← 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)

Rms Club & Resorts Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. JCIT Central Circle-28, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7689/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri K.K. Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

Delhi (“CIT(A)”) whereby he confirmed the penalty of Rs. 15,25,220/- imposed by the Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act) pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2007-08. 2. It is a search case. Search was conducted under ... income of Rs. 49,35,990/- on 25.03.2013 under section 153A r.w. section 143(3) of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. During penalty proceedings the assessee vide letter dated 26.04.2013 explained that the 100% holding company had shown sales

Opelina Finance and Investment Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 19(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1422/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. N.K Choudhrym/S Opelina Finance & Vs. Ito, Ward-19(2), Investment Ltd., New Delhi 110002 28, Nazafgarh Road, Delhi 110015 Pan No. Aaaco 5195 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Shri Amarbir Singh, Adv. Revenue By Shri Jitender Chand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.03.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.11.2017 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under :-

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

view of facts and circumstances of the case the Assessing officer have erred in law and on facts in initiating penalty under section 271(1)(c). 12. That the interest charged u/s 234B is illegal, bad in law without jurisdiction. The said interest is wrongly charged and is wrongly worked

Late Noorulkalam Abdulmajid Shaikh Represented Through His Son Husnejamal Nurulkalam Shaikh, Surat vs. ITO Ward-3(2)(1), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 140/SRT/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

challenged the validity of addition in quantum assessment and in ITA No. 140/Srt/2023, the assessee has challenged the validity of penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). Both the appeals are ITA No.139 & 140/Srt/2023 Late Noorulkalam Abdulmajid Shaikh through ... explanation, made addition of aggregate amount deposited in cash of Rs. 29,91,500/- under Section 68 and initiated penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the addition in the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before

Late Noorulkalam Abdulmajid Shaikh Represented Through His Son Husnejamal Nurulkalam Shaikh, Surat vs. ITO Ward-3(2)(1), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 139/SRT/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

challenged the validity of addition in quantum assessment and in ITA No. 140/Srt/2023, the assessee has challenged the validity of penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). Both the appeals are ITA No.139 & 140/Srt/2023 Late Noorulkalam Abdulmajid Shaikh through ... explanation, made addition of aggregate amount deposited in cash of Rs. 29,91,500/- under Section 68 and initiated penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the addition in the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before

DCIT, Central Circle-17, New Delhi vs. Havells India Ltd., New Delhi

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 806/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Akshat Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Avikal Manu, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

erred in cancelling the penalty relying upon CBDT Circular No. 25/2015 dated 31/12/2015, as this provisions of Explanation 4 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 have been amended w.e.f. 01/04/2016. 6. a) The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous and not tenable

DCIT, Central Circle-17, New Delhi vs. Havells India Ltd., New Delhi

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 805/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Akshat Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Avikal Manu, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

erred in cancelling the penalty relying upon CBDT Circular No. 25/2015 dated 31/12/2015, as this provisions of Explanation 4 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 have been amended w.e.f. 01/04/2016. 6. a) The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous and not tenable

Pradeep Chauhan, Sonipat vs. ITO Ward - 3, Sonipat

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 7313/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2023AY 2010-11
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri K.K. Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

action of Ld. AO in levying penalty u/s 271 (1)(b) which is bad in law being imposed penalty of Rs.10000 under section 271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act, without service of notice of initiation of penalty proceedings. 2 ITA No.7313/Del./2019 2. That

Shri Nizarali Bahadurbhai Hajiyani, Rajkot vs. The ITO, Ward-3, Morbi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 300/RJT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

against the separate appellate orders dated 18.10.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Rajkot, confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years (A.Ys ... make amicable settlement with the income tax department. Statute does not recognise those types of defences under the explanation 1 to section 271 (1)(c) of the Act..." The case laws relied upon by the assessee are distinguishable on facts. In view of above discussion, the action

