← 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)

Hansaben Maganbhai Vaghasiya, Surat vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat

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

ITA 397/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhita No. 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398 & 399/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2018-19) (Hearing In Physical Court) Hansaben Maganbhai D.C.I.T., Vaghasiya, Central Circle-2, Vs. 174, Shree Gadhpur Surat. Township, Pasodara Gam, Ta- Kamrej, Surat-395206 Pan No. Adypv 3826 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

decision. In ITA No. 393 to 397/Srt/2022 for the A.Y. 2012-13 to 2016-17, the assessee has challenged the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) and in ITA No. 398 & 399/Srt/2022 ... r.w.s. 153A of the Act by making additions on account of unaccounted receipts. 4. The Assessing Officer initiated and levied penalty under section 271(1)(b) of Rs. 20,000/- vide his order dated 02.02.2021. The assessing officer while passing the penalty order under Section 271(1)(b) recorded that

Hansaben Maganbhai Vaghasiya, Surat vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat

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

ITA 396/SRT/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhita No. 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398 & 399/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2018-19) (Hearing In Physical Court) Hansaben Maganbhai D.C.I.T., Vaghasiya, Central Circle-2, Vs. 174, Shree Gadhpur Surat. Township, Pasodara Gam, Ta- Kamrej, Surat-395206 Pan No. Adypv 3826 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

decision. In ITA No. 393 to 397/Srt/2022 for the A.Y. 2012-13 to 2016-17, the assessee has challenged the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) and in ITA No. 398 & 399/Srt/2022 ... r.w.s. 153A of the Act by making additions on account of unaccounted receipts. 4. The Assessing Officer initiated and levied penalty under section 271(1)(b) of Rs. 20,000/- vide his order dated 02.02.2021. The assessing officer while passing the penalty order under Section 271(1)(b) recorded that

Hansaben Maganbhai Vaghasiya, Surat vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat

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

ITA 395/SRT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhita No. 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398 & 399/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2018-19) (Hearing In Physical Court) Hansaben Maganbhai D.C.I.T., Vaghasiya, Central Circle-2, Vs. 174, Shree Gadhpur Surat. Township, Pasodara Gam, Ta- Kamrej, Surat-395206 Pan No. Adypv 3826 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

decision. In ITA No. 393 to 397/Srt/2022 for the A.Y. 2012-13 to 2016-17, the assessee has challenged the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) and in ITA No. 398 & 399/Srt/2022 ... r.w.s. 153A of the Act by making additions on account of unaccounted receipts. 4. The Assessing Officer initiated and levied penalty under section 271(1)(b) of Rs. 20,000/- vide his order dated 02.02.2021. The assessing officer while passing the penalty order under Section 271(1)(b) recorded that

Hansaben Maganbhai Vaghasiya, Surat vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat

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

ITA 394/SRT/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhita No. 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398 & 399/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2018-19) (Hearing In Physical Court) Hansaben Maganbhai D.C.I.T., Vaghasiya, Central Circle-2, Vs. 174, Shree Gadhpur Surat. Township, Pasodara Gam, Ta- Kamrej, Surat-395206 Pan No. Adypv 3826 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

decision. In ITA No. 393 to 397/Srt/2022 for the A.Y. 2012-13 to 2016-17, the assessee has challenged the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) and in ITA No. 398 & 399/Srt/2022 ... r.w.s. 153A of the Act by making additions on account of unaccounted receipts. 4. The Assessing Officer initiated and levied penalty under section 271(1)(b) of Rs. 20,000/- vide his order dated 02.02.2021. The assessing officer while passing the penalty order under Section 271(1)(b) recorded that

Hansaben Maganbhai Vaghasiya, Surat vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat

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

ITA 393/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhita No. 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398 & 399/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2018-19) (Hearing In Physical Court) Hansaben Maganbhai D.C.I.T., Vaghasiya, Central Circle-2, Vs. 174, Shree Gadhpur Surat. Township, Pasodara Gam, Ta- Kamrej, Surat-395206 Pan No. Adypv 3826 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

decision. In ITA No. 393 to 397/Srt/2022 for the A.Y. 2012-13 to 2016-17, the assessee has challenged the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) and in ITA No. 398 & 399/Srt/2022 ... r.w.s. 153A of the Act by making additions on account of unaccounted receipts. 4. The Assessing Officer initiated and levied penalty under section 271(1)(b) of Rs. 20,000/- vide his order dated 02.02.2021. The assessing officer while passing the penalty order under Section 271(1)(b) recorded that

Saraswati Devi Goyal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed and those of

ITA 1279/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2007-08 Smt. Saraswati Devi Goyal Dcit Flat No.4, R. R. Apartment Vs New Delhi 3-4, Manglapuri, Mehrauli New Delhi-110030 Pan No.Aeipg8121L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Gobind Kumar Goyal Acit Vs Flat No.4, R. R. Apartment, New Delhi 3-4, Manglapuri, Mehrauli, New Delhi Pan No.Alipk0103F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Gobind Kumar Goyal Dcit Flat No.4, R. R. Apartment, Vs New Delhi 3-4, Manglapuri, Mehrauli, New Delhi Pan No.Alipk0103F (Appellant) (Respondent)

relied upon the orders of the authorities below and vehemently contended that there is no mandate in the provisions of Section 271(1)(c ) rws 274 of the Act as to the issue of notice to the appellant in any format and consequently, the non- striking out of the irrelevant ... while deciding the identical issue held as under: “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 & Ginning Factory

The Kekri Cooperative Marketing Society, Ajmer vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 277/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Porwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT
Section 249(3)Section 271(1)Section 80P

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘’SMC’’ JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U

Md Metro Transit Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 16(4), New Delhi

ITA 1582/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Us Vide Ita No.1581/Del/2020

Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

against the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 29/11/2019 of the Ld. CIT(A). (A.1) Separately, proceedings were also initiated by the AO, under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act for levy of penalty. Vide order dated 28/06/2017, the AO levied penalty amounting to Rs.21,12,981/- under section ... accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Accordingly, the quantum additions do not survive at present. Consequently, penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act also do not survive at present. In the fitness of things, we set aside the impugned appellate order dated

Md Metro Transit Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 16(4), New Delhi

ITA 1581/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Us Vide Ita No.1581/Del/2020

Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

against the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 29/11/2019 of the Ld. CIT(A). (A.1) Separately, proceedings were also initiated by the AO, under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act for levy of penalty. Vide order dated 28/06/2017, the AO levied penalty amounting to Rs.21,12,981/- under section ... accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Accordingly, the quantum additions do not survive at present. Consequently, penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act also do not survive at present. In the fitness of things, we set aside the impugned appellate order dated

Setech Electronics Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 3(4), Noida

In the result, the appeal No

ITA 5759/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhry

For Appellant: Sh. Neelesh Kumar Jain, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Sh. Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’ NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI N.K

Setech Electronics Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 3(4), Noida

In the result, the appeal No

ITA 5758/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhry

For Appellant: Sh. Neelesh Kumar Jain, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Sh. Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’ NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI N.K

ITO, New Delhi vs. Shri Om Prakash Aggarwal, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5383/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Goel, CaFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Chand, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : These appeals filed by the Revenue are directed against deletion of quantum addition and deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). 2. The grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue read as under ... appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. 10. This is an appeal against the deletion of penalty by the ld. CIT(A) under section 271(1)(c) of the Act vide his order dated 18.07.2016. 11. The grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue read as under :- “1. Whether

ITO, New Delhi vs. Shri Om Prakash Aggarwal, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5382/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Goel, CaFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Chand, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : These appeals filed by the Revenue are directed against deletion of quantum addition and deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). 2. The grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue read as under ... appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. 10. This is an appeal against the deletion of penalty by the ld. CIT(A) under section 271(1)(c) of the Act vide his order dated 18.07.2016. 11. The grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue read as under :- “1. Whether

