← 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)

Abacus Internaitional Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 1(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2352/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2022AY 2006-07
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

claimed any benefit of carry forward of losses. Hence, there is no question of tax sought to be evaded within the meaning of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the instant case and also considering the fact that

ACIT 3(2) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Sjr Commodities & Consulting Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the order of the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 2175/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm The Acit M/S Sjr Commodities & Circle 3(2)(1) Consulting Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 674, 6Th Floor, 73-C, Su-Raj House, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Cross Road, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 093 Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaacs9779H Assessee By : Shri Vishal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Harmesh Lal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2022

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Harmesh Lal, DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

vide din no. 17th ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1035677097(1) dated September, 2021, wherein the penalty levied of ₹2,86,97,054/- levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act passed by the learned Assessing Officer on 30th March, 2019 was deleted. M/s SJR Commodities & Consulting ... under:- “6.6 As evident from the above, it is pertinent to note that the penalty under consideration for concealment of income under section 271(1)(c) was levied on account of two additions. One, addition on account of estimated turnover of SEZ unit which was reduced from

Amit Lalit Kapoor, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-16(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as per above direction

ITA 2009/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Amit Lalit Kapoor The Income Tax Officer, B–701, Supreme –19, Ward–16(1)(1), Lokhandwala, 3R D Cross Lane, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai–400 020 Mumbai–400 061 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Apqpk1601N

For Appellant: Shri Ashvini Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Bhaskaran, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 271(1)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JM Amit

Pegasus Properties P. Ltd., Pune vs. Dy CIT, CC-2(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 943/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Shri Dhramveer Singh
Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 22Section 23Section 23(4)

unexplained expenditure (i.e. difference in cash as per books vis-a-vis physical cash) u/s. 69C of the Act. initiation of penalty under section 271(1)(C) of the Act 17. erred in upholding the initiation of penalty proceedings on the above u/s 271(1)(c).” 5. The assessee

Dow Chemicals International Pvt Ltd. As Successor of Rohm and Haas (India) Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 14 (1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 7936/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dow Chemical International Private Income Tax Officer-14(1)(3), Limited As Successor Of Rohm & Hass Room No. 458, 4Th Floor, (India) Private Limited, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Godrej It Park-P2, 1St Floor Block B, 02, Mumbai-400020. Lbs Road, Godrej Business District, Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400079. Pan No. Aaacr 2855 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rajan R. Vora/For Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, CIT-DR
Section 92C

section 234B of the Act 21. erred in charging under section 234B of the Act amounting to Rs.51,88,911. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 22. erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the appellant

DCIT 9(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Gentech Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1565/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2022AY 2009-10
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Mohd. Farhan A Shaikh vs. DCIT reported in 434 ITR 1 (Bom). The relevant head notes of the said judgement is reproduced below:- “Section 271(1)(c), read with section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For concealment of income (Recording of satisfaction) - Whether where assessment order clearly ... records satisfaction for imposing penalty on one or other, or both grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c), a mere defect in notice-not 3 M/s. Gentech Laboratories Ltd., striking off irrelevant matter would vitiate penalty proceedings - Held, yes - Whether since penalty proceedings culminate under a different statutory scheme that

Great View Properties Pvt. L;Td, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 1(1) (4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2152/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blegreat View Properties Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax Officer – 1(1)(4) 4Th Floor, Laxmi Building 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan 6, Shoorji Vallabhdas Marg M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Ballard Estate Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aadcg9697H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gupta
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Properties Pvt. Ltd., 2. Assessee has raised following grounds in its appeal: - “1. The CIT (A) erred in upholding the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs 10,53,623/-. 2. The CIT (A) erred in passing the Order without applying principle of natural justice ... learned CIT (A) erred in upholding that the appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and hence subject to levy of penalty under Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act. 6. The learned CIT (A) erred in upholding that if the claim of expenditure is not sustainable in law, then

Dy.Citi Cent. Cir-8(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Karamtara Engineering Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 2332/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

Section 271(1)(c)

Ld.CIT(A)- 50, Mumbai dated 27/09/2021 for assessment year 2010-11 against the deletion of the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act). 2 ITA 2332/Mum/2021 2. Brief facts of the case as noted by the Ld.CIT ... Equipment Services Corporation in 4 ITA 2332/Mum/2021 ITA No.6617/Mum/2014 order dated 02/05/2017 wherein the Tribunal was pleased to delete the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act wherein similar additions were made under section 69C of the Act on account of bogus purchases; and the decision

S.F.Dyes /Firm, Mumbai vs. A.C.Circle 17(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2023/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2013-14 S.F. Dyes/Firm A.C. Circle 17(1), First Floor, Hague Building, 9 Sprott Bandra Kurla Complex Road ,Ballard Estate, Vs. Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400001. Pan No. Aacfs 5153 J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Shiv Prakash, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35(1)(ii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)AND SHRI RAHUL

