← 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)

Ajoy Sharma, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur

ITA 544/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80C

here in after ‘NFAC') ] for assessment years 2012-13 to 2016-17 which in turn arise from the order dated 12.12.2018 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act [ here in after as Act ], by DCIT/ACIT, Circle-01, BTD. 2. ITA Nos. 543 to 547/JP/2024 Ajoy Sharma ... been completed under section 143(3)/148 on 23.08.2018 at an income of Rs. 14,09,150/-. While framing assessment, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income to the extent of wrong claim of deductions amounting to Rs 1

Ajoy Sharma, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur

The appeal of the appellant is partly allowed

ITA 543/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80C

here in after ‘NFAC') ] for assessment years 2012-13 to 2016-17 which in turn arise from the order dated 12.12.2018 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act [ here in after as Act ], by DCIT/ACIT, Circle-01, BTD. 2. ITA Nos. 543 to 547/JP/2024 Ajoy Sharma ... been completed under section 143(3)/148 on 23.08.2018 at an income of Rs. 14,09,150/-. While framing assessment, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income to the extent of wrong claim of deductions amounting to Rs 1

Alpa Rajesh Desai, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 467/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Anikesh Banerjeealpa Rajesh Desai Vs Ito 19(1)(1), Mumbai 15/32, Navjivan Society, Piramal Chambers, Lamington Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400 008 Pan : Aelpd3053K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Mona SolankiFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha(SR.DR.)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Admittedly, addition has been made on an estimated basis in all the three years under consideration. The question is whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act could be levied on addition made on estimated basis. This question was examined by the co- ordinate bench in assessee ... case and it was held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable on addition made on estimated basis. For the sake of convenience, we extract below the operative portion of the order passed by the co-ordinate bench in Assessment Year

Lalit Bhaskar Bhalerao, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, 2(5), Kalyan, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assesseeITA No

ITA 391/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi & Shri Anikesh Banerjeemr. Lalit Bhaskar Bhalerao Vs The Ito.W. 2(5), Kalyan Rom No. 25-B, 6Th Floor, Ashar It (Individual), Plot No. 56, Flat No. 101, Hansa Park, Wagale Indl, Estate, Apartment Kansai Section, Thane-400604 Ambernath East, Thane-421501 Pan : Ammpb3272D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Hetal LaghaveFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha(SRDR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 156Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275Section 44A

return U/s 44AD under the presumptive scheme. After completion of assessment, the Ld.AO proceeded to issue notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which is leviable amount to Rs.6 ... penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act 1961. With reference to levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) Explanation (1) to Section 271(1)(c) is reproduced hereunder in brief: "Where in respect of any facts material to computation of total income of any person under this

M/S Asha Technologies, Kala Amb vs. ITO, Sirmour

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

ITA 61/CHANDI/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Aditya Sood, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253Section 80I

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “ए” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING

M/S Asha Technologies, Sirmour vs. Addl. CIT, Solan

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

ITA 388/CHANDI/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jul 2024AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Aditya Sood, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253Section 80I

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “ए” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING

Phool Chand Meena, Jaipur vs. Rjn-W-(106)(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 361/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Jul 2024AY 2015-16
For Appellant: ShriAshish Khandelwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 69

area settee sitrper, oAGR =Uratls, GAR IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Sho Wa. Moree, ae

Phool Chand Meena, Jaipur vs. Rjn-W-(106)(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 360/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Jul 2024AY 2015-16
For Appellant: ShriAshish Khandelwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 69

area settee sitrper, oAGR =Uratls, GAR IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Sho Wa. Moree, ae

Ravikumar Jamatraj Shah, Mumbai vs. Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1646/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja M. Chhawachharia, C.A RevenueFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad vs. Lakhani Arman Shoes Private Limited, Faridabad

In the result, cross objection of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2926/DEL/2023[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

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

Court and Hon'ble Delhi High Court, as it was not made clear in the penalty notice as to under which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty was being levied and ld. CIT(A) has in fact erred in stating that furnishing of inaccurate particulars ... Assessing Officer is void ab initio, inasmuch as from the order of AO it is not clear under which limb of section 271(1)(c) penalty was levied i.e. whether the assessee has concealed its particulars of income; or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. He submitted, therefore, the subsequent