Jayantilal Ambaram Patel HUF, Surat vs. Assistant Commissioner Income Tax, Cir.2(3), Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 327/SRT/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Jayantilal Ambaram Patel Huf, A.C.I.T., 5, Western Seven Seas, Behind Circle-2(3), Vs. Gangeshwar Temple, Opp. Saint Surat. Mark School, Adajan, Surat, Gujarat- 395009. Pan No. Aafhj 0354 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 10(37)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

exempted under Section 10(37) of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer treated such compensation as capital gain and levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The division Bench of Surat Tribunal has already allowed the exemption under Section 10(37) of the Act, therefore, penalty order ... submission. I find that the Assessing Officer levied penalty on treating the compensation as long term capital gain and levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act vide his order dated 23.03.2018, which was confirmed by ld CIT(A). I find that the Division Bench of this Tribunal

Anand Prakash, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5713/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40Section 68

Thus, no additions/disallowances under Section 40(a)(ia) are permitted in view of plethora of judicial precedents. Notwithstanding, the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for disallowances under deeming provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) where the interest has been paid as a matter of fact ... concealment of income I.T.As. No.5711, 5712, 5713/Del/2018 3 or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income per se. The levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is thus not attracted. Coupled with this, notice issued under Section 274 r.w. Section 271(1)(c) has been stated to be issued

Anand Prakash, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5712/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40Section 68

Thus, no additions/disallowances under Section 40(a)(ia) are permitted in view of plethora of judicial precedents. Notwithstanding, the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for disallowances under deeming provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) where the interest has been paid as a matter of fact ... concealment of income I.T.As. No.5711, 5712, 5713/Del/2018 3 or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income per se. The levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is thus not attracted. Coupled with this, notice issued under Section 274 r.w. Section 271(1)(c) has been stated to be issued

Anand Prakash, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5711/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40Section 68

Thus, no additions/disallowances under Section 40(a)(ia) are permitted in view of plethora of judicial precedents. Notwithstanding, the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for disallowances under deeming provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) where the interest has been paid as a matter of fact ... concealment of income I.T.As. No.5711, 5712, 5713/Del/2018 3 or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income per se. The levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is thus not attracted. Coupled with this, notice issued under Section 274 r.w. Section 271(1)(c) has been stated to be issued

Dhaval Maheshbhai Ganatra, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(1)

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

ITA 245/RJT/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 245/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year:2015-16 Dhaval Maheshbhai Ganatra Vs. Ito Puka Park-1, B/H. Hudco Police Ward-3(1)(1), Chowky, Nr. Krishna Chawk Kothariya Rajkot Main Road, Rajkot-360002 Pan: Aompg8373G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vimal Desai, A.R. Revenue By : Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/01/2023 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 03/02/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (In Short “Nfac”), Delhi On 16.08.2022 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Here-In- After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Assessment Order U/S. 144 Of The Act Is Bad In Law. 2. The Ld. Cit Appeal (Faceless) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Disposing Of The Appeal On The Erroneous Premises That The Appellant Had Opted For & Closed This Appeal In Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. 3. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Making Addition Of Rs. 43,56,319/- U/S. 144 Of The Act.” A.Y. 2015-16 2 3. The Effective Issue Raised By The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal On The Wrong Assumption Of Fact That The Assessee Has Settled The Dispute Under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

that the assessee has settled the dispute under Vivad se Vishwas Scheme with respect to the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. To this effect, the Ld. A.R. drawn our attention on Form 5 for settling the dispute under Vivad se Vishwas

Smt. Trupti H. Sheth, Rajkot vs. The ITO, Ward-1 (1) (3), Rajkot

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 181/RJT/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 07.03.2016 determining total income the assessee at Rs.3,52,090/-. The penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 of the Act was initiated and the Assessing Officer imposed penalty of Rs.1,11,900/- in respect of furnishing ... parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. The assessee before the CIT(A) made contention that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act could not be levied normally for making of claim which is not sustainable in law and thereby relied upon the decision

Peartree Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-19(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5263/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

therefore, decline to interfere and reject this ground. 11. Ground No. 2 relates to initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act against which no appeal lies. The ground being premature is rejected. 12. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced