and in Law by upholding the penalty under section 271(1) (c) of the Act being estimated peak credit under Income tax act without considering the judicial and not applying the natural justice ... reveals that the addition was sustained on estimated basis and not on part-wise creditors. In the original assessment, no penalty proceeding under section 271(1(c) of the Act was initiated. In the reframed assessment penalty proceeding has been initiated. I have already explained that the addition

Rajeev Gupta S/O Lh Ramesh Chandra Gupta, Kanpur vs. ITO-3(3), Kanpur

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

ITA 368/LKW/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2012-13 Rajeev Gupta V. The Income Tax Officer 3(3) S/O/Legal Heir Of Late Kanpur Ramesh Chandra Gupta 133/118, Transport Nagar Kanpur Tan/Pan: (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rajeev Gupta (Assessee) Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18 09 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Gupta (Assessee)For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

income of the assessee at Rs.45,98,550/- as long term capital gain. 2.1 The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, vide order dated 26.06.2018 and subsequently imposed a penalty of Rs.9,10,000/-. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before ... raising the following grounds of appeal: ITA No.368/LKW/2024 Page 3 of 5 1. That in any view of the matter, penalty imposed under section 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act 1961 by order dated 26-06-2018 passed by the Learned Assessing officer, imposing a penalty of Rs.9

Co-Operative Cane Development Union Limited Maholi Ayyubi Chamber, Raniganj, Lakhimpur Kheri-262001, Lakhimpur Kheri vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Sitapur-New, Sitapur

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

ITA 164/LKW/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl CIT

Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80P

order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC under section 250 dismissing the appeal of the assessee filed against the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) by the Income Tax Officer, Sitapur. The grounds of appeal preferred are as under:- “(1) That the penalty notice issued ... interest on income tax refund and which was purportedly not disclosed in the return of income and subsequently initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) by way of issue of notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) dated 9.12.2016. A perusal of the said notice shows that

ACIT, Range-1, Lucknow vs. M/S Mohamed Bagh Club Ltd., Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 435/LKW/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y.-2014-15 Asstt. Commissioner Of M/S Mohamed Bagh Club, Limited, Income Tax, Range-I, Vs. 202, M.G. Marg, Lucknow-226001 Lucknow Pan:Aaccm2600B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rohit Bhalla, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2024 O R D E R Per Sh. Nikhil Choudhary: This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Lucknow Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 16.09.2020. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred Read As Under:-

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Bhalla, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. CIT

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

amount of Rs.2,79,02,368/-, refused any further deduction on account of any expense against this and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). 4. Aggrieved by the said assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that indirect

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolhpaur vs. Rbl Bank Ltd, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 657/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Inaccurate Income Rs1,49,91,74,149/- Tax on inaccurate income after surcharge Rs 50,95,69,294/- and cess Penalty leviable under section 271(1)c) 100% Rs.1,52,87,07,882/- to 300% of the tax payable Accordingly, a penalty of Rs 50,95,69,294/- is hereby ... mentioned anything about how the Assessee has filed “inaccurate particulars of income” in the impugned Penalty Order. 4.3. The relevant Section 271(1)(c ) is reproduced here under : 271. (1) If the [Assessing] Officer or the [***] [Commissioner (Appeals)] [or the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner] in the course of any proceedings

Shardul Singh, Jhunjhunu vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Jhunjhunu, Income Tax Officer Jhunjhunu

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the penalty levied is hereby dropped with no orders to cost

ITA 1061/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: passing the order u/s 271 (1) (c) 4 The AO imposed penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) without any ESTABLISHING Submission of A. Inaccurate facts/Statements B. without Establishing CONCEALMENT OF INCOME as all mentioned by him was fetched by Submission of the Assessee and without doing any Act to take correct decision to impose penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) 5. The AO not considered the Submitted Decisions of relavant courts furnished by the Assessee in his favour.” 2.1 The brief facts of the case are that asse

For Appellant: Shri Sumer Singh Shekhawat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary,JCIT-DR

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 80D

substantiate with documentary evidence. The assessment was completed under section 143 (3) read with section 147 and penalty proceedings were initiated under section 271(1)© of the Income Tax Act for furnishing Inaccurate particulars and thereafter penalty amounting to Rs. 2,53,160/- being 200% was imposed on account ... assessee is already facing great hardship and in my view, raising a claim, which could not be substantiated does not attract penalty under section 271(1)© of the Income Tax Act. On this preposition, I rely upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

Ram Kumar, Nehru Garden Colony vs. ITO Ward 2 Kaithal, Aaykar Bhawan, Ambala Road Kaithal

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 416/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar Singla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 69

said request for adjournment was however rejected including another identical case of assessee bearing ITA No. 416/Chd/2024 too was listed for penalty under section 271(1)(c). 16. That the records of the case were peursed by the Tribunal. Upon careful perusal it was noticed that impugned order ... appeal of the Assessee in ITA No. 416/Chd/2024. 26. The facts are common and only difference is that it deals with penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 27. By an order dt. 26/06/2019 the Ld. AO imposed penalty of 100% on the assessee under section 271(1

Ram Kumar, Nehru Garden Colony vs. ITO Ward 2, Kaithal

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 415/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar Singla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 69

Mr. Prasanna Kntilal Mehta, Pune vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Pune

ITA 661/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

penalty proceedings in this case are vitiated, as the Assessing Officer has failed to specify in the assessment order the charge/limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, for which the penalty has been initiated. The penalty order accordingly is invalid and ab-initio-void. The same ... cancelled/quashed. 3. The penalty proceedings in this case are vitiated, as there is ambiguity about the charge/limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, for which the penalty is initiated. The Assessing Officer has failed to strike off the Inappropriate/irrelevant charge/limb of section 271(1