Shri Nizarali Bahadurbhai Hajiyani, Rajkot vs. The ITO, Ward-3, Morbi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 299/RJT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

against the separate appellate orders dated 18.10.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Rajkot, confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years (A.Ys ... make amicable settlement with the income tax department. Statute does not recognise those types of defences under the explanation 1 to section 271 (1)(c) of the Act..." The case laws relied upon by the assessee are distinguishable on facts. In view of above discussion, the action

Shri Nizarali Bahadurbhai Hajiyani, Rajkot vs. The ITO, Ward-3, Morbi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 298/RJT/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

against the separate appellate orders dated 18.10.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Rajkot, confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years (A.Ys ... make amicable settlement with the income tax department. Statute does not recognise those types of defences under the explanation 1 to section 271 (1)(c) of the Act..." The case laws relied upon by the assessee are distinguishable on facts. In view of above discussion, the action

Bhupendra Maganlal Naik (HUF), Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer Ward No. 1, Navsari

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 220/SRT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am (Physical Hearing) Bhupendra Maganlal Naik (Huf), The Ito, Ward No.1, 29/B, Manglam Bunglow, Navsari. Vs Alka Society, Chhapra Road, Navsari, Gujarat – 396445. Pan : Aaghd1504E Appellant Respondednt

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

Centre (in short’ NFAC’)/Ld. CIT(A), dated 16/06/2022 for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15, which in turn arise against penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act [in short “the Act”] by Income –tax Officer, ward-1 Navsari. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds ... Assessing Officer after receiving order of ld CIT(A) in quantum assessment, issued show cause notice dated 12.2.2020 as to why penalty under section 271(1)(c) should not levied under section 271(1)(c). The Assessing Officer recorded that no reply was filed by assessee. The Assessing Officer held

Smt. Amina Anvar, Kollam vs. The DCIT, Circle 1, Alappuzha

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

ITA 850/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Mar 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Amina Anvar Vs Dcit,Circle -1 Alappuzha City Opticals, Pipson Complex Pada South, Karunagappally Kollam Kerala-690 518 Pan – Agmpa5574B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri. Rajakannan, Advocate Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 02.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.03.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 30.06.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-17. 2. The Solitary Issue That Arises For Our Consideration Is Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Imposition Of Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The I.T.Act Amounting To Rs. 38,669/-.

For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

printed portion of the notice " have concealed the particulars of income" in the show cause notice dated 30.12.2019 and imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) for "concealing the particulars of such income" is bad in law. 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case ... finding him guilty for either the one or the other cannot be sustained in law. 7 . The satisfaction regarding the grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c) is essential for the Revenue to initiate the penalty proceedings. 8. The penalty proceedings must be confined only to those grounds specifically stated

Mr. Ranjith Thazhe Kunhambath, Ernakulam vs. ITO, Ward 3(3), Non Corporate Range 2, Kochi

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and the stay petition is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1000/COCH/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Paulson, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

along with interest the final demand was computed at Rs.970. 3. Subsequently the AO initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) considering the original demand on ESOP income not declared in the return. Assessee has submitted reply to penalty notice explaining the circumstances under which ... considering the detailed hearing notes submitted on 01-042022 and without allowing personal hearing. 3. The ld AR submitted that – (i) As per section 271 (1) (iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) shall be the amount of tax sought to be evaded by reason

DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Int. Taxn., New Delhi vs. Avaya Internaional Sales Limited, Ireland

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

ITA 714/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharmaavaya International Sales Ltd, Vs. Acit, C/O. Mr. Rohit Verma Ernst & Circle-International Young Llp, 1St Floor, Tower B, Taxation 1(1)(1), Dlf Centre Court Building, New Delhi Sector-42, Gold Course, Gurgaon-122002 (Assessee ) (Respondent) Pan: Aakca7138A Dcit, Vs. Avaya International Sales Ltd, Circle-1(1)(1), C/O. Mr. Rohit Verma Ernst & Young Llp, 1St Floor, Tower B, International Taxation, New Delhi Dlf Centre Court Building, Sector-42, Gold Course, Gurgaon-122002 (Assessee ) (Respondent) Pan: Aakca7138A Assessee By : Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, Adv Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv Revenue By: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 16/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07/03/2023

For Appellant: Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT-DR
Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C

quantum of support/ maintenance services provided by the Appellant for the subject AY. 2. Ground 2: Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c), 271BA and 271F of the Act 2.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred ... dismissing grounds of appeal of the Appellant against the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c), 271BA and 271F of the Act. 2.2 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that penalty proceedings initiated

Avaya International Sales Limited, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle- Int. Taxation 1(1)(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 526/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharmaavaya International Sales Ltd, Vs. Acit, C/O. Mr. Rohit Verma Ernst & Circle-International Young Llp, 1St Floor, Tower B, Taxation 1(1)(1), Dlf Centre Court Building, New Delhi Sector-42, Gold Course, Gurgaon-122002 (Assessee ) (Respondent) Pan: Aakca7138A Dcit, Vs. Avaya International Sales Ltd, Circle-1(1)(1), C/O. Mr. Rohit Verma Ernst & Young Llp, 1St Floor, Tower B, International Taxation, New Delhi Dlf Centre Court Building, Sector-42, Gold Course, Gurgaon-122002 (Assessee ) (Respondent) Pan: Aakca7138A Assessee By : Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, Adv Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv Revenue By: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 16/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07/03/2023

For Appellant: Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT-DR
Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C

quantum of support/ maintenance services provided by the Appellant for the subject AY. 2. Ground 2: Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c), 271BA and 271F of the Act 2.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred ... dismissing grounds of appeal of the Appellant against the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c), 271BA and 271F of the Act. 2.2 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that penalty proceedings initiated

Ashvin Narayan Bajoria HUF, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward1(2)(1), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 369/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

NFAC/Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 24.11.2022 for assessment year 2012-13, which in turn arises against penalty levied by the by assessing officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 13.08.2021 for the assessment year 2012-13. The assessee has raised ... assessment order was passed assessment on 15.11.2019 under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act and initiated penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The Assessing Officer issued show cause notice for levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee filed

Nirmalaben Jaswantsinh Rathod, Silvassa vs. Income Tax Officer, Vapi Ward-5, Vapi

In the result, the original grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 132/SRT/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

131/Srt/2022 the assessee has challenged the additions in the quantum assessment and in ITA No. 132/Srt/2022 in confirming the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) for the Assessment year (AY) 2010-11. Both the appeals are interconnected, thus, both ... deposit was treated as unexplained investment under Section 69A of the Act. The assessing officer also initiated penalty for concealment of income under section 271(1)(c). 6. On appeal before ld CIT(A)/NFAC the assessee the assessee stated that she is engaged in the agricultural activities on taking

Nirmalaben Jaswantsinh Rathod, Silvassa vs. Income Tax Officer, Vapi Ward-5, Vapi

In the result, the original grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 131/SRT/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

131/Srt/2022 the assessee has challenged the additions in the quantum assessment and in ITA No. 132/Srt/2022 in confirming the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) for the Assessment year (AY) 2010-11. Both the appeals are interconnected, thus, both ... deposit was treated as unexplained investment under Section 69A of the Act. The assessing officer also initiated penalty for concealment of income under section 271(1)(c). 6. On appeal before ld CIT(A)/NFAC the assessee the assessee stated that she is engaged in the agricultural activities on taking

Rakesh Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(4), Jaipur

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

ITA 330/JPR/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 217BSection 271B

bad/vague penalty notice was adjudicated by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court [though in a different context i.e notice issued u/s.274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act] in the case of CIT vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows in ITA No.380 of 2015 dated 23.11.2015 wherein ... Tribunal as well as Hon’ble High Court on ground of unspecified notice has held as under:- “Section 274, read with section 271(1)(c), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Penalty – Procedure for imposition of (Conditions precedent) – Assessment year 2009-10 – Tribunal, relying on decision of Division Bench

Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd, Noida vs. ACIT Circle-19(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1536/DEL/2020[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2023AY 2002-03

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. K. K. Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

facts and in laws in confirming the action of the AO levying penalty of Rs.39,18,354/- by invoking the provision of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2 Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has erred both ... confirming the penalty levied by the AO despite the fact that the notice issued by AO u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate