← 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)

M/S N. G. Group, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-28(2)(, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 503/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am M/S N.G. Group The Income Tax Officer Plot No.8, Sector 11 3Rd Floor, 6Th Tower, Off Juinagar Railway Station, Vsrccl, Vashi Vs. Sanpada, Navi Mumbai–400703 Navi Mumbai –400709 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaffn9159E Assessee By : Ms. Ritika Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 02.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 01-11-2022

For Appellant: Ms. Ritika Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, SR. AR
Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

looking to the smallness of the amount the penalty would also not be levied. Subsequently, on 3rd March 2022, a penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was passed and therefore, assessee filed the appeal. If the covid period is excluded, the delay is only

Gaurishankar Chaudhary, Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-4(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No

ITA 6112/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Harmesh Lal
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

supplied with the findings recorded in the order of re- assessment, which was passed on the same date on which the notice under section 271(1)(c) was issued, initiating the proceedings of imposing the penalty. The assessee had sufficient notice of the action of imposing penalty, therefore, there ... supplied with the findings recorded in the order of re-assessment, which was passed on the same date on which the notice under Section 271(1)(c) was issued, initiating the proceedings of imposing the penalty The assessee had sufficient notice of the action of imposing penalty. We, therefore

Gaurishankar Chaudhary, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC-4(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No

ITA 6110/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Harmesh Lal
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

supplied with the findings recorded in the order of re- assessment, which was passed on the same date on which the notice under section 271(1)(c) was issued, initiating the proceedings of imposing the penalty. The assessee had sufficient notice of the action of imposing penalty, therefore, there ... supplied with the findings recorded in the order of re-assessment, which was passed on the same date on which the notice under Section 271(1)(c) was issued, initiating the proceedings of imposing the penalty The assessee had sufficient notice of the action of imposing penalty. We, therefore

Shri Rajesh Sanwalchand Bafna, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5445/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Bafna, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gupta, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

under section 234A, 234B, 234C which is erred and bad in Law. (4) The income tax Officer erred in initiating Penalty proceeding under section 271(1) (c). (5) The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has also erred in Law in initiating Penalty proceeding under section 271(1

Rga International Reinsurance Company Designated Activity Company, Mumbai vs. ACIT (It) - RG. 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 6935/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Us Are As Follows:

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 9(1)(i)

circumstances of the case and in law, and based on the directions of the Hon'ble DRP, erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The above grounds of objections are all independent and without prejudice to one another. 3. The assessee before

Magnaram Choudhary, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 17(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7077/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7077/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11) Shri Magnaram Choudhary बिधम/ Ito-17(2)(3) Flat No. 304, Building No. Matru Mandir, Mumbai. Vs. B-2/D, Nav Maharashtra Nagar Co-Op Society, M. P. Mill Compound, Tardeo, Mumbai-400034. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ainpc0320L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee An Individual Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-28 Mumbai Dated 03.05.2017 For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Against The Penalty Confirmed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

271(1)(c) of the Act or not. On perusal of the SCN dated 20.12.2012, we note that both the faults specified in Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is given i.e. “the assessee have concealed the particulars of his income” or “furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income ... Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section

M/S. Samira Habitats India Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Central Circle-35(Now DCIT, CC-6(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 531/MUM/2022[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri.Ri Om Prakashri. Kant & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopalआ.अ.सं.529 /मुं/2022 िन.व.2006-07 आ.अ.सं.531/मुं/2022 (िन.व.2006-07)

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav KabraFor Respondent: Smt. USha Gaikwad, Sr.AR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153A

Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Learned Assessing Officer in imposing of penalty by invoking provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is bad, illegal, void abinitio or without jurisdiction. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case ... circumstances of the case.” 12. In the grounds raised, the assessee is aggrieved with the penalty amounting to ₹ 10, 29, 613/-levied under section 271(1)(c ) of the Act in relation to addition of ₹ 30, 58, 864 in assessment under section 147 of the Act. 13. Since we have

M/S. Samira Habitats India Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cent. Cir-35(Now DCIT CC-6(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 529/MUM/2022[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri.Ri Om Prakashri. Kant & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopalआ.अ.सं.529 /मुं/2022 िन.व.2006-07 आ.अ.सं.531/मुं/2022 (िन.व.2006-07)

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav KabraFor Respondent: Smt. USha Gaikwad, Sr.AR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153A

Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Learned Assessing Officer in imposing of penalty by invoking provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is bad, illegal, void abinitio or without jurisdiction. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case ... circumstances of the case.” 12. In the grounds raised, the assessee is aggrieved with the penalty amounting to ₹ 10, 29, 613/-levied under section 271(1)(c ) of the Act in relation to addition of ₹ 30, 58, 864 in assessment under section 147 of the Act. 13. Since we have

Basf India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 553/MUM/2017[]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022
Section 195(2)Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)(vii)

levying interest under section 234B of the Act, without considering the fact that the Appellant is non- resident. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 6. Erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant craves leave

Basf India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 552/MUM/2017[]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022
Section 195(2)Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)(vii)

levying interest under section 234B of the Act, without considering the fact that the Appellant is non- resident. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 6. Erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant craves leave

Basf Se, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2070/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13
Section 195(2)Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)(vii)

levying interest under section 234B of the Act, without considering the fact that the Appellant is non- resident. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 6. Erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant craves leave

The Congregation of the Sisters of the Cross of Chavanod, Trichy vs. CIT, CPC, TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

ITA 807/CHNY/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Oct 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.807/Chny/2022 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2015-16) The Congregation Of The Sisters Of The The Acit, Cpc बनाम/ Cross Of Chavanod, Tds, Ghaziabad Holy Cross Provincilate, Puthur, Vs. Tiruchirappalli-620 017. थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan: Aaatt-4867-G / (अपीलाथ)/Appellant) : (*+थ) / Respondent) अपीलाथ)कीओरसे/ Appellant By : None *+थ)कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri AR.V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 206C(3)Section 234ESection 272A(2)(k)

prescribed for submission of the said statement. To put it in other words, for failure to submit the statements, the penalty provided under Section 271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub- section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that

Kundanmal Keshrimalji Dhakad, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer WD-18(2) (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1691/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhkundanmal Keshrimalji Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Dhakad, Shop No.14, Ward 18(2)(2), Ladivala Chambers, Matru Mandir, Tardeo, Sheikh Memon Street, Mumbai – 400 007 Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai – 400 002 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aeepd9718G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Sridhar Govind Menon Date Of Hearing 20.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 26.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Nfac, Delhi, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O U/S 143(3) Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Hereinafter Referred To As "Nfac" Has Erred In Deciding The Appeal Of The Appellant Ex-Parte On 30 April, 2022 Ignoring The Fact That The Adjournment Request Of The Appellant Dated 25Th April, 2022 Requesting For Adjournment Till 10Th May, 2022 Was Already On Records & The Same Was Pending As On The Date Of Deciding The Appeal.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sridhar Govind Menon
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Shaikh Vs. DCIT (2021) 125 taxmann.com 253 (Bombay), the relevant part of the head note of the decision is reproduced as under: “Section 271(1)(c), read with section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For concealment of income (Recording of satisfaction) - Whether where assessment order clearly records ... satisfaction for imposing penalty on one or other, or both grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c), a mere defect in notice-not striking off irrelevant matter would vitiate penalty proceedings - Held, yes - Whether since penalty proceedings culminate under a different statutory scheme that remains distinct from assessment proceedings, therefore

Shri Uttamchand Sawlachand Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(3)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 610/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2013-14
Section 142Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(b)

1)(b) need not be imposed if there is reasonable cause for the failure of the assessee to comply with the provisions of section 271(1)(b). We therefore delete the penalty imposed by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). 6. In the result, the appeal filed

Remy Diamonds Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 5, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3900/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3898 To 3900/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ The Principal Commissioner Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Of Income Tax-5 Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Road, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400051. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 5481 To 5483/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-5(3)(1) Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Room No.573, Aayakar Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Bhavan, M. K. Road, Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcr2195R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hiren Vepari Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri Hiren VepariFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 132Section 147Section 263

deemed to be a part of this order. Demand Notice and Challan issued accordingly. Show cause notice u/s 274(1) read with section 271(1)(c) issued to the assessee.” 8. Aggrieved, by the aforesaid action of AO u/s 147/143(3) of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before

Remy Diamonds Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 5, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3899/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3898 To 3900/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ The Principal Commissioner Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Of Income Tax-5 Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Road, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400051. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 5481 To 5483/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-5(3)(1) Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Room No.573, Aayakar Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Bhavan, M. K. Road, Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcr2195R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hiren Vepari Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri Hiren VepariFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 132Section 147Section 263

deemed to be a part of this order. Demand Notice and Challan issued accordingly. Show cause notice u/s 274(1) read with section 271(1)(c) issued to the assessee.” 8. Aggrieved, by the aforesaid action of AO u/s 147/143(3) of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before

Remy Diamonds Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 5, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3898/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3898 To 3900/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ The Principal Commissioner Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Of Income Tax-5 Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Road, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400051. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 5481 To 5483/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-5(3)(1) Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Room No.573, Aayakar Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Bhavan, M. K. Road, Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcr2195R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hiren Vepari Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri Hiren VepariFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 132Section 147Section 263

deemed to be a part of this order. Demand Notice and Challan issued accordingly. Show cause notice u/s 274(1) read with section 271(1)(c) issued to the assessee.” 8. Aggrieved, by the aforesaid action of AO u/s 147/143(3) of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before

Dy.CIT Circle -1, Thane vs. Shri Gangasagar Sitaram Mallah, Thane

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1544/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

assessment year 2010–11, which in turn, arose from the order dated 13/03/2018, passed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Shri Gangasagar Sitaram Mallah ITA No.1544/Mum./2022 2. When this appeal was called for hearing, neither anyone appeared on behalf of the assessee ... material available on record. 3. The only grievance of the Revenue in the present appeal is against deletion of penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by the learned CIT(A). 4. The brief facts of the case pertaining to the issue, as emanating from the record

Shri. Hajaram P Purohit, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 36, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 7638/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Income Tax (Appeals)–53, Mumbai, [“learned CIT(A)”], which in turn, arose from the separate orders passed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Shri Hajaram P. Purohit A.Y. 2008–09, 2009–10, 2010–11 2. When these appeals were called for hearing, neither anyone

Shri. Hajaram P Purohit, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 36, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 7637/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Income Tax (Appeals)–53, Mumbai, [“learned CIT(A)”], which in turn, arose from the separate orders passed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Shri Hajaram P. Purohit A.Y. 2008–09, 2009–10, 2010–11 2. When these appeals were called for hearing, neither anyone