← 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)

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Hewlett Packard Globalsoft Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 810/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

234D of the Act. 13.1 Ground No. 10.5 - The learned AO has erred in law and on fact, in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c ) of the Act. These grounds are consequential in nature. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical

Shri Pravin Champalal Bokadia, Mumbai vs. ITO WD-19(2) (5), Mumbai

ITA 7/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.07/मुं/2022 ("न.व. 2011-12) Shri Pravin Champalal Bokadia, 77, Dr. Mahimtura Marg, 3Rd Kumbharwada, Near Cp Tank, Mumbai -400 004. Pan: Aaqpb-4778-E ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Ito,Ward 19(2)(5), Room No.210, 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Grant Road(W) Mumbai 400 007. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri R.A.Dhyani सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 02/06/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/06/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri R.A.Dhyani
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

23/02/2016 issued u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act is defective as the notice is not specific as to on which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act penalty is being levied. The said notice has been issued in pre-printed Performa. The irrelevant section of the notice ... penalty proceedings are being initiated separately. However, nowhere in the assessment order the Assessing Officer has mentioned as to on which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act penalty proceedings are being initiated. Even the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order is vague

Prabhulal Kalji Doshi, Mumbai vs. ITO -19(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

ITA 745/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.745/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2011-12) Prabhulal Kalji Doshi, Room No.65, Moti Mention, 5Th Khetwadi Lane, Mumbai 400 004 Pan: Adwpd-9204-C ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. I.T.O 19(2)(5), 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai 400 051. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : None ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri R.A.Dhyani सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 02/06/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/06/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.A.Dhyani
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

No.3501/Mum/2017. The Tribunal vide order dated 03/11/2017 confirmed the findings of CIT(A). The Assessing Officer vide order dated 23/03/2018 levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the addition confirmed by Tribunal. Against the penalty order, the assessee filed appeal before ... unsustainable. 7. Thus, in view of the facts of the case and decisions referred above, we see no reason to uphold penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Consequently, the impugned order is set-aside and the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 8. In the result, appeal

Mukund Trikamlal Parmar, Hyderabad vs. ITO 32(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1079/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhmukund Trikamlal Vs. Ito-32(2)(3), Parmar, C/O P. Murali & Room No. 305, 3 Rd Floor, Co. Chartered C-11, Pratyakshkar Accountants, 6-3- Bhavan, Bandra Kurla 655/2/3, Somajiguda, Complex, Bandra (E), Hyderabad – 500082 Mumbai - 500051 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaapp9619E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Laxmikanth RathiFor Respondent: C.T. Mathews
Section 13Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

before me ca 12/04/2013 at 11.00AM and show cense why an order imposing a penalty en you should not be made under Section 271 (1) le) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. If no one attends this office on the said date of bearing, the case shall be decided ... relation to any concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by assessee in notice issued for initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c), same being sine qua non for initiation of such proceedings. Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh

ITO 25(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Shobha Chidmabaram, Mumbai

ITA 2497/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Smt. Shobha Chidambaram The Income Tax Officer 9, Ankur, Hanuman Cross 25(3)(1) Room No. 233, 2Nd Floor, Road, Kautilya Bhavan, 2, Ville Parle (E), Vs. Bkc, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400 057 Mumbai-400 051 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaapc4727A Assessee By : Shri Mehul Jain, Ar Revenue By : Shri Hoshang B Irani, Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.06.2022

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B Irani, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271(1)(d)Section 69C

Assessing Officer) against the order passed by National Faceless Centre, [the learned CIT(A)] for Assessment Year 2010-11, wherein the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by the order dated 31st March, 2016 of ₹2,84,756/- was reduced to only 10% of the penalty

M/S. Poorn Mercantile Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. WD 4(3) (1)/ AO NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2408/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Ward 4(3)(1) Poorn Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. 304, Orchid, Mantri Park, Film Ao Nfac City Road, Goregaon (E) New Delhi Vs. Mumbai-400063 Delhi-110001 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aafcp8314E Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Himanshu Sharma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 271(1)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM Ward

Gautam Hiralal Gandhi, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 22(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed reversing the findings of the lower authorities

ITA 1485/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Gautam Hiralal Gandhi The Dcit, 1801, Chandanbala, Circle 22(1) Retilal R Thakkar Marg, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Vs. Malabar Hill S.O, Parel, Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai-400 006 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aabpg7668F Assessee By : Shri Rajnikant Chaniyari, Ar Revenue By : Shri Hoshang B Irani, Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2022

For Appellant: Shri Rajnikant Chaniyari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B Irani, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Appeal) [the learned CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 29th June, 2021 for A.Y. 2016-17, wherein the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the income tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by ACIT, Circle 21(1), Mumbai of Rs.1,10,000/- was confirmed. Therefore, assessee ... assessee and corresponding TDS also claimed, therefore, he made an addition of Rs.2,97,122/-. On the same, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(C) of the Act were initiated separately for ‘concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income’. Accordingly, total income of the assessee was assessed

Shri Mahesh Vasudev Malhotra, Thane vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1482/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M. P. Ahuja (Sr. AR)
Section 133A(1)(b)Section 133A(4)(b)Section 271(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)

perusal of the notice shows that the AO has not striken down either of the limb of Section 271(1)(c) i.e. (i) have concealed the particulars of income and/or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income (ii) furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. So the penalty show cause notice issued ... 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

Factiva Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) - 2(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6455/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajneesh Yadav, D.R
Section 13(3)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)(vi)

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has erred in proposing to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating that none of the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act gets attracted in the facts

R G Patil & Company, Haveri vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Belagavi

In the result, these 2 appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 352/BANG/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.V Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT (DR)
Section 271(1)(c)

evidence, natural justice, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The appellant denies itself liable to a penalty of Rs. 3,090/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The authorities below failed to appreciate that the ingredients as envisaged ... provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act was absent and there was no concealment of income and consequently the order of penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act deserves to be cancelled on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The authorities below failed to appreciate

M/S Tejas Networks Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 205/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm It(Tp)A No.764/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 It(Tp)A No.205/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.Tejas Networks Limited The Assistant Commissioner Plot No.25, Jp Software Park Of Income-Tax, Circle – 1, Ltu V. Bangalore. Electronic City Phase-I Hosur Road, Bangalore – 560 100. Pan : Aabct1670M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.S.Annamalai, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2022 Date Of Hearing : 19.05.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Final Assessment Orders Dated 31.01.2017 & 23.11.2017, Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2012-2013 & 2013- 2014. We Shall First Adjudicate It(Tp)A No.764/Bang/2017 Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2012-2013. It(Tp)A No.764/Bang/2017 (Asst.Year 2012-2013) 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Design, Development, Manufacture Of Telecommunication Equipments. For The Assessment Year 2012-2013, The Return

For Appellant: Sri.S.Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

Nos.764 /Bang/2017 & Or. M/s.Tejas Networks Limited. 15. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings The learned AO has erred in initiating proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act without having regard to the fact that the appellant has fully disclosed all the facts in the return of income and that ... method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee. 5. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings 5.1. The learned AO has erred in initiating proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act without having regard to the fact that the appellant has fully disclosed all the facts in the return of income

M/S Tejas Networks Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1 Ltu, Bangalore

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

ITA 764/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm It(Tp)A No.764/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 It(Tp)A No.205/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.Tejas Networks Limited The Assistant Commissioner Plot No.25, Jp Software Park Of Income-Tax, Circle – 1, Ltu V. Bangalore. Electronic City Phase-I Hosur Road, Bangalore – 560 100. Pan : Aabct1670M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.S.Annamalai, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2022 Date Of Hearing : 19.05.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Final Assessment Orders Dated 31.01.2017 & 23.11.2017, Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2012-2013 & 2013- 2014. We Shall First Adjudicate It(Tp)A No.764/Bang/2017 Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2012-2013. It(Tp)A No.764/Bang/2017 (Asst.Year 2012-2013) 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Design, Development, Manufacture Of Telecommunication Equipments. For The Assessment Year 2012-2013, The Return

For Appellant: Sri.S.Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

Nos.764 /Bang/2017 & Or. M/s.Tejas Networks Limited. 15. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings The learned AO has erred in initiating proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act without having regard to the fact that the appellant has fully disclosed all the facts in the return of income and that ... method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee. 5. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings 5.1. The learned AO has erred in initiating proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act without having regard to the fact that the appellant has fully disclosed all the facts in the return of income

Rajiv Naresh Godiwala, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 25(3) (3), Mumbai

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

ITA 236/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Rajiv Naresh Godiawala Income Tax Officer Ward- 701, Laxmi Niwas, Ns Road No. 5, 25(3)(3), Juhu Scheme, Vileparle West, Vs. C-10/606, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400056. Complex, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacpg 5086 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Akash Kumar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Kiran P. Unavekar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Akash Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Kiran P. Unavekar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 68

