← 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)

Anotra Realators Private Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT (Central)- 1, Chennai

ITA 1451/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024AY 2016-17
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69A

Revenue in as much as penalty proceedings was initiated under wrong section of 271AAC of the Act instead of the provision of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In response to the show-cause notice, the assessee filed reply but the PCIT was not convinced and passed the revision ... Manasvi vs. CIT reported in [19720 86 ITR 557 (SC) and there, it has been laid down that what is contemplated by section 271(1) of the Act is that the AO should have been satisfied in the course of assessment proceedings regarding matters mentioned in clause (a), (b) and/or

Spykar Lifestyles Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-13(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 792/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Jha & Dr. Prayag JhaFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 4(2)

assessee had made application under the DTVSVA, 2020 in respect of appeal filed against order imposing penalty of Rs.1,70,000/- under section 271(1)(c) for the A Y 2009-10. 4. The Ld Additional/JCIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the appeal against the penalty order was pending

D R Coats Ink and Resins Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 12(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3188/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. D/R
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was bad in law as it did not specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated. Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case

Om Developers, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) Income Tax Dept, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1006/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyalom Developers, Office No. 14, Mahavir Centre, Sector-17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Maharashtra-400 703 Pan: Aaafo9862A ..... Appellant Vs. Cit (A)/Nfac/Ito-27(2) I.T. Office, Vashi Railway Station, Navi Mumbai- 400 705 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Natekar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri H. M. Bhatt, Ld. DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Bijender Kumar, Greaer Noida vs. ITO, Noida

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

ITA 1672/DEL/2024[2012 13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2024

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Raghuraj Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr.DR
Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 282

impugned assessment order is arbitrary, illegal, bad in law in violation of rudimentary principal of contemporary jurisprudence. 8. That the provisions of section 271(1) (C) is not justify the case of the applicant. 9. That the impugned Assessment order passed by Ld. Assessing Officer, Noida is a clear ... heard. 3. That Learned Assessing Officer has erred in law as well as on facts in determining the taxable income and Penalty under section 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act 1961, 4. That Learned Assessing Officer has made addition of Rs 56,61,750/- and make penalty

Bijender Kumar, Greater Noida vs. ITO, Noida

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

ITA 1671/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Raghuraj Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr.DR
Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 282

impugned assessment order is arbitrary, illegal, bad in law in violation of rudimentary principal of contemporary jurisprudence. 8. That the provisions of section 271(1) (C) is not justify the case of the applicant. 9. That the impugned Assessment order passed by Ld. Assessing Officer, Noida is a clear ... heard. 3. That Learned Assessing Officer has erred in law as well as on facts in determining the taxable income and Penalty under section 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act 1961, 4. That Learned Assessing Officer has made addition of Rs 56,61,750/- and make penalty

Sri. Gandhinagara Narayana Harikrishna Rai, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1314/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2016-17 Shri. Gandhinagara Narayana Harikrishna Rai, Vs. Ito, No.3907, Panchavati, 12Th Main, Ward – 5(3)(2), Kumarswamy Layout, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 078. Pan : Abjph 8664 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Pranav Krishna, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 13.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.08.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(C)

advice of his tax consultant who advised to accept the Assessment Order. Accordingly assessee did not pursue the appeal. Thereafter, the penalty under section 271(1)(C) of the Act was imposed on the assessee on 17.02.2022 and appeal from the penalty order was dismissed and penalty amounting to Rs.4 ... appeal before the FAA. I find that initially assessee had accepted the Assessment Order. However, on receipt of the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(C) of the Act and further the appellate order confirming the imposition of penalty, assessee sought professional advice from the present Counsel

Parshv Housing, Bhopal vs. ITO NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 280/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore12 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniparshv Housing Ito, Nfac S 16 Gurukripa Plaza Zone Ii Delhi Mp Nagar Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aapfp1746B Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.08.2024

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

raised following grounds of appeal: “1 Ground 1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c)is bad in law ITANo.280/Ind/2024 Parshv Housing since there is no such case of concealment of income and should be annulled. 2. That

