“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)

Platinum Sales, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward2(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 1156/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1156/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Platinum Sales, The Ito, Scf-10, Sector 9-D, बनाम Ward 2(1), Chandigarh Chandigarh Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aanfp7207P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Phsyical Hearing) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Ms. Ekakshra Mandhar, Advocate & Sh. Atul Mandhar, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr.Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2026 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2026 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am : Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 14.07.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi.

For Appellant: Ms. Ekakshra Mandhar, Advocate, and Sh. Atul Mandhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr.DR

Section 147Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

relied upon in Assessment Order, 5. That the Lrd. CIT(A) has been unjustified in upholding Penalty proceedings under the Provisions of Section 271(1)(c). 6. That the Lrd. CIT(A) has been unjustified in upholding Penalty proceedings under the Provisions of Section 271(1)(b). 7. That

Shri Ajay Mayor, Ahmedabad vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1607/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

held now.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings against the assessee under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") on the ground that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income and had concealed the particulars ... disclosed the said receipt in the return of income and therefore had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. On this basis, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated and the Assessing Officer imposed a penalty of Rs.82,91,261/- holding that the assessee had concealed income and furnished inaccurate

Dazzler Confectionery Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(1)(1, Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal is allowed

ITA 8411/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Mr. Rahul Sarda, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, SR AR

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 35D

specified any particular limb/charge for initiation of the penalty proceedings but, in fact, used ‘OR’ in between the limbs as specified in section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Recently, the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of 4 Dazzler Confectionery Company, Private Limited, M/s. Allied ... dated 30.03.2014 passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act, simultaneously initiated penalty proceedings under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of particulars of income and subsequently issued a notice dated 30.03.2014 under section 274 read with section 271

Sanjay Jain, Saharanpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Saharanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6650/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Vs Sanjay Jain, Ito, Ward-3(3)(1), 39, Mission Compound, Sahranpur-247001 Saharanpur-247001 Uttar Pradesh [Pan: Ackpj3369F) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 145(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

pertaining to A.Y. 2013-14 and arises out of the penalty order dated 12-03-2018 passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’]. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : 1. That ... taxmann.com 597 (Delhi) the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that: “21. The respondent had challenged the upholding of the penalty imposed under section 271(1) (c ) of the Act which was accepted by the ITAT. It followed the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton

Pawan Kumar Chandrakar, Dhamtari vs. ITO, Ward-Dhamtari, Dhamtari

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 687/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 685, 686 & 687/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16) Pawan Kumar Chandrakar, Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward Dhamtari, Gandhi Chowk, Kurud, Shankardan Road, Village:Haraftarai, Dhamtari-493663, Chhattisgarh. Dhamtari-493773, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Aqdpc2033J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Veekas S Sharma, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 12/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Veekas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 2(14)(iii)Section 250

No.686/RPR/2026, following grounds have been raised: “1. The Learned AO has erred in law and on facts in initiating and levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without appreciating that the assessee has neither concealed any particulars of income nor furnished any inaccurate particulars ... 144B of the Act. Consequent to the assessment, the Ld. AO, later on, also levied penalties of Rs.40,41,788/- under section 271(1) (c) of the Act and Rs.20,000/- under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. Aggrieved with the above mentioned assessment order and penalty orders

Pawan Kumar Chandrakar, Dhamtari vs. ITO, Ward-Dhamtari, Dhamtari

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 686/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Veekas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 2(14)(iii)Section 250

Pawan Kumar Chandrakar, Dhamtari vs. ITO, Ward-Dhamtari, Dhamtari

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 685/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Veekas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 2(14)(iii)Section 250

Jagdishchandra Shantilal Chhatralia, Gujarat vs. Assesing Oficer, Rajkot

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

ITA 623/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 623/Rjt/2025

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

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

case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (NFAC) erred in upholding the penalty of ₹2,87,850 levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without considering the merits of the case. The CIT(A)'s decision is erroneous as it failed to appreciate ... condoned the delay in the quantum appeal and directed the CIT(A) to decide the case on its merits. 4. The penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is not justified, as there was no deliberate intention to conceal income. The appellant's explanation regarding

Dawat E Islami Ap, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Exemption Ward 1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1575/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1575/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dawat E Islami Ap, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Exemption Ward-1(1), Pan: Aabtd5383Q Hyderabad. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) करदाताका""त"न"ध"व/ : Shri Ankit Chokshi, Ca (Hybrid Mode) Assessee Represented By राज"वका""त"न"ध"व/ : Shri Mathivanan S A, Sr. Ar Department Represented By सुनवाईसमा"तहोनेक""त"थ/ : 05/03/2026 Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख/ : 11/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Dawat E Islami Ap, (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 25/07/2025 For The A.Y.2015-16. Dawat E Islami Ap Vs. Ito

Section 12ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275

mentioning in the Assessment Order as well as in penalty notice issued on 19-12-2017 as to exactly under which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, i.e. concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, the penalty was triggered and Initiated ... appeal.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) levied penalty of Rs.6,45,172/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for the Assessment Year 2015–16 vide order dated 24.12.2021. Aggrieved by the penalty order

Kuruzu Russelian, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncc-22(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the penalty levied u/s

ITA 2830/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. R. Subramanian, CAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

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

filing the appeal belatedly and that the same could not have been the intent of the appellant. 5. The penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) is bad in law because the Assessing Officer failed to establish that the appellant had concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars, which are mandatory ... which was duly explained in the condonation petition. 8. For that, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) without properly considering the facts of the case. 9. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the provisions

Heg Limited, Mandideep Raisen vs. DCIT Central Circle 31, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 8771/DEL/2025[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2000-01

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year: 2000-01 Heg Limited, Vs Dcit, 101, Industrial Area, Central Circle-31, Mandideep Raisen, New Delhi. Madhya Pradesh. Pan: Aaach6148K

For Appellant: Shri Shivam Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Kumar Chaudhary

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

arising out of the penalty order dated 24.03.2017 passed by the ACIT 1(1), Bhopal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ld. AO’) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for Assessment Year 2000-01. 2. Instead of filing the appeal before the Indore Bench, the appeal has been wrongly

Sumanto Paul, Delhi vs. The Assessing Officer, Income Tax Department

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

ITA 8755/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year: 2016-17 Sumanto Paul, Vs The Assessing Officer, 139, Kohat Enclave, Assessment Unit, Pitampur, Income Tax Department, Delhi – 110 034. New Delhi. Pan: Aajpp4082C

For Appellant: Ms Shruti Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Nitin Kumar Jaiman, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

arising out of the penalty order dated 21.03.2024 passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ld. AO’) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The assessee has come up in appeal against the impugned order under Section 271 ... Ld.CIT(A). 4. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel submitted before us that the show cause notice for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 10.01.2024 for the year under consideration though issued, no notice has been issued alleging either concealment of income or furnishing

M/S Yashraj Estates Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Assessing Officer, New Delhi

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

ITA 8741/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Yashraj Estates Pvt. Ltd., Vs Assessing Officer, M-130-131, 2Nd Floor, Central Circle-17, Outer Circle, New Delhi. Connaught Place, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacy3166E

For Appellant: Shri Rajeshwar Painuly, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Kumar Jaiman, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

assessment order dated 26.03.2022 passed by the DCIT, Central Circle-17, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ld. AO’) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for Assessment Year 2011- 12. 2. Having regard to the order passed by the Coordinate Bench in ITA No.9902/Del/2019

Alok & Co LLP, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-28, Delhi

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

ITA 2736/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 153CSection 153DSection 65BSection 69A

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in charging interest and initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 4. At the time of hearing, Ld AR of the Assessee brought to our notice page 84 of the paper book, which

Alok & Co LLP, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-28, Delhi

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

ITA 2735/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 153CSection 153DSection 65BSection 69A

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Dehradun, Subhash Road Dehradun vs. State Infrastructure and Industrial Development Corporation of Uttarakhand Ltd., I.T. Park, Sahastradhara Road, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 233/DDN/2025[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Dehradun10 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Dcit Vs State Infrastructure & Circle-1(1) Industrial Development Dehradun Corporation Of Uttarakhand- Uttarakhand Ltd., 29 Iie, Sahastradhara Road (It Park) Road, Haripuram, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Pan-Aahcs7324R Revenue Assessee Revenue By Shri Pramod Verma, Cit Dr Assessee By Shri Sahil Kala, Ca Date Of Hearing 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Revenue Against The Order Dated 22.09.2025 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 19.12.2016 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Heard Both The Parties At Length. The Claim Of The Assessee Was That It Had Suo-Motto Withdrew The Inadvertent Amount Of Deduction Claimed U/S 80Ia Of The Act However, The Ao Has Levied The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act By Ao Which Was Confirmed By Ld. Cit(A). 3. Ld. Cit (A) By Observing That Under Identical Circumstances, Penalty Levied For Ay 2011-12 Was Deleted By His Predecessor. Since The Ld. Cit(A) Has Followed The Order For Ay 2011-12 Wherein Penalty Levied Under Identical Circumstances, Was Deleted Which Facts Has Not Been Controverted By The Revenue. The Relevant Observation Of Ld. Cit(A) While Deleting The Penalty Are Reproduced As Under:-

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40ASection 801ASection 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN CIRCUIT BENCH: DEHRADUN BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Amish Pravinchandra Vyas, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the question is answered in the negative, i

ITA 1924/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act and dismissed the assessee appeal.

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68Section 69

order dated 19-08-2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad arising out of the penalty order levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Brief facts ... negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The Tribunal was not right in upholding the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, for the reasons stated hereinbefore. 15. The reference stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. 9. Though

Baraiya Galaji Kalaji, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Gandhinagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 2180/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

referred to as “CIT(A)”), refusing to condone the delay of 17 months in filing the appeal as against the penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2015-16. I.T.A No. 2179 & 2180/Ahd/2025 ... assessee. However the assessee failed to respond to the show cause notice thereby the assessing officer levied penalty of Rs.10,000/- under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved against the penalty order, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 17 months

Baraiya Galaji Kalaji, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Gandhinagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 2179/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Accountant Member | ITA No: 2179 & 2180/Ahd/2025 | | Assessment Year: 2015-16 | | Baraiya Galaji Kalaji 93 Arjun Vas, Nana Chiloda, B.O. Ahmedabad Gandhinagar-382330 Gujarat, India PAN: BEMPB9663R (Appellant) | Vs | The ITO, Ward-1, Gandhinagar Gandhingar (Respondent) | Assessee Represented: Shri Chintan Thakkar, A.R. Revenue Represented: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 03-03-2026 Date of pronouncement : 09-

Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

Achala Punja, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Non Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2630/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 194Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

cannot be construed as concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In view of the fact that the substantial addition forming the basis of penalty has already been deleted by this Tribunal and considering that