Dy CIT (It)3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Kingfisher Capital Clo Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 465/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajneesh Yadav, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) dated 13.05.2015 revising the total income to Rs.1,80,03,34,151/-, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated. Declining the contentions raised by the assessee the Assessing Officer (AO) proceeded to conclude that the assessee ... thereby levied the penalty to the tune of Rs.91,19,56,419/- being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing the appeal who has deleted the penalty

Wills Towers Watson India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 11(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1140/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Towers Watson India Private Limited, The Assistant Commissioner Of 511/512, Solitaire Corporate Park, Income Tax, Circle-11(3)-1, 151, Andheri Kurla Road, Vs. Room No. 427, 4Th Floor Aayakar Andheri (East) , Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400093. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacg 2955 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Nikhil Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 92CSection 92C(4)

applying an incorrect rate of 1% for every month and part thereof; Penalty Proceedings 19. erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1) (c) of the Act. Each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice to one another. The Appellant craves leave to add, to alter

ACIT - 17(1), Mumbai vs. Bajranglal Bhikaram Mittal, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2482/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 2482, 2483 & 2484/Mum/2021 (A.Y: 2011-12, 2010-11 & 2009-10) Acit-17(1) Vs. Bajranglal Bhikaram Room No. 117, Mittal, 1St Floor, G-Block, 310, Gokul Building, Kautiliya Bhavan, Iron Market, Masjid Bandra Kurla Complex Bunder, Mumbai – 400051. Mumbai – 400009. Pan/Gir No. : Afgpm0969R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Love Kumar.Dr Respondent By : None Date Of Hearing 28.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Love Kumar.DRFor Respondent: None
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL

ACIT 17(1), Mumbai vs. Vinodkuar Premchand Aggarwal, Mumbai

ITA 2481/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं. 2481/मुं/2021("न.व.2011-12) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax – 7(1) Room No.117, 1St Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(E), : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Mumbai -400 051. बनाम/ Vs. Vinod Kumar Premchand Aggarwal, 3/1 Bradys Flats, Sorab Bharucha Road, Colaba, Mumbai 400 005 Pan: Acspa-0793-N : ""थ"/ Respondent Appellant By : Shri S.N.Kabra Respondent By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala For Shri Tanzil Pdvekar सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 04/05/2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 04/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short 'The Cit(A)’] Dated 31/08/2021 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2 2. This Appeal Is Time Barred By 60 Days. Shri S.N.Kabra Representing The Department Submitted That The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Was On Account Of Covid-19 Pandemic . The Limitation For Filing The Appeal Was Extended By The Hon'Ble Supreme Court Of India On Its Own Motion To Mitigate The Hardship Caused Due To Covid 19 Pandemic. The Limitation For Filing Of Appeals Under Various Laws Was Extended By General Order Reported As Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation 132 Taxmann.Com 123. In The Present Case The Impugned Order Was Passed On 31/08/2021. The Appeal Before The Tribunal Was Filed On 29/12/2021. The Appeal Has Been Filed Within Extended Period Of Limitation. Hence, No Delay In Filing Of The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri S.N.KabraFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala for Shri Tanzil Pdvekar
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

filing of the appeal. 3. The ld.Departmental Representative submitted that the appeal is against the order of CIT(A) deleting penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’]. The assessee has indulged in obtaining bogus purchase bills. The addition of Rs.41 ... made by the Assessing Officer in reassessment proceedings on account of bogus purchases. Consequent to the addition, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 12/03/2019. The CIT(A) deleted the penalty. The ld.Departmental Representative prayed for upholding the order

ACIT -17 (1), Mumbai vs. Vinodkumar Premchand Aggarwal, Mumbai

ITA 2479/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं. 2479/मुं/2021("न.व.2009-10) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax – 7(1) Room No.117, 1St Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(E), : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Mumbai -400 051. बनाम/ Vs. Vinod Kumar Premchand Aggarwal, 3/1 Bradys Flats, Sorab Bharucha Road, Colaba, Mumbai 400 005 Pan: Acspa-0793-N : ""थ"/ Respondent Appellant By : Shri S.N.Kabra Respondent By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala For Shri Tanzil Pdvekar सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 04/05/2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 04/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short 'The Cit(A)’] Dated 31/08/2021 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2 2. This Appeal Is Time Barred By 60 Days. Shri S.N.Kabra Representing The Department Submitted That The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Was On Account Of Covid-19 Pandemic . The Limitation For Filing The Appeal Was Extended By The Hon'Ble Supreme Court Of India On Its Own Motion To Mitigate The Hardship Caused Due To Covid 19 Pandemic. The Limitation For Filing Of Appeals Under Various Laws Was Extended By General Order Reported As Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation 132 Taxmann.Com 123. In The Present Case The Impugned Order Was Passed On 31/08/2021. The Appeal Before The Tribunal Was Filed On 29/12/2021. The Appeal Has Been Filed Within Extended Period Of Limitation. Hence, No Delay In Filing Of The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri S.N.KabraFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala for Shri Tanzil Pdvekar
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

