← 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)

Sonali Rajender Sethi, Mumbai vs. ITO - 12(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1457/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Pitta Samuel
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 24Section 94C

ITA Nos.1457 & 1458/Mum/2020 1 Sonali Rajender Sethi Vs. ITO-12(1)(2) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH

Income Tax Officer-9(2)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Evergreen Water Technologies Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5483/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Shyam AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Pitta Samuel
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

assessment year 2009–10, which in turn, arose from the order dated 15/03/2018, passed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The present appeal has been listed for hearing before us pursuant to the order dated 01/07/2022, passed by the Co–ordinate Bench ... restored.” 4. 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). 5. The brief facts of the case pertaining to the issue, as emanating from the record, are: The assessee

Income Tax Officer Ward -3(1), Mumbai vs. Bhadresh Jayantilal Shah, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1666/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1666/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito, Ward-3(1), Kalyan बिधम/ Bhadresh Jayantilal Shah 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, B-106 Shiv Sambhav Vs. Murbad Road, Kalyan (W), Chsl, Veer Savarkar 421301. Road, Dombivli (E), Thane-421201. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aeeps2956R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue By: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Action Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/ Nfac, Delhi Dated 11.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2010-11 Deleting The Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. The Facts Of The Case Is That The Ao In The Quantum Assessment Dated 30.12.2014 Had Added Rs.1,46,635/- Being 100% Of The Alleged Bogus Purchases. On Appeal, The Ld. Cit(A)-1 By Order Dated 25.06.2018 Reduced The Same To The Extent Of 25% Of The Alleged Bogus Purchases. Resultantly, The Addition Was Restricted To Rs.36,659/-. On Further Appeal By Revenue, The Tribunal Upheld The Action Of The Cit(A) (Ita. No 5079 & 5080/Mum/2018) & Thus The Revenue Appeal Was Dismissed.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. AR)
Section 271(1)(c)

particulars of income and thus, various Hon'ble Courts and Tribunals have consistently held the same view while deleting the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) qua the estimated additions or estimated disallowances. Hence, it would be pertinent to refer to the ratio of the following

Royal Canin India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/CIT/Asstt/ ITO, National E-Assessment Centre/Asst CIT-3(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1298/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं. 1298/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2016-17) Royal Canin India Private Limited, 1401&1402 F Wing, 14Th Floor, Lotus Corporate Park, Cts Nos. 185/A, Graham Firth Compund Western Highway, Goregaon(E), Mumbai 400 063 Pan: Aadcr-4417-J ..... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax -3(1)(1) Room No.607, 6Th Floor,, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Khirendra M. Gupta With Shri Akhil Goel. ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsalaa Jha सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 27/06/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Khirendra M. Gupta with Shri Akhil GoelFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha
Section 143(3)Section 271G

No.5 of appeal is dismissed as not pressed. 14. In ground No.6 of appeal, the assessee has assailed initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Challenge to penalty proceedings at this stage is premature, hence, this ground is dismissed as such. 15. In ground No.7

Muthukumar Murugesan, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corp Cir 11(1), Chennai

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

ITA 292/CHNY/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.292/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Muthukumar Murugesan, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 31, Anjugam Street, Meenatchi Income Tax, Amman Nagar,Alwarthirunagar, Non Corporate Circle 11(1), Chennai 600 087. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aompm8457K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Chandrasekaran, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 19.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Dated 30.12.2019 For The Assessment Year 2017-18 By The Assessing Officer Without Filing The Appeal Before The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals). The Grounds Of Appeal Filed By The Assessee Relates To Quantum Addition, Whereas, The Form 36, Under Column No. 6 – Section & Sub-Section Under Which The Original Order Is Passed, The Assessee Has Mentioned Section 271(1)(B) Or 271B Of The Act Relates To 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. Chandrasekaran, JCIT
Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

whereas, the Form 36, under Column No. 6 – section and sub-section under which the original order is passed, the assessee has mentioned section 271(1)(b) or 271B of the Act relates to 2 I.T.A. No.292/Chny/21 penalty. The assessee should have filed separate appeals for quantum addition and levy

Late Jayesh Thar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer TDS, Ward Kalyan, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 1479/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2013-2014
Section 154Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234E

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

Late Jayesh Thar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer TDS, Ward Kalyan, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 1478/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2013-2014
Section 154Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234E

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

Late Shri Jayesh Thar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer TDS, Ward Kalyan, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 1477/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2013-2014
Section 154Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234E

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

Late Shri Jayeesh Thar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward Kalyan, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 1476/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2013-2014
Section 154Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234E

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

Proma Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO-10(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, ground 1 is dismissed

ITA 1788/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

assessee has failed to rebut the same. Penalty proceedings were also initiated. The assessee also preferred appeal against the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) which was dismissed by the Ld.CIT(A) on the ground that it was not filed electronically. The assessee was in appeal against the order

Nxp India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 264/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

appearing in Form 26AS v. Ground 14 — Non allowance of deduction of education cess vi. Ground 15 — Initiation of Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act vii. Ground 16 — Levy of interest under section 234B of the Act 6. Ground No. 1 and 2 being general does

M/S Jaico Automobile Engineering Company Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-11(5), Bangalore

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

ITA 125/BANG/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Sept 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R
Section 271(1)(c)

have appreciated that the Show Cause Notice is defective in that it did not specify the reason for initiating the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. M/s. Jaico Automobile Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 2 of 10 Rs.9,62,91,447/- 2. The learned ... Rs.9,62,91,447/- 4. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for the relevant assessment year is opposed to law and to the principles of natural justice and accordingly he ought not to have confirmed the levy

