← 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)

Khyalilal Mohanlal Tater, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the six appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1385/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Charmi Shroff, ARFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

assessee for six different assessment years starting from A.Y. 2013-14 to A.Y. 2018-19 against the confirmation of the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) & 272A(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai ... compliance on or before 5 March 2020. The assessee did not file any adjournment nor furnish any details and therefore, penalty proceedings under Section 271(1) (b) of the Act were initiated by issuing notice under Section 274 read with Section 271(1) (b) of the Act dated 8th December

Khyalilal Mohanlal Tater, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the six appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1384/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Charmi Shroff, ARFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

assessee for six different assessment years starting from A.Y. 2013-14 to A.Y. 2018-19 against the confirmation of the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) & 272A(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai ... compliance on or before 5 March 2020. The assessee did not file any adjournment nor furnish any details and therefore, penalty proceedings under Section 271(1) (b) of the Act were initiated by issuing notice under Section 274 read with Section 271(1) (b) of the Act dated 8th December

Khyalilal Mohanlal Tater, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the six appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1383/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Charmi Shroff, ARFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

assessee for six different assessment years starting from A.Y. 2013-14 to A.Y. 2018-19 against the confirmation of the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) & 272A(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai ... compliance on or before 5 March 2020. The assessee did not file any adjournment nor furnish any details and therefore, penalty proceedings under Section 271(1) (b) of the Act were initiated by issuing notice under Section 274 read with Section 271(1) (b) of the Act dated 8th December

Khyalilal Mohanlal Tater, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the six appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1382/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Charmi Shroff, ARFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

assessee for six different assessment years starting from A.Y. 2013-14 to A.Y. 2018-19 against the confirmation of the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) & 272A(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai ... compliance on or before 5 March 2020. The assessee did not file any adjournment nor furnish any details and therefore, penalty proceedings under Section 271(1) (b) of the Act were initiated by issuing notice under Section 274 read with Section 271(1) (b) of the Act dated 8th December

Khyalilal Mohanlal Tater, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the six appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1381/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Charmi Shroff, ARFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

assessee for six different assessment years starting from A.Y. 2013-14 to A.Y. 2018-19 against the confirmation of the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) & 272A(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai ... compliance on or before 5 March 2020. The assessee did not file any adjournment nor furnish any details and therefore, penalty proceedings under Section 271(1) (b) of the Act were initiated by issuing notice under Section 274 read with Section 271(1) (b) of the Act dated 8th December

Sri B.V. Sreenivasa Reddy, Bellary vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 372/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13 Shri B.V. Sreenivasa Reddy, The Deputy Srinagar Colony, Commissioner Of Near Arunodhaya Income Tax, Hospital, Central Circle – 1[3], Siriguppa Road, Bangalore. Vs. Bellary. Pan: Afbpr9736C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Advocate : Shri Venudhar Godesi, Jcit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 19-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 19/01/2022 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As Levying Penalty U/S 271[1][C] Of The Act Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Order Of Penalty Passed U/S 271[1][C] Of The Act Is Bad In Law As The Notice Issued Under Section 274 Rws 271 Of The Act Is Not Discernable Whether The Penalty Proceedings Are Initiated For Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Income Or Concealment Of Income Under The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Advocate
Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

discussed in detail by the AO while passing the penalty order. The reasoning given by the AO remains uncontroverted. So the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act are squarely attracted in the case of the appellant.” Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is in appeal ... should be imposed / cannot be imposed. “63. In the light of what is stated above, what emerges is as under: a) Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is a civil liability. b) Mens rea is not an essential element for imposing penalty for breach of civil obligations or liabilities

Jsw Energy Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Transfer Pricing) 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1223/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Us Is A Public Company Engaged In The Business Of Generation Of Power & Operation & Maintenance Of The Power Plants, As Also Other Allied Activities. During The Course Of Its Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Made A Reference Under Section 92Ca(1), For Determination Of The Arm‟S Length Price Of The International Transactions & Specified Domestic Transaction Entered Into By The Assessee With Its Associated Enterprises (Aes), To The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Assessment Year 2014-15 Page 2 Of 17

Section 271GSection 92CSection 92D

contain specific reference to notice dated 13.02.2017). 15. In regard to non-recording of initiation of penalty proceedings in assessment order, firstly unlike section 271(1)(c), where proceedings is to be initiated in course of assessment such requirement is not needed here since law does not prescribe so. Moreover

Hemal Maganlal Shah, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 285/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalhemal Maganlal Shah 84, 4Th Floor, Pankaj-B, Lbs Road, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400086. Pan: Amfps8271G ...... Appellant Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. H.M. Shah Respondent By : Sh. Prasoon Kabra Date Of Hearing : 17/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/08/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: Sh. H.M. ShahFor Respondent: Sh. Prasoon Kabra
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)Section 274Section 69C

271(1)(c) of the Act was also initiated on the issue of addition on account of bogus purchases. A penalty order under section 271(1) (c) of the Act dated 12.03.2020 was passed against the assessee and a penalty of Rs. 1, 99,717/- was imposed. 4. Against this ... submission in this regard. (iii) For sake of clarity and better understanding of the matter, we are reproducing herein-below section 69C and section 271((1) (c) of the Act. So that the version of the Revenue and submissions of assessee can be evaluated. “[Unexplained Expenditure, etc. 69C. Where