Prashant Jitendra Sarvaya, Mumbai vs. Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax 30 (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2376/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “C” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, ACCOUNTANT

Swan Petrchemicals Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. NFAC Delhi, Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 496/IND/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Jul 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Swan Petrochemicals Dcit (Central), Pvt.Ltd, Indore Unit No.308 Acme Plaza, Opp. Sangam Cinema, Vs. Andheri Kurlka, Maharashtra (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcr9592C Assessee By Shri Ajay Tulsiyan & Ms. Ruchira Singhal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.07.2024 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 43(5)

loss against the business income. The Ld. AR has submitted that the A.O has levied the penalty by relying on explanation-1 to Section 271(1)(c) whereas at the most it is a case of furnishing incorrect particulars of income and not concealment of particulars of income. Therefore

Kent Engineering India Private Limted, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Mumbai

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

ITA 4750/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm Kent Engineering India Private Limited 10Th Floor, Lal Bahadur Commissioner Of Income Shastri Marg, Vikharoli, Tax (Appeal), 1(2)(1), Gagorre Nagar, S.O. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Embassy 247, Tower C Mumbai-400 020 Vikhroli, Mumbai-400 083 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacr1966M Assessee By : Shri Niraj Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Shri Dhiraj Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dhiraj Kumar, DR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

from the order of the learned Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 11(2)(2), Mumbai (in short, ‘the Act’), order passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, date of order 29thNovember, 2016. The assessee has taken following grounds of appeal:- 02. “The grounds stated here under ... facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Learned Assessing Office ("AO") under section 271(1)(c) is bad in law. Ground No. 2-On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Goldman Sachs (India) Securities Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 7 (1) (1), Mumbai

ITA 1484/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No. 1484/Mum/2021

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Vachaspati Tripathi, CIT, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 153Section 253(1)Section 92C

income by the Appellant. 9. In not granting the consequential interest under section 244A of the Act. 10. In initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend any or all of the above grounds

Ashok Kumar Chauhan, Prop. Gurcharan Jewellers vs. ITO Ward 45(5), Civic Centre

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

ITA 1625/DEL/2024[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaashok Kumar Chauhan, Vs. Ito, Ward 45 (5), Prop. Gurcharan Jewellers, New Delhi. 17/2, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi – 110 018. (Pan : Aaapc1500F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R.S. Singhvi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2024 Date Of Order : 16.07.2024 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 15.03.2024 For The Assessment Year 2002-03. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1.1 That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Upholding The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Respect Of Additions On Account Of Gift Of Rs.15,00,000/- & Undisclosed Stock Of Rs.12,33,382/- Without Appreciating The Correct Factual Position & Considering The Submissions Filed By The Appellant. 1.2 That Both These Issues Were Not Part Of The Assessment Order Dated 06/03/2013Passed U/S 254/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Resulted In Impugned Penalty Proceedings

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 254Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

orders passed by the lower authorities are not sustainable on facts and same are bad in law.” 3. In this case, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) was directed by the ld. CIT (A) to be levied on the following ... Court held as under:- “Head Note only : S.271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment –Non-striking off of the irrelevant part while issuing notice under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, - Order is bad in law – Assessee must be informed of the grounds of the penalty proceedings only through

Ramchand Bhulchand Rajai, Bhavnagar vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1, Bhavnagar

ITA 167/AHD/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 167/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2009-10 बनाम बनाम बनाम बनाम Ramchand Bhulchand Rajai, The Deputy Commissioner C/O. Jayesh Tyres, Vs. Of Income-Tax, Opp. Railway Station, Circle-1, Bhavnagar Bhavnagar-364001 Pan : Abmpr 4841 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri B.R. Popat, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 22/04/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri B.R. Popat, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr DR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

confirmed in appeal by the ITAT, penalty for concealment/furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income was levied on the assessee as per section 271(1)© of the Act. 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the Assessing Officer levied penalty noting that, with respect to the disallowance made ... Appellant having concealed the income. There is thus absolutely no justification in the action of the AO in levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in this regard. Ramchand Bhulchand Rajai Vs. DCIT AY : 2009-10 13 2.2.4 In the context of what is stated above

Shri Girishbhai Vadilal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 332/AHD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 330, 331 & 332/Ahd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) िनधा"रण वष" Girishbhai Vadilal Shah Dcit बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम 139, V R Shah Smruti Circle – 4(1)(2), Vs. Shikshan Mandir, Nr. Ahmedabad Dharnidhar Derasar, Vasna, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abjps3102P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Jaimin Shah, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15/07/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad, (In Short The ‘Cit(A)’), (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) All Dated 16.03.2020 For The Assessment Year 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. As The Issues Involved In The Three Appeals Are Common, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Vide This Common Order.

For Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. DR
Section 40A(2)(b)Section 57

which may please be allowed. 5. That the assessee has not concealed or suppressed any particulars of income as per explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c) and as such the penalty and interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C may please be deleted.” 20. Ground Nos. 1 & 2 pertain ... requires to be deleted. 3. That the assessee has not concealed or suppressed any particulars of income as per explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c) and as such the penalty and interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C may please be deleted.” 28. Ground Nos. 1 & 2 in respect

Shri Girishbhai Vadilal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 331/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 330, 331 & 332/Ahd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) िनधा"रण वष" Girishbhai Vadilal Shah Dcit बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम 139, V R Shah Smruti Circle – 4(1)(2), Vs. Shikshan Mandir, Nr. Ahmedabad Dharnidhar Derasar, Vasna, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abjps3102P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Jaimin Shah, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15/07/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad, (In Short The ‘Cit(A)’), (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) All Dated 16.03.2020 For The Assessment Year 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. As The Issues Involved In The Three Appeals Are Common, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Vide This Common Order.

For Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. DR
Section 40A(2)(b)Section 57

which may please be allowed. 5. That the assessee has not concealed or suppressed any particulars of income as per explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c) and as such the penalty and interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C may please be deleted.” 20. Ground Nos. 1 & 2 pertain ... requires to be deleted. 3. That the assessee has not concealed or suppressed any particulars of income as per explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c) and as such the penalty and interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C may please be deleted.” 28. Ground Nos. 1 & 2 in respect

Shri Girishbhai Vadilal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 330/AHD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 330, 331 & 332/Ahd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) िनधा"रण वष" Girishbhai Vadilal Shah Dcit बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम 139, V R Shah Smruti Circle – 4(1)(2), Vs. Shikshan Mandir, Nr. Ahmedabad Dharnidhar Derasar, Vasna, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abjps3102P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Jaimin Shah, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15/07/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad, (In Short The ‘Cit(A)’), (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) All Dated 16.03.2020 For The Assessment Year 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. As The Issues Involved In The Three Appeals Are Common, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Vide This Common Order.

For Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. DR
Section 40A(2)(b)Section 57

which may please be allowed. 5. That the assessee has not concealed or suppressed any particulars of income as per explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c) and as such the penalty and interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C may please be deleted.” 20. Ground Nos. 1 & 2 pertain ... requires to be deleted. 3. That the assessee has not concealed or suppressed any particulars of income as per explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c) and as such the penalty and interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C may please be deleted.” 28. Ground Nos. 1 & 2 in respect

Balkishan Koushal, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

Appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 72/IND/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Indore12 Jul 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniay: 2013-14 Shri Balkishan Koshal, Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 31, Bhagirathpura, Nfac, Vs. Indore. Delhi (Pan: Bkipk5435L) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Ay: 2013-14 Shri Balkishan Koshal, Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 31, Bhagirathpura, Nfac, Vs. Indore. Delhi (Pan: Bkipk5435L) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68Section 69

holding that the quantum-appeal filed by assessee to CIT(A) on 23.01.2023 was a valid appeal. Since the penalty- proceeding of section 271(1)(c) are directly dependent upon quantum- proceeding, the penalty-appeal filed on 23.01.2023 must also follow the same suit. Consequently, we hold that the twin