← 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)

Delco Technosoft P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-7(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 6646/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S. Krishnan, Advocate and Shri V. Rajakumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Shah Singh, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

Again show cause notice under section 142(1) was issued on 30.10.2018 fixing the date for compliance on 6.11.2018. Penalty notice under section 271(1)(b) was also issued on 19.11.2018. Notice under section 133(6) was also issued to Chief Manager Vijaya Bank on 17.11.2018 asking for relevant information

Malhan Constructions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 6(1), New Delhi

In the result, for statistical purposes, this appeal of the

ITA 4589/DEL/2019[2005-06]Status: HeardITAT Delhi19 Jan 2023AY 2005-06
Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Shri R.N. Arora (Rs.25,00,000/-) totaling Rs.45,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer imposed penalty amounting to Rs.16,46,662/- under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, vide order dated 22.02.2018; in respect of the aforesaid amount of addition totaling to Rs.45,00,000/-. Vide impugned appellate order

ACIT, Central Circle- 26, New Delhi vs. Trilok Chand Chaudhary, New Delhi

In the result, Cross objection of the assessee in CO No

ITA 4282/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act did not specify under which limb of the section he is proposing to levy penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. This issue has been decided by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in favour of the assessee and against ... Life Insurance Company Ltd. ITA 475 of 2019 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

Shri Suresh Mal Lodha, 537-38, Mahima Trinity, New Sanganer Road, Swej Farm, Jaipur vs. ACIT Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 968/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahenda Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

issued u/s 274 r.w.s.. 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 ... therefore agree with the CIT (Appeals) that the penalty was not justified.” 6.2.2 Anandamoy Bhattacharjee vs. ITO [2007] 107 TTJ 671 (Kol.) “Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For concealment of income - Assessment year 1995-96 - Assessee, ex-Chief Justice of High Court, having income

Vinod (Ratan) Suhalka, Udaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Udaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 241/JODH/2019[2007-08]Status: PendingITAT Jodhpur05 Jan 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

orders of the ld. CIT(A), dated 12-04-2019 for the assessment year 2007-08 & 2008-09 respectively in the matter of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in the respective appeals. 2 VINOD (RATAN) SUHALKA ... disclosed and held that the assessee's case was covered by clause (a) of Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c) and upheld levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) The decision of the Hon. Calcutta High Court applies squarely in the case of the assessee where the assessee

Orient Clothing Company Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-19(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 8931/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jeetender Chand, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Pages no 87-90 of PB) and resorting to the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, imposed a penalty of Rs.52,22,411/- vide order dated 30.03.2019. 2.2 The Assessee being aggrieved, preferred first appeal before the ld. Commissioner, who vide impugned order affirmed the levy ... interference . 5. Heard the parties and perused the material available on record. In the instant case, the AO initiated the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of Income and thereafter issued the notices u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of Act referred

Kalinga Cables and Conduits Co., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-41(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 26/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sabharwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

particulars of income or furnished ‘inaccurate’ particulars of income therefore, such notices cannot be made a basis for holding that provisions contained in section 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 4. The ld. AR submitted that the aforesaid grounds are legal and deserve to be admitted in view ... observed that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer would be bad in law if it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated under i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income

Smt. Zarnaben Vibhashbhai Sheth, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result,the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 55/RJT/2020[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Jan 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 (in short the Ld. CIT(A)), Rajkot dated 31/01/2020arising in the matter of penalty order passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Year ... only effective issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for Rs. 1,52,809/- only. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee is anindividual and engaged in the business

Fortune Developers, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(1), Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 41/RJT/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Income Tax (Appeals)-2 (in short the Ld. CIT(A)), Rajkot dated 28/11/2018 arising in the matter of penalty order passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. When ... only effective issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for Rs. 3,46,390/- only. 4. The facts in brief are that the assessee is a partnership firm and engaged

Pravinaben Pravinbhai Patel, Surat vs. Add. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 1(3), Surat

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

ITA 302/SRT/2022[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Surat03 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Shri Pravinbhai Keshavbhai Patel, Addl.C.I.T.,Range-1(3), A/2, Golden Park Society, Surat Vs. Opp. Prime Arcade, Aanand Mahal Road, Adajan, Surat. Pan No. Adgpp 4549 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Smt. Pravinaben Pravinbhai Patel, Addl.C.I.T.,Range-1(3), A/2, Golden Park Society, Surat Vs. Opp. Prime Arcade, Aanand Mahal Road, Adajan, Surat. Pan No. Cdopp 3300 D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 69Section 69C

source under Section 69C of the Act, which is not the subject matter of these appeals. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. Subsequently, penalty under Section 271D was levied by the Additional Commissioner of Income ... cash. 10. I find that the Assessing Officer though, at the time of passing the assessment order, initiated penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. However, there is no whisper in the assessment order regrading initiation or satisfaction about the initiation of penalty under Section 271D

Pravinbhai Keshavbhai Patel, Surat vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 1(3), Surat

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

ITA 301/SRT/2022[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Surat03 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Shri Pravinbhai Keshavbhai Patel, Addl.C.I.T.,Range-1(3), A/2, Golden Park Society, Surat Vs. Opp. Prime Arcade, Aanand Mahal Road, Adajan, Surat. Pan No. Adgpp 4549 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Smt. Pravinaben Pravinbhai Patel, Addl.C.I.T.,Range-1(3), A/2, Golden Park Society, Surat Vs. Opp. Prime Arcade, Aanand Mahal Road, Adajan, Surat. Pan No. Cdopp 3300 D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 69Section 69C

source under Section 69C of the Act, which is not the subject matter of these appeals. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. Subsequently, penalty under Section 271D was levied by the Additional Commissioner of Income ... cash. 10. I find that the Assessing Officer though, at the time of passing the assessment order, initiated penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. However, there is no whisper in the assessment order regrading initiation or satisfaction about the initiation of penalty under Section 271D

Ramakrishna Murali, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 975/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

For Appellant: Shri Raghavendra Chakravarthy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271D

passed on Ramakrishna Murali, Bangalore Page 20 of 25 28.10.2015. In the present case, as enumerated in the second part of provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, period of limitation for passing the penalty order is 6 months from the end of the month in which action

Kusegaon Realty Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT-2, Mumbai

Accordingly appeals of the assessee for both the years are allowed

ITA 1071/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Nishita MadalaywalaFor Respondent: Ms. Madhu Malti Ghosh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act r.w.s. 254 of the Act.The ld. AR further referred to provisions of section 271(1) (C) of the Act and submitted that it has to be satisfaction of ld. AO and not satisfaction of ld. PCIT for levy of such penalty

M/S. Partners Medical International Inc., Mumbai vs. The DCIT (Intl Tax) -3(3) (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1737/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Chandabi Shah a/wFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Soni
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 254

interests levied under the said sections. M/s. Partners Medical International Inc. ITA no.1737/Mum./2020 Ground No. 11- Initiation of Penalty Proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned DCIT has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under ... section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant prays that the learned DCIT be directed to drop the penalty proceedings initiation under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify, delete, substitute or withdraw all or any of the Grounds

Shri Rajesh Ramchandra Dake, Panvel vs. Dy CIT CC-1, Mumbai

ITA 2/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 02 & 04/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2012-13) Dcit, Cen. Cir-1, Shri Rajesh 6Th Floor, R. No. 10, A- Ramchandra Dake, बनाम/ B/2, Usha Prabha Chs, Wing, Ashar It Park, Ram Ganesh Gadkari Raoda No. 16-Z, Wagle Vs. Indl. Estate Marg, Prabhu Ali, Thane-400 604 Panvel – 410206, स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Afqpd1100D (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay V. Deshmukh, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 28.12.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 28.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Consolidated Order Of Even Date 19.09.2019, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-11, Pune In Relation To Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) For Ay 2010-11 & 2012-13. 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay V
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं

Beni Prasad Lahoti, Howrah vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 306/KOL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 14ASection 153ASection 271(1)(c)

Rs.1,52,310/- in A.Ys. 2008-09 to 2012-13 except A.Y. 2011-12, which were imposed by the ld. Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 3. The facts on all vital points are common in all these assessment years, therefore, for the facility ... disclosed under section 132(4) of Rs.7,50,000/-“. 5. The ld. Assessing Officer has initiated the penalty proceedings and issued notice under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. He ultimately imposed a penalty upon the assessee under section 271(1)(c) read with Explanation

Beni Prasad Lahoti, Howrah vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 302/KOL/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 14ASection 153ASection 271(1)(c)

Rs.1,52,310/- in A.Ys. 2008-09 to 2012-13 except A.Y. 2011-12, which were imposed by the ld. Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 3. The facts on all vital points are common in all these assessment years, therefore, for the facility ... disclosed under section 132(4) of Rs.7,50,000/-“. 5. The ld. Assessing Officer has initiated the penalty proceedings and issued notice under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. He ultimately imposed a penalty upon the assessee under section 271(1)(c) read with Explanation

Avinash Narayan Sutar, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 28(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the three appeals filed by the asssessee are allowed

ITA 1029/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita Nos. 1029, 1030 & 1031/Mum/2020 (A.Ys: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2010-11) Avinash Narayan Sutar Vs. Ito – 28(1)(2) Plot No. 582, Laxmi Tower No.6, Vashi Niwas, Sector -1, Station, Navi Mumbai- Shiravana, Nerul, Navi 400703. Mumbai – 400706. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Arsps9036R Appellant .. Respondent Ito – 28(1)(2) Vs. Avinash Narayan Sutar Tower No.6, Vashi Plot No. 582, Laxmi Station, Navi Mumbai- Niwas, Sector -1, 400703. Shiravana, Nerul, Navi Mumbai – 400706. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Arsps9036R Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Hariom Tulsiyan.ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha.DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

therefore added to the total income of the assessee under section 69C of the Act as unexplained investment. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of Act to be initiated simultaneously for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and also for concealment of income. 6.3.2. Further, despite ample opportunities ... unaccounted income of the assessee. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.46,31,000/- is treated as unaccounted income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of Act to be initiated simultaneously for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and also for concealment of income. Similarly

Shri Rajkumar Nair, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Circle26(2) (5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed

ITA 5963/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Dec 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Devdutta MainkarFor Respondent: Ms. Megha Bhargav
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Year 2009-10, whereby the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant against the penalty order, dated 28.09.2015, passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‗the Act‘) levying penalty of INR 1,70,025/-. Assessment Year ... Penalty proceedings were also initiated against the Appellant on this issue as notice, dated 16.03.2015, was issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Vide order, dated 28.09.2015, penalty of INR 1,70,025/- was levied on the Appellant. The appeal filed by the Appellant

Hitesh Jitendra Parikh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-5(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2370/MUM/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Biren Gabhawala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)Section 271(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11