← 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 K-Lifestyle & Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 5(3), Mumbai

ITA 1021/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kant

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Jasdeep Singh, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 69ASection 7

basis of assessment framed under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act AO initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and thereby levied the penalty which has been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 3. Assessee companies carried the matter before

M/S Subex Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-6(1)(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 107/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 107/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Subex Ltd., Rmz Ecoworld, The Income Tax Outer Ring Road, Officer, Devarabisanahalli, Ward – 6 (1)(4), Bangalore – 560 103. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aabcs9255R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 07-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 26/10/2018 Passed By Ld.Ito, Ward – 6(1)(4), Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under: 1. Assessment & Reference To Learned Transfer Pricing Officer Are Bad In Law 1.1. The Income Tax Officer. Ward — 6(1)(4), Bangalore (Learned Assessing Officer Or 'Ld. Ao') Erred In Making A Reference To The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Transfer Pricing —Range 2(2)(1) (Learned Transfer Pricing Officer' Or 'Ld. Tpo'), Inter Alia, Since He Has Not Recorded

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CA
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C(3)

erred in not adjudicating this ground of objection raised by the Appellant before it. 11. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 11.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings ... under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The DRP has erred in dismissing the Appellant's objection against initiation of penalty proceedings. 12. Relief 12.1. The Appellant prays that directions be given to grant all such relief arising from the preceding grounds as also all reliefs consequential thereto

M/S Teej Impex Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-Ward 8(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

ITA 643/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 643/मुं/2022("न.व. 2012-13) M/S. Teej Impex Pvt.Ltd. 4 Anna Bhuvan 3Rd Floor, 87C Devji Ratansi Marg, Dana Bunder, Mumbai 400 009 Pan: Aabct-9976-A ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ward 8(3)(1) Mumbai. Mumbai. Mumbai. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Dr. P.Daniel ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Brajendra Kumar सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 13/07/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 13/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ In Short ‘The Cit(A) Dated 30/03/2022 For The Assessment Year 2012-13,In Penalty Proceedings U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’].

For Appellant: Dr. P.DanielFor Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण मुंबई पीठ “ ई ” "ी "वकास अव"थी, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एम बालगणेश, लेखाकार सद

M/S. Subex Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 2579/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2579/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Subex Ltd., The Deputy Rmz Ecoworld, Commissioner Of Outer Ring Road, Income Tax, Devarabisanahalli, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore – 560 103. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcs9255R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 11-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 23/10/2019 Passed By Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For A.Y. 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under: 1. Erroneous Transfer Pricing Adjustments Arising From Interest On Trade Receivables 1.1. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle - 6(1)(2), Bangalore (Learned Assessing Officer' Or 'Ld. Ao') / Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Transfer Pricing Circle - 1(3)(1) ('Learned Transfer Pricing Officer' Or 'Ld.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CA
Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)

erred in not adjudicating this ground of objection raised by the Appellant before it. 6. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 6.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law. the Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings ... under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The DRP has erred in dismissing the Appellant's objection against initiation of penalty proceedings. 7. Relief 7.1 The Appellant prays that directions be given to grant all such relief arising from the preceding grounds as also all reliefs consequential thereto

Shiva Shakti Enclaves Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) 49, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 17/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Shiva Shakti Enclaves Pvt. Ltd. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Raigad Darshan (Appeals)–49 Oppsite Indian Oil Company, 605, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Vs. J.P. Road, Andheri (W) Mumbai-400 050 Mumbai-400 053 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aagcs5014B Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ar Revenue By : Shri Himanshu Sharma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2022

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma, DR
Section 131Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 271(1)(C)Section 68

Shiva Shakti Enclave P Ltd; A.Y. 2009–10 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the invoking of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(C) of the income Tax Act 1961. 7. The assessee craves leave to add further grounds or to amend or alter the existing grounds

Sailesh Mehta, Mumbai vs. CIT(A), NFAC

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

ITA 2445/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. D. B. Shah. ARFor Respondent: Shri. Hoshang B. Irani.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

Sailesh Mehta, Mumbai vs. CIT(A), NFAC

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

ITA 2444/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. D. B. Shah. ARFor Respondent: Shri. Hoshang B. Irani.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

Sailesh Mehta, Mumbai vs. CIT(A), NFAC

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

ITA 2443/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. D. B. Shah. ARFor Respondent: Shri. Hoshang B. Irani.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

Sailesh Mehta, Mumbai vs. CIT(A), NFAC

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

ITA 2439/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. D. B. Shah. ARFor Respondent: Shri. Hoshang B. Irani.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

Ntt Data Information Processing Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 297/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 143(3)

learned AO has erred, in law and in facts, in initiating penalty proceedings under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant submits that each of above grounds is independent and without prejudice to one another.” 2. At the time of hearing, assessee

Pritesh Jitendra Mehta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer WD, 27(2) (5), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 295/MUM/2022[2009-10`]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022
For Appellant: Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai (Sr. AR)
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

Pritesh Jitendra Mehta respect of bogus purchases wherein profit embedded therein was computed @25%], had come to the conclusion that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) be imposed and the view so taken by the coordinate bench has been consistently followed in a large number of cases (refer

Nitin A. Shah, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-1(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 1201/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Nitin A. Shah, Dcit, Cc-1(3), 31/32, 8Th Floor, 905, 9Th Floor, Pratishtha Bhavan, Giriraj Apartment, Vs. Old Cgo Building Annex, Teen Batti, Walkeshwar, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 006. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aahps 3826 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Suchek Anchaliya, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Kiran P. Unavekar, DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC-1” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM

Nitin A. Shah, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-1(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 1200/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Nitin A. Shah, Dcit, Cc-1(3), 31/32, 8Th Floor, 905, 9Th Floor, Pratishtha Bhavan, Giriraj Apartment, Vs. Old Cgo Building Annex, Teen Batti, Walkeshwar, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 006. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aahps 3826 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Suchek Anchaliya, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Kiran P. Unavekar, DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC-1” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM

Asstt. CIT-32(1), Mumbai vs. Sunitaben Shantilal Patel, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed in terms of aforesaid findings

ITA 111/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalasst. Commissioner Of Income Tax-32(1), Room No. 702, 7Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. ...... Appellant Vs. Sunitaben Shantilal Patel, 1903, Siddhivinayak Tower Chs Ltd. Link Road, Sudhendra Nagar, Dahisar (E), Mumbai-400068. Pan: Afhpp0267N ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. B.K. Bagchi, Sr. Dr Respondent By : Sh. Jigaar Mehta, Ar Date Of Hearing : 30/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/07/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-44, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit (A)’] Vide Order Dated 13.08.2020 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. “Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Rejecting The Audited Books Of Accounts & Reducing The Turnover To Rs. 9,50,35,865/- Against Turnover Of Rs. 12,05,07,568/- As Disclosed In The Audited Books Of Accounts.” 2. “Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Eliminating He Profits To 8% Of The Reduced Turnover Against Addition Of Rs. 8,49,87,993/- Made By The Ao.”

For Appellant: Sh. B.K. Bagchi, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Jigaar Mehta, AR
Section 142(1)Section 271(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

DCIT Cir 3, Thane vs. The Thane District Central Co. Op. Bank Ltd, Thane

In the result, appeal by Revenue is dismissed being devoid of any merit

ITA 2512/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 2512/मुं/2019 ("न. व .2011-12) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -3, Thane, Room No.02, 6Th Floor, Aashar It Park, B-Wing, Wagle Industrial Estate, Road No.16Z, Thane (W)- 400 604. ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Thane District Central Co Operative Bank Ltd. 01, Chhatrapati Shivaji Path, Post Box No.19, Thane (W)- 400 601. Pan: Aaaat-0739-N ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Manoj Sinha ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Ashok Patil सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 01/07/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 01/07/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Manoj SinhaFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Patil
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(viia)

book. The ld.Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed that the Assessing Officer while issuing said notice has not struck off irrelevant limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act in proforma notice. The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee in support of his contentions placed reliance on the decision ... notice dated 24/03/2014 issued u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act examined. In appeal filed by the assessee against levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the CIT(A) has deleted penalty by placing reliance on the order of Tribunasl in assessee’s own case

Venkatesh Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer WD 3(3) (4), Mumbai

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

ITA 448/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri A K Tekriwal/For Respondent: Ms. Vranda U Matkari
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 253(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Assessment Year 2009-10, whereby the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant against the order, dated 16.03.2018, passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act levying penalty of INR 4,73,079/-. Assessment Year: 2009-10 Though the appeal has been filed after the expiry ... Appeals) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.4,73,079/ levied by the Ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3)(4), Mumbai, under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.4

M/S. Camoron Finance & Investments, Mumbai-400057 vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-17(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 1062/MUM/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2008-09
Section 271(1)(c)

appellant has challenged the order dated 14th 1. March 2022 passed by the National Faceless Appeals Centre, in the matter of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2008-09, but without granting an opportunity for personal hearing, though specifically prayed

M/S. Xerox Business Services India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2595/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2022AY 2013-14
For Respondent: Shri Nageshwar Rao
Section 133(6)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd. ITA No. 2043/Mum/2016 (Mum-ITAT) 7. The Ld. AO erred in proposing to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The aforesaid grounds are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, delete ... hereinabove. 7. Ground No.6-7 is consequential in nature as it is in respect of levy of interest under section 234B and penalty under section 271 (1) (c) of the act, accordingly, do not require any adjudication. In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order

DCIT Central Cir -1(2), Mumbai vs. Saunak Jitendra Parikh, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1243/MUM/2022[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mahita NairFor Respondent: None
Section 131Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai (in short ‘ld. CIT(A)’) in relation to penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). In both the years, Revenue is aggrieved by deletion of penalty of Rs.2 ... Rs.27,99,64,660/- in Assessment Year 2006-07 on account of peak credit in HSBC Bank. Accordingly, penalty has been levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for both the assessment years by the Assessing Officer. The ld. CIT(A) noted that the ITAT Mumbai vide order

DCIT Central Cir -1(2), Mumbai vs. Saunak Jitendra Parikh, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1242/MUM/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mahita NairFor Respondent: None
Section 131Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai (in short ‘ld. CIT(A)’) in relation to penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). In both the years, Revenue is aggrieved by deletion of penalty of Rs.2 ... Rs.27,99,64,660/- in Assessment Year 2006-07 on account of peak credit in HSBC Bank. Accordingly, penalty has been levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for both the assessment years by the Assessing Officer. The ld. CIT(A) noted that the ITAT Mumbai vide order