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

Levi Staruss (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 695/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 695/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Levi Strauss (India) Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Sjr Cyber, 7Th Floor, Commissioner Of No. 22, Laskar Hosur Road, Income Tax, Adugodi, Circle 4 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 030. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacl3092Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 31-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-05-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Act By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 4 (1)(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2011-12 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Levi Strauss (India) Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As "Appellant") Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Learned Ao") Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961("The Act") On The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 144C

234A, 234B and 234D of the Act, respectively; 24. The learned AO has erred in law and in facts in initiating penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant submits that each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice to one another. The Appellant craves

DCIT-1 (2) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Pabal Housing Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2448/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.2447/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2012-13) आअसं.2448/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2014-15) The Dcit1(2)(1), Room No.535, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Pabal Housing Pvt. Ltd. 66B, Podar Chamber, Mumbai Samachar Marg, Fort, Mumbai 400 001. Pan: Aabcp-9574-G ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Ms. Vranda U. Matkari ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Prateek Jain. सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 26/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 26/05/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Ms. Vranda U. MatkariFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Jain
Section 271(1)(c)

assessee submitted at the outset that the Department had already filed appeals against the order of CIT(A) dated 21/09/2020 deleting penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act,1961 [in short ‘the Act’] for the assessment years ... appeals have been inadvertently filed in duplication. The earlier appeals filed by Department against the orders of CIT(A) deleting penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for assessment year 2012-13 and 2014-15 have been decided by the Tribunal vide order dated 06/10/2021. 4. Both sides

DCIT 1(2) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Pabal Housing Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2447/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.2447/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2012-13) आअसं.2448/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2014-15) The Dcit1(2)(1), Room No.535, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Pabal Housing Pvt. Ltd. 66B, Podar Chamber, Mumbai Samachar Marg, Fort, Mumbai 400 001. Pan: Aabcp-9574-G ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Ms. Vranda U. Matkari ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Prateek Jain. सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 26/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 26/05/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Ms. Vranda U. MatkariFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Jain
Section 271(1)(c)

assessee submitted at the outset that the Department had already filed appeals against the order of CIT(A) dated 21/09/2020 deleting penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act,1961 [in short ‘the Act’] for the assessment years ... appeals have been inadvertently filed in duplication. The earlier appeals filed by Department against the orders of CIT(A) deleting penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for assessment year 2012-13 and 2014-15 have been decided by the Tribunal vide order dated 06/10/2021. 4. Both sides

Dy CIT, Circle-16(1), Mumbai vs. Priyanka Chopra, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 479/MUM/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – Circle – 16(1) V. Priyanka Chopra Room No. 439, 4Th Floor B-807, Raj Classic Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Yari Road, Versova Mumbai - 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai - 400061 Pan: Acxpc1741R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Yogesh Joijode Department By : Shri R.A. Dhyani

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh JoijodeFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani
Section 132Section 132ASection 2Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 3

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S

PAN India Networks Infravest Ltd., Mumbai vs. Ty. CIT (OSD) CC-7(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 142/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blepan India Networks Infravest Limited V. Dcit- Central Circle – 7(1) 135, Continental Building Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Dr. Annie Besant Road Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai - 400018 Pan: Aaccp2459H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jay Bhansali Department By : Shri R.A. Dhyani

For Appellant: Shri Jay BhansaliFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

upholding the action of the Assessing Officer [hereinafter referred to as "the AO"] in levying penalty of Rs. 2,47,200/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on the disallowance of amalgamation expenses of Rs. 8,00,000/- made ... instant case, the appellant has neither concealed any income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income so as to warrant levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The CIT(A) / AO failed to appreciate that a disallowance arising out of bonafide mistake / oversight do not invite

ITO 19(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Supreme Steel Impex, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2499/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2022AY 2011-12

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

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

assessment years 2 ITAS 2498 & 2499/Mum/2021 2010-11 and 2011-12 against the penalty orders passed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The solitary ground which is common to both the appeals is as follows:- “1.a) Whether, on the facts ... were passed and addition was made. Subsequent to this, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings and levied penalty in assessee’s case under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for both the assessment years under appeal, which, on appeal was deleted by the Ld.CIT(A) on the ground that

ITO 19(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Supreme Steel Impex, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2498/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2022AY 2010-11

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

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

assessment years 2 ITAS 2498 & 2499/Mum/2021 2010-11 and 2011-12 against the penalty orders passed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The solitary ground which is common to both the appeals is as follows:- “1.a) Whether, on the facts ... were passed and addition was made. Subsequent to this, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings and levied penalty in assessee’s case under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for both the assessment years under appeal, which, on appeal was deleted by the Ld.CIT(A) on the ground that