DCIT Cent. Cir 1(2), Mumbai vs. Milan Kavin Parikh, Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1240/MUM/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 1240/मुं/2022 ("न. व .2007-08) Dcit, Central Circle 1(2),Mumbai Room No. 906, 9Th Floor, Annexe Building, Pratishtha Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Milan Kavin Parikh, 15A, J Mehta Road, Next To Khatau, Condominium, Nepean Sea Road, Mumbai – 400 006. Pan: Aadpp-0814-G ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Salil Mishra ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Mehta सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/08/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 10/08/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Salil MishraFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta
Section 271(1)(c)

deleted penalty as the Tribunal in ITA No.1959 &1960/Mum/2020 vide order dated 07/04/2021 deleted the addition on which penalty was levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘ the Act’]. 4. Shri Salil Mishra representing the Department supported the assessment order. 5. Both sides ... heard. The Revenue is in appeal against deleting of penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Undisputedly, the Tribunal has deleted the additions on which penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been levied. Once the substratum for levy of penalty has eroded

Hardik Shah, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) -50, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee in ITA No

ITA 1207/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 1206/मुं/2022 ("न.व .2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Haresh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’]. After completion of assessment under section 153A of the Act, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated and notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act was issued to the assessee for respective assessment years ... Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Act levying penalty of Rs.10,000/- for non-compliance of notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act. The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that penalty under section. 271(1)(b) of the Act for similar reasons

Hardik Shah, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) -50, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee in ITA No

ITA 1206/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 1206/मुं/2022 ("न.व .2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Haresh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’]. After completion of assessment under section 153A of the Act, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated and notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act was issued to the assessee for respective assessment years ... Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Act levying penalty of Rs.10,000/- for non-compliance of notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act. The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that penalty under section. 271(1)(b) of the Act for similar reasons

Deepak Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1535/MUM/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhdeepak Jain Vs. Ito – 33(1)(4) 202, Emp 54, Evershine (Formerly Assessed By Millanium Paradize, Ito 25(3)(2),R No. Thakur Vill, Kandivali (E) 708, 7Th Floor, C- Mumbai – 400101 12,Pratyakshakar Bhavan Bkc,Bandra- Mumbai – 400051. Pan/Gir No. : Aacpj1817E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Smt.Mahita Nair.Dr Date Of Hearing 04.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 08.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 45, Mumbai Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt.Mahita Nair.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

order laying penalty and confirmed by CIT (Appeals) is illegal and void and, therefore, bad in law as the limb of section 271(1)(c) under which the appellant was considered to be in default is not stated in the show cause notice u/s 274 r.w. s. section 271

Naresh Mehta, Mumbai vs. Comm of Income Tax(A), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1199/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Haresh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 246ASection 271(1)(b)Section 273B

order of dated 28.03.2022, passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai (in short ‘CIT(A)’) in relation to proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) by levying penalty of Rs.10,000/-. 2. Facts in brief emanating from ... members were infected with Covid and, therefore, even if part compliance was made, it was not a case for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 5. Once the assessee has given such a reason and during that time the entire country was going through

Neeta Shah, Mumbai vs. Comm of Income Tax (A), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1193/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Haresh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 246ASection 271(1)(b)Section 273B

impugned order dated 28.03.2022, passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai (in short ‘CIT(A)’) in relation to proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) by levying penalty of Rs.10,000/-. 2. Facts in brief emanating from ... members were infected with Covid and, therefore, even if part compliance was made, it was not a case for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 5. Once the assessee has given such a reason and during that time the entire country was going through

Polycom Technology Centre, Delhi vs. Nationa E- Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 944/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2022AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

require adjudication, as charging of interest is consequential in nature. 8. The assessee has also raised a ground relating to initiation of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. This ground also does not require adjudication as it is premature in nature. 9. In the result, the appeal filed

Sri Rathan Babulal Lath, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 157/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vilas V. Shinde, D.R
Section 132Section 153A

ITA No.157/Bang/2020 Sri Rathan Babulal Lath, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI

Apurva Jagdish Nanvati, Mumbai vs. JCIT-RG 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2421/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleapurva Jagdish Nanavati V. Jcit – Range – 10(3) Arunodaya Bungalow, Sarojini Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vile Parle (W), Mumbai – 400056 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaapn4583F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Hari S.RahejaFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 269SSection 271D

proposition that the onus is on the revenue to establish the default, unlike the deeming fiction available by virtue of Explanations in section 271(1)(c) of the Act where onus is fastened on the assessee to prove the absence of default." 8 Apurva Jagdish Nanavati 9 On the facts

DCIT Circle-15 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Sphynx Agro Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 6632/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 27i

making addition of Rs.1,68,00,000/- on account of undervaluation of the stock, Assessing Officer (AO) initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act allegedly for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by showing undervaluation of the closing stock with respect to meat. Declining ... Bare perusal of the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) goes to prove that penalty levied by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by way of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income has been deleted on the sole ground that the entire

G.F. Reality Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 9(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 5460/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharish & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. Vimal Punmiya.ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Anbuselvam.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)Section 43C

234D of the Income Tax Act 1961. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the initiation of the penalty proceeding under section 271(1)}(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961. 4. The Assessee craves leave to add further grounds or to amend or alter the existing grounds

Neeta Vijay Udani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 24(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 948/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh M. Choksi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, Sr. A.R
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 68

pertinent to note that the Assessing Officer has not initiated penalty under aforesaid provisions and rather penalty has been initiated under section 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act in the present case. Even if penalty under any other provisions is leviable then it is for the Revenue