Priority Jewels Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), Appeals

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 3196/Mum/2024 is

ITA 3196/MUM/2024[AY 2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2024

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 246ASection 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

impugned order was emanated from the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 10(3)(2), Mumbai (the Ld.AO) passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, dt of order 31/07/2018. 2. 2 ITA No.3196 /Mum/2024 Priority Jewels Private Limited The assessee has taken the following grounds ... opinion which was taken subsequently. When the difference of opinions leads to any addition, it cannot turn into a penalty under section 271 (1) (c) of the Act. As per the facts of the case under appeal. Ld. CIT (appeals) had reduced the estimated addition by one percentage point

Swaminarayan Co.Op.Bank Ltd., Baroda vs. The ACIT, Circle-3(1), Baroda

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1411/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1411/Ahd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11 Swaminarayan Co-Op. Bank Ltd. The Acit बना 1, Ashok Chambers Circle-3(1) Opp. Pathak Gate Police Station Ahmedabad म/ Madanzampa Road V/S. Vadodara 390 001 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaaas 1932 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) …… "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashish Kanabar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashok Natha Bhalekar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 07/08/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 9/08/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Order Dated 08/07/2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Vadodara [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)” In Short] Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Dated 27/02/2019 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11. Swaminarayan Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Vs. Acit Asst. Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Kanabar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Natha Bhalekar, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 35A

referred to as “the Ld.CIT(A)” in short] arising out of the penalty order dated 27/02/2019 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11. Swaminarayan ... accepted or were not acceptable to the revenue, that itself does not attract the penalty u/s 271(1)(c). 2. No penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be levied when all necessary facts were disclosed and there is no concealment. 3. Notice issued under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1

M/S. Oceanic Infrastructure Park Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Circle-1, Chennai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1629/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1629/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri R.Viswanathan, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

returned income. In fact both the assesse as well as the Ld.AO have invoked section 37(1) for the impugned disallowance. Section 271(1) (c) of the Act postulates that an assesse found guilty of any concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income would be liable

Arulsundaram Nithya, Erode vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1112/CHNY/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1112/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. Smt.Arulsundaram Nithya, The Acit, 11, Poondurai Road, Circle-1, Ragupathinaickenpalayam, Erode. Erode-638 002. [Pan: Abspn 5094 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

Charanjit Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 45(3), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5517/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Before Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble Vice Before Before Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble Vice Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Bleshri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & And & Shri M. Balaganesh Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon’Ble Accountant Shri M. Balaganesh Shri M. Balaganesh , Hon’Ble Accountant , Hon’Ble, Hon’Blemember Member

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Kohli, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur, Senior DR
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Appeals)-15, Delhi. Out of these appeals, two arise out of quantum proceedings, whereas, the rest two arise out of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). Appeals pertain to assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. ITA Nos.4395/Del/2016 & 4396/Del/2016 ... quantum appeals (supra) we have decided the issues in favour of the assessee and deleted the additions based on which penalties under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were imposed, the penalties so imposed cannot survive. Accordingly, the penalties imposed are deleted. 11. In the result, all the appeals

Charanjit Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 45(3), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5516/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Before Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble Vice Before Before Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble Vice Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Bleshri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & And & Shri M. Balaganesh Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon’Ble Accountant Shri M. Balaganesh Shri M. Balaganesh , Hon’Ble Accountant , Hon’Ble, Hon’Blemember Member

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Kohli, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur, Senior DR
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Appeals)-15, Delhi. Out of these appeals, two arise out of quantum proceedings, whereas, the rest two arise out of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). Appeals pertain to assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. ITA Nos.4395/Del/2016 & 4396/Del/2016 ... quantum appeals (supra) we have decided the issues in favour of the assessee and deleted the additions based on which penalties under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were imposed, the penalties so imposed cannot survive. Accordingly, the penalties imposed are deleted. 11. In the result, all the appeals

