← 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)

Kanan Knitwear, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 23(1), Piramal Chambers, Mumbai

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

ITA 1993/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjeeand Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Anil J Sathe, CAFor Respondent: ShriP.D. Chougule (Addl.CIT) SR DR
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

date of order19.02.2024.The impugned order was emanated from the order of the National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi (hereinafter, ‘the Ld. AO’) passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, date of order02/01/2022. 2 Kanan Knitwear 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds:- “1. The learned CIT(A) erred ... appreciating that the mere denial or non- acceptance of a claim could not result in a | penalty under section 271(1)(c). 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that a difference in opinion on the nature of the loss whether capital or revenue would not in itself

Mumbai Police Wefare Fund, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-17(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1219/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjeeand Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: ShriP.D.Chougule(Addl.CIT) SR DR
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

order 08.03.2024.The impugnedorder was emanated from the order of the ld. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Ward-17(2), Mumbai passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, order dated 26/06/2019. 2 Mumbai Police Welfare Fund 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds: - “The Commissioner of Income ... filed under section 148 is duly accepted and the demand was Nil for the impugned assessment year. The Ld.AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) 3 Mumbai Police Welfare Fund of the Act. As the income was first identified by the revenue authorities on that basis, the penalty

Vikas Sharma, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 55(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 290/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Sumit Lalchandani, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Monika Dhami, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 69A

234B of the Act. The interest has also been wrongly worked out. The AO has also erred in initiating the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 3. The notice issued u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer

The E & Nf Railway Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 37, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 709/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, The E&Nf Railway Co- Circle-37, Operative Bank Ltd. 3, Govt. Place (West), 34A & B, Sashi Bhusan Vs. Dey Street, Room No.13, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700 012 Kolkata-700 001, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaae3431A Assessee By : Shri N.C. Mondal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Bonnine Debbarma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.08.2024

For Appellant: Shri N.C. Mondal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Bonnine Debbarma, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(vii)

Income- tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 13th January, 2016. The penalty was levied by ACIT Circle-37, Kolkata under section 271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 26th July, 2016. 02. The only issue for our consideration is that whether the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming ... action of the learned The E & NF Railway Co-operative Bank Ltd; A.Y. 2013-14 Assessing Officer levying the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act at ₹44,00,917/-. 03. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records placed before us and carefully gone through

Sh. Puneet Narang, Bharatpur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Bharatpur

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

ITA 870/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: AO in response to notice issued under section 143 (2) of the Income Tax Act however, default was same and, therefore penalty of Rs.10,000 could be imposed for first default made by the appellant in this regard only. As penalty under section 272A(1) (d) could not be imposed for each and every notice issued under section 143 (2), that remained not complied with, on the part of the appellant. The provisions of section 272A (1) (d) are of deterrent in nature and not for earning revenue, therefo

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 142Section 143Section 143(2)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)Section 272ASection 272A(1)Section 272A(1)(d)

notice under section 148 as well as notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act. The AO has initiated the proceedings under section 271(1)(b) for non compliance of notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act. The details of the notices issued under section 142(1 ... assessee is without any substance or merits. Hence, in the facts. and circumstances of the case, we restrict the penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Act to one default as against 4 defaults treated by the AO. Accordingly, the penalty under section 271(1

Data Ingenious Global Limited, Alwar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar

ITA 652/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Aug 2024AY 2011-12
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)

deserves to be quashed. 4. That the ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) –IV, Jaipur upholding the invocation of Explanation 5A to section 271(1)© of the Income Tax Act, 1961,whereas the Explanation 5A to section_271(1)© has no application in as much as, the said explanation

Rajiv Pratap Joshi, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)-Kalyan, Thane

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

ITA 3329/MUM/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“learned CIT(A)”], which in turn arose from the penalty order dated 14/09/2022 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - “1. The Learned ... assessee on the ground of delay without adjudicating the grounds raised by the assessee on merits against the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. From the perusal of the impugned order, we find that in Form No. 35, the assessee requested for condonation of delay

Stillwater Defence Textile Technologies, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-1(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1249/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Swapnil NewaskarFor Respondent: Shri Avinash Baburao Karpe
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

dated 29/03/2019, levying penalty of INR 6,16,829/-passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 143(3) read with section 271(1)( c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟). 2. When the Appeal was taken up for hearing, Learned Authorised ... Before us it was contended by the Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee that continuation of Penalty proceedings and levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act pursuant to the Assessment order, Order 29/12/2016, which 2 Assessment Year: 2014-15 has since been set aside by Order

Lakhram Goyal, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward 1(4), Gurgaon

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

ITA 3169/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Lakhram Goyal, Vs Ito, House No.436/16, Civil Lines, Ward-1(4), Gurgaon, Haryana-122001. Gurgaon. Pan-Bjrpg2764E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajit Gandhi, Ca Respondent By Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 21.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27.08.2024 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi Dated 16.11.2022 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

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

Center Delhi. 6. It was learnt for the first time upon receipt of a notice dated 31.10.2023 issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, received from the from the Office Of The Income Tax Officer Ward 1(4) Gurgaon levy

Sukhbir Singh, Dadri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1257/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Pareekassessment Year 2011-12

For Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(b)

Centre (NFAC), Delhi [‘CIT(A)’ in short] dated 06.05.2021 arising from the penalty order dated 22.04.2019 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning A.Y. 2011-12. 2. As per the grounds of appeal, the assessee has challenged ... imposition of penalty of Rs.10,000/- under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for default in compliance of the notices issued in the course of re-assessment proceedings. 3. It is the contention of the assessee that he is a senior citizen and patient of uncontrolled diabetes

