“Section 271(1)”

Shri Maheshbhai M.Pandya, Vapi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6, Vapi

In the result, all the grounds of appeals raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.388/Srt/2018 (Ay 2008-09) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Maheshbhai M Pandya, Income Tax Officer, 9, Dipkiran Co-Op. Hsc, Ward-6, Vapi, Vs Society, Nr.N.H.-8, Gidc, Vapi-396195 Pan No. Afupp 6452 J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Income-tax (Appeals), Valsad [for short to as “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 23.03.2018 in confirming the penalty levied by Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) on 29.04.2016 for the assessment year 2008-09. Initially this appeal was adjudicated vide order dated ... /147 on 28.102015, in accepting returned filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty under section 271(1)(c) by taking view that assessee concealed 2 Sh. Maheshbhai M Pandya income while filing his return of income and levied penalty of Rs.2

NA vs. Ari Malesar Behdin Anjuman, Navsarivs.Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.336/Srt/2023 (Ay 2013-14) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Navsari Malesar Behdin Income Tax Officer, (Exemption) Ward, Room Anjuman, Agary Street, Vs No.105, 1St Floor, Anavil Malesar, Business Centre, Aayakar Navsari-396445 Bhavan, Adajan Hazira Road, Pan No. Aaatn 6124 C Adajan, Surat-395007 ""थ" /Respondent अपीलाथ"/Appellant

NFAC)/Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 28.04.2022 for the assessment year 2013-14, which in turn arises against the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) on 29.03.2019. 2. At the outset of hearing, Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld. AR) for the assessee submits that ... assessee has filed an affidavit one of the trustee-assessee confirming the fact that impugned order of penalty under section 271(1)(c) dated 29.03.2019 was not served on the assessee. The assessee downloaded the order of penalty only on 13.05.2021. The assessee in Form-35 (appeal form) before NFAC/Ld

Deepak Kumar Rajoria, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Bikaner

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Assessing Authority Tax Was Paid & Adjust From Tds The Appellant Was Aware Of The Fact That There Is Any Form By Filing Which The Penalty May Be Dropped So The Penalty Was Never Leviable In This Case Therefore The Penalty U/S 270A May Please Be Cancelled. 3. The Appellant Prays For Justice & Relief. 4. The Appellant May Please Be Permitted To Raise Any Addition Or Alternative Ground At Or Before The Hearing.”

here. Penalty provisions have been substantially amended from A.Y. 2017-18 onwards. The said penalty provision u/s 270A is in force to replace section 271(1)(C) of the IT Act. In this relevant case the assessee had voluntarily surrendered his claim of deduction so in this case no penalty ... Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory held that notice under Section 274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. Similarly, in the printed notice u/s 274 r.w.s 270A

M/S. the Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Bhilwara vs. ACIT, Circle, Bhilwara

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripotem/S.The Central Vs. The Acit, Circle Cooperative Bank Ltd., Bhilwara. Mahendra Gargieya & Rajasthan. Associates, Adv , No537-538,5Thfloor, Mahimatrinity, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur – 302019, Rajasthan. Pan/Gir No. : Aaaat8126B Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Nidhi Nair, Jcit -Dr Date Of Hearing 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ajmer Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: M/S. The Central Cooperative Bank Ltd.,Bhilwara. 1.The Impugned Penalty Order U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Dated 18.05.2017 Is Bad In Law & On Facts Of The Case, For Want Of Jurisdiction & Various Other Reasons & Hence The Same Kindly Be Quashed.

notice issued u/s 274 r/w 271(1)(c) of the Act, is quite vague and did not at all specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income

ACIT, Circle, Bhilwara vs. M/S. Suraj Fabrics Industries Ltd., Kolkata

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year: 2010-11 Assistant Commissioner M/S Suraj Fabrics Industries Of Income-Tax, Circle, Vs Ltd., 224A, Elegant Tower, Bhilwara A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata, West Bengal Pan: Aabcs8988B Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Revenue By Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain, Cit-Dr Assessee By None Date Of Hearing 11.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.08.2023 Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Department Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ajmer Dated 06.09.2017 Deleting The Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act For A.Y. 2010-11. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal As Under:- “1. Cancelling The Penalty Levied For Addition Of Unexplained Cash Credit On A/C Of Share Capital Of 10,00,00,000/- Without Appreciating The Facts That The Quantum Addition Made By The Ao Was Confirmed By The Ld.Cit(A) As The Identity & M/S Suraj Fabrics Industries Ltd.

appeal filed by the Department against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ajmer dated 06.09.2017 deleting the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y. 2010-11. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal as under:- “1. Cancelling the penalty levied for addition ... hearing." 2. We have heard Ld. DR and perused the record. 3. It is observed that Ld. CIT(A) has deleted penalty under section 271(1)(c) because ITAT in assessee’s own case has deleted the addition of Rs. 10 Crore made by the AO under section

V. M. Salgaocar Sales International., Vasco vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Margao Range, Margao

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

grievance in it’s appeal ITA.No.272/ PAN./2019 that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the section 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs.1,65,36,068/- imposed by the Assessing Officer, it emerges at the outset that the Assessing Officer’s corresponding penalty

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range, Panaji vs. M/S V. M. Salgaocar & Brothers (P) Ltd., Vasco

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

grievance in it’s appeal ITA.No.272/ PAN./2019 that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the section 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs.1,65,36,068/- imposed by the Assessing Officer, it emerges at the outset that the Assessing Officer’s corresponding penalty

Khomram Chandrawanshi (HUF), Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-4(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 165/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Khomram Chandrawanshi (Huf) House No.18, Ring Road Chowk, Krishnasakha Society, Rohinipuram, Raipur-492 001 (C.G) Pan : Aakhk2082E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

prejudice writ large on the face of the mechanical methods the Revenue adopts in sending a statutory notice to the assessee under section 271 (1) (c) read with section 274 of the Act? Pragmatically speaking, Kaushalya casts an extra burden on the assessee and assumes expertise on his part ... assessment proceedings revealing the grounds of penalty proceedings. Assessment order need not contain a specific, explicit finding of whether the conditions mentioned in section 271(1)(c) exist in the case. It is because Explanations 1(A) and 1(B), as the deeming provisions, create a legal fiction