Shri Charanjit Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 45(4), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4396/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Before Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble Vice Before Before Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble Vice Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Bleshri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & And & Shri M. Balaganesh Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon’Ble Accountant Shri M. Balaganesh Shri M. Balaganesh , Hon’Ble Accountant , Hon’Ble, Hon’Blemember Member

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Kohli, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur, Senior DR
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Appeals)-15, Delhi. Out of these appeals, two arise out of quantum proceedings, whereas, the rest two arise out of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). Appeals pertain to assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. ITA Nos.4395/Del/2016 & 4396/Del/2016 ... quantum appeals (supra) we have decided the issues in favour of the assessee and deleted the additions based on which penalties under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were imposed, the penalties so imposed cannot survive. Accordingly, the penalties imposed are deleted. 11. In the result, all the appeals

Shri Charanjit Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 45(4), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4395/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Before Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble Vice Before Before Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble Vice Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Bleshri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & And & Shri M. Balaganesh Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon’Ble Accountant Shri M. Balaganesh Shri M. Balaganesh , Hon’Ble Accountant , Hon’Ble, Hon’Blemember Member

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Kohli, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur, Senior DR
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Appeals)-15, Delhi. Out of these appeals, two arise out of quantum proceedings, whereas, the rest two arise out of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). Appeals pertain to assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. ITA Nos.4395/Del/2016 & 4396/Del/2016 ... quantum appeals (supra) we have decided the issues in favour of the assessee and deleted the additions based on which penalties under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were imposed, the penalties so imposed cannot survive. Accordingly, the penalties imposed are deleted. 11. In the result, all the appeals

Lks Bullion (Import and Export) Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal by Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 382/AHD/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.382/Ahd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11 L.K.S. Bullion (Import & The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Export) Pvt.Ltd. Ward-2(1)(3) 368, Lks House, Ahmedabad – 380 014 V/S. Khetarpal-Ni-Pole Manek Chowk Ahmedabad -380 001 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaacl 7369 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Alpesh Parmar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05/08/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/08/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Order Dated 27/08/2022 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)” In Short] Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 18/12/2017 By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income L.K.S. Bullion (Import & Export) Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, Sr.DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act is accordingly deleted. With the deletion of the addition, the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act becomes unjustified and is accordingly quashed. Accordingly, these grounds of the assessee’s appeal are allowed. 11. In the result

Babu Lal Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 5(1), Jaipur

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 356/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C(1)

favour. The observation as made by the AO in his Penalty Order is reproduced as under:- ‘’In view of the above provision of section 271(1)(c) and habitual non- responsive attitude of the assessee, it is evident that the assessee has nothing to offer and the assessee has willfully ... concealed the particulars of income within the provision of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act 1961. In view of above. I am satisfied that it is a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. The quantum of penalty levy

Gopaliyengar Madabushi Muralidhar, Bengaluru vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(4), Bengaluru

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

ITA 956/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari (Accountant Member), Shri Keshav Dubey (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Pai, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

losses is required to be granted. 4. Initiation of penalty proceedings 4.1. The Learned AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3 Gopaliyengar Madabushi Muralidhar 5. Other grounds: 5.1. The Learned AO has erred in law and on facts in levying interest

DCIT, Central Circle - 7(1), Mumbai vs. Maneesh Pharmaceuticals Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 964/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Maneesh Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Tax, Vs. 29-33, Ancillary Industrial Central Circle – 7(1), Plots, Near M Ward, Mumbai Govandi, Mumbai – 400 043 (Pan : Aaacm3635Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Jaypraksh Bairagra, Ca Revenue : Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit, Dr

For Appellant: Shri Jaypraksh Bairagra, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT, DR
Section 10BSection 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

sought to be evaded by the assessee for the year under consideration cannot be determined in the manner provided in Explanation 4 to Section 271(1) of the Act.” 3. Present appeal is the result of set aside order passed by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Mumbai in assessee ... claim of deduction cannot be considered as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 5.2. Ld. CIT(A) further dealt with Explanation 4 to section 271(1)(c) which deals with the expression “the amount of tax sought to be evaded” and observed that merely because assessee was found to have