Fabrikant Trading (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 5(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 474/MUM/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant Modi/Ms. KetkiFor Respondent: Ms Usha Gaikwad, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69C

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], which in turn arose from the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, for the assessment year 2007–08. Fabrikant Trading (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2. In its appeal, the assessee has raised ... ground no.2, raised in assessee’s appeal, is a jurisdictional issue and pertains to the validity of notice issued under section 274 r/w section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The brief facts of the case, as emanating from the record, are: The assessee is in the business

Babubhai Punmaji Gehlot, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(3), Ahmedabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1034/AHD/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vayawala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 1034/Ahd/2019 relates to order passed by Ld. CIT(A) upholding the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in relation to quantum proceedings for the same assessment year. Since common facts and issues for consideration are involved ... added the same to the total income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. The said assessment order was passed on 31.12.2009. 5. The assessee filed appeal against aforesaid assessment order of Ld. Assessing Officer

Babubhai Punmaji Gehlot, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(3), Ahmedabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1033/AHD/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vayawala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 1034/Ahd/2019 relates to order passed by Ld. CIT(A) upholding the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in relation to quantum proceedings for the same assessment year. Since common facts and issues for consideration are involved ... added the same to the total income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. The said assessment order was passed on 31.12.2009. 5. The assessee filed appeal against aforesaid assessment order of Ld. Assessing Officer

Smt. Maya K. Dharwani, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2094/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.2094/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Smt. Maya K. Dharwani The Income Tax Officer Block No.88, B Ward बनाम/ Ward-7(2)(3) Opp. Railway Station Ahmedabad V/S. Kuber Nagar Ahmedabad - 382 340 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aefpd 1506 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) ….. "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Divatia, Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 12/08/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/08/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, ARFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54ESection 54F

Ld.CIT(A)” in short] arising out of the penalty order dated 17/08/2017 passed by the ITO, Ward-7(2)(3), Ahmedabad (AO) under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. Facts ... particulars. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the Revenue rightly imposed the penalty for intentionally furnishing inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Act relating to quantum of incorrect deduction under section 54EC of the Act. 7.2. So far as the quantum of penalty

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. S. Deepalakshmi, Panruti

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 991/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:991/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 The Deputy Commissioner Of Ms. S. Deepalakshmi, Income Tax, Vs. No.190, Annai Indira Gandhi Central Circle -2(2), Salai, Chennai. Panruti – 607 108. Pan: Awtpd 8317Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Smt. R. Anita, Addl. Cit ""यथ"क" ओर से/Respondent By : None सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Chennai - 19 Dated 13.02.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cuddalore Circle, Cuddalore For The Assessment Year 2016-17 U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 31.12.2018. 2. The Sole Issue In This Appeal Of Revenue Is As Regards To The Order Of Cit(A) Deleting The Penalty Levied By Ao U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act Amounting To Rs.51,18,200/- For The Reason That There Is No Specific Charge Framed While Initiating Penalty U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act I.E., Whether Assessee Has Concealed The Particulars Of Income Or Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income.

For Appellant: Smt. R. Anita, Addl. CITFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,‘सी’ "यायपीठ,चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "संह

DCIT, Circle-25(1), New Delhi vs. Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 9404/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: this tribunal which was decided vide order dated 16.03.2023 after the issuance of Form 5 under VSVS. He submitted that in view of the aforesaid, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') against the original assessment, which is challenged by the Revenue in the present appeal, does not survive and the same may be deleted and the appeal be dismissed.

For Appellant: Shri Suyansh Sinha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT DR
Section 271(1)(c)

order dated 16.03.2023 after the issuance of Form 5 under VSVS. He submitted that in view of the aforesaid, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) against the original assessment, which is challenged by the Revenue in the present

Tej Organisers Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 50/AHD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah & Shri Gulab Thakor, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

added to the total income as unexplained investment. Penalty proceedings under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) were initiated separately for concealment of income. 4. In appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals) observed that the AO noted a discrepancy between the closing balance of a loan advance to Shri Kanaiyo

Cma Cgm Agencies India Private Limited, Elphinstone Road-West, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 1454/PUN/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1454/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Cma Cgm Agencies India Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Private Limited, One International Centre, Tower-3, 8Th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphistone Road- West, Mumbai- 400013. Pan : Aadcc3951G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mahenov Thakkar Revenue By : Shri Nitin Patil Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.08.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.11.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “Disallowance Under Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Act Amounting To Rs.4,86,77,518/- 1. Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Learned Assessing Officer (‘Ao’) & Holding That Payment Of It Services To Be In The Nature Of Royalty Under Section 9(1)(Vi) Of The Act/ Fees For Technical Services Under Section 9(1)(Vii) Of The Act;

For Appellant: Mahenov ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Patil
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 195Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

erred in holding that leased line services providing high bandwidth cannot be maintained without human interference; Initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 5. erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify

Kadungamparambil Manual George Joseph, Ernakulam vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward 2(4) & Tps, Kochi

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 9/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Lakshmi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 1Section 143(3)

justicein assessee’s case. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. 8. We now proceed to deal with the consequential section 271B and section 271(1)(c) penalties for concealment and furnishing of inaccrate particulars of income involving varyig sums in these appeals. Learned DR seeks to submit that

Kadungamparambil Manual George Joseph, Ernakulam vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward 2(4) & Tps, Kochi

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 8/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Lakshmi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 1Section 143(3)

justicein assessee’s case. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. 8. We now proceed to deal with the consequential section 271B and section 271(1)(c) penalties for concealment and furnishing of inaccrate particulars of income involving varyig sums in these appeals. Learned DR seeks to submit that