M/S. Arshiya Rail Infrastucture Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT - CC-6(4), Mumbai

In the result appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 574/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed a/wFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 115Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 153C

facts and the circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer erred in initiating the penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Act made by learned AO shall be dropped.” 3. The brief facts of the case, as emanating from the record, are: The assessee is a private

Scorditte Stainless India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 5(3) (1), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 1 to 3 raised by the Appellant are allowed

ITA 2002/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Assessment Year 2012-13, whereby the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the order, dated 28.09.2018, passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act levying penalty of INR 37,25,254/-. ITA. No.2002/Mum/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 2. The Appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1 ... respect of alleged hawala/non-genuine purchases.” 3. Appellant has challenged the levy of penalty of INR 37,25,254/- by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act which has been confirmed by the CIT(A) leading to the filing of the present appeal. ITA. No.2002/Mum/2021 Assessment Year

Rajkumar Bidawatka, Mumbai vs. Dy.CIT -14(3) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1656/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1656/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-14(3)(1), Rajkumar Bidawatka Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, C-302, Rock Avenue, Plot Mumbai-400 020 No. D, Opp-Joy Ice Cream बिधम/ Near Hindustan Naka, Vs. Kandivali(W), Mumbai- 400 067 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaipb4224H (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Navneet Lahoti, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri T. Shankar, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 06.09.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 06.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 07.06.2022, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Relation To Penalty Proceeding U/S 271(1)(B) For Ay 2010-11. 2

For Appellant: Shri Navneet Lahoti, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar, Ld. DR
Section 115WSection 142Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

compliance of notice u/s 148, which on facts is 4 I.T.A. No. 1656/Mum/2022 Rajkumar Bidawatka not the case. None the less penalty under Section 271(1)(b) is not meant for non-compliance of notice u/s 148. Said section reads as under:- 271(1) ------------ (a) ------------ (b) has [***] failed to comply

Mr. G R Chandrashekar Naidu, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 677/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore06 Sept 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Smt.Suman Gala Ranga, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.K.R.Narayanan, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

payable by the assessee, which was a sine-quo-non for imposition of penalty. Amendments were made by the Finance Act, 2002, to Section 271(1)(iii) of the Act by incorporating the expression "if any" and also in Explanation 4 setting out the meaning of the phrase "amount ... Singh and Co. is also not very important because that was in relation to the assessment year 1970-71 when Explanation 4 to Section 271 (1) ((c) was not in existence. The view of this Court in Horprasods case (supra) Leads to the irresistible conclusion that income also includes Losses

Mr. Sajjanraj Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-21(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground no-4 is also allowed with a direction to the A

ITA 56/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalmr. Sajjanraj Mehta C/O. M. Mehta & Co., Shop No. 19, Palamsojal Building, Dadar (W), Mumbai-400028. Pan: Aabpm9430B ...... Appellant Vs. Ito, Ward-21(3)(2) Room No. 206, 2Nd Floor, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Mumbai-400012. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Ajay Singh Respondent By : Sh. Pramod Nikalje Date Of Hearing : 14/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/09/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-33, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As (‘Cit(A)’] Dated 11.02.2020 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay SinghFor Respondent: Sh. Pramod Nikalje
Section 234BSection 234DSection 244ASection 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(vii)

case and law applicable thereto, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. The Appellant craves your Honour's leave to add, NA alter or amend any grounds of appeal at the time

ITO WD-1, Palghar vs. Shri Jaydeep Vasant Raut, Palghar

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2086/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rishi PatelFor Respondent: Shri Ajeya Kumar Ojha
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

alleged bogus purchase. Meanwhile, the penalty order dated 16/03/2020, was passed by the Shri Jaydeep Vasant Raut ITA No.2086/Mum./2021 Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, wherein penalty of Rs.4,97,535, was levied on the basis that the assessee has concealed the particulars of income ... hearing, at the outset, the learned Authorised Representative (“learned A.R”) submitted that the amount of penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is only Rs.4,97,535, and thus, the tax effect in Revenue’s appeal is below the revised monetary limit

Mrs. Shailaja G Tandel, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 4, Panvel

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7548/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Mrs. Shailaja G Tandel Ito Ward-4 401, Chandan Residency Panvel Raigad Plot No.33, Sector 44A, Vs. Nerul West, Navi Mumbai Navi Mumbai-400 706 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Acppt6011K Assessee By : Shri Prakash Pandit, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ajay Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.09.2022

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Pandit, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Singh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 54F

Pune, dated 4th October, 2019 for A.Y. 2011-12, wherein penalty levied by ITO, Ward-4, (the learned Assessing Officer) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 24th March, 2017 of ₹26,57,402/-, is confirmed. 02. Briefly stated facts show that return ... gain and assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 54F of the Act. 04. Meanwhile, the learned Assessing Officer passed an order under Section 271 (1) ( c) of the Act, as nobody attended before him, levying penalty of ₹26,57,402/- holding that assessee has concealed income from short term

Vijay Grihnirman P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 15 & 16, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3279/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Us.

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

assessee is aggrieved by the decision of learned CIT(A) in confirming the penalty in both the years under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. 2. The assessee company is engaged in the business of construction. In A.Y. 2006-07, the Assessing Officer made addition ... lakhs as undisclosed income from sale of row house. The Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs. 3,36,600/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 3. In A.Y. 2007-08, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.30 lakhs relating to loan received by the assessee