filing of the appeal. 3. The ld.Departmental Representative submitted that the appeal is against the order of CIT(A) deleting penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’]. The assessee has indulged in obtaining bogus purchase bills. The addition of Rs.68 ... made by the Assessing Officer in reassessment proceedings on account of boguspurchases. Consequent to the addition, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 12/03/2019. The CIT(A) deleted the penalty. The ld.Departmental Representative prayed for upholding the order levying

ACIT- 17(1), Mumbai vs. Vinodkumar Premchand Aggarwal, Mumbai

ITA 2480/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं. 2480/मुं/2021("न.व.2010-11) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax – 7(1) Room No.117, 1St Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(E), : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Mumbai -400 051. बनाम/ Vs. Vinod Kumar Premchand Aggarwal, 3/1 Bradys Flats, Sorab Bharucha Road, Colaba, Mumbai 400 005 Pan: Acspa-0793-N : ""थ"/ Respondent Appellant By : Shri S.N.Kabra Respondent By : Shri Tanzil Pdvekar सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 02/05/2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 02/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short 'The Cit(A)’] Dated 31/08/2021 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. This Appeal Is Time Barred By 60 Days. Shri S.N.Kabra Representing The Department Submitted That The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Was On Account Of 2 Covid-19 Pandemic . The Limitation For Filing The Appeal Was Extended By The Hon'Ble Supreme Court Of India On Its Own Motion To Mitigate The Hardship Caused Due To Covid 19 Pandemic. The Limitation For Filing Of Appeals Under Various Laws Was Extended By General Order Reported As Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation 132 Taxmann.Com 123. In The Present Case The Impugned Order Was Passed On 31/08/2021. The Appeal Before The Tribunal Was Filed On 29/12/2021. The Appeal Has Been Filed Within Extended Period Of Limitation. Hence, No Delay In Filing Of The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri S.N.KabraFor Respondent: Shri Tanzil Pdvekar
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

filing of the appeal. 3. The ld.Departmental Representative submitted that the appeal is against the order of CIT(A) deleting penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’]. The assessee has indulged in obtaining bogus purchase bills. The addition of Rs.38 ... made by the Assessing Officer in reassessment proceedings on account of bogus purchases. Consequent to the addition, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 12/03/2019. The CIT(A) deleted the penalty. The ld.Departmental Representative prayed for upholding the order

Omprakash G. Agarwal, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 18(2) (4), Mumbai

ITA 1779/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, Sr. A.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Appeal Centre ['the CIT (A)'] erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 4,62,4877- levied by the Assessing Officer ('the A.O.') under section 271 (1) (c) of the Income tax Act, 1961. 2 Mr. Omprakash G. Agarwal 1.2 While doing so, the CIT (A) failed to appreciate that ... clinching evidence in possession of the A.O. of concealment of income; d. in the notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act as well as penalty order, the charge for which penalty under section 271(1) (c) of the Act has been levied

ITO-15(2)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Pravir Polymers Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2595/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-15(2)(4), M/S Pravir Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 360, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 601/602, Delta, Central Avenue, Road, Marine Lines, Vs. Technology Street, Hiranandani Mumbai-400020. Garden Powai, Mumbai-400076. Pan No. Aaacp 4621 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivram, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. C.T. Mathews, DR
Section 114Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153C

brought to tax as income under the provisions of section 68 of the IT. Act, 1961. Penalty proceedings under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are initiated concealment of income by furnishing of inaccurate particulars in respect of the same.” 10. Before

Novell Software Development (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 319/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 280/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Micro Focus Software India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Novell Software Development The Income Tax (India) Pvt. Ltd.), Officer, Bagmane Tech Park ‘D’ Ward – 4 (1)(3), Block, Bangalore. ‘Laurel’ 65/2, Vs. C V Raman Nagar, Byrasandra, Bangalore – 560 093. Pan: Aaacn6992K Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 319/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Assessee) : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Has Been Filed By Revenue As Well As Assessee Against Order Dated 29.12.2015 Passed By Ld.Ito Ward 5(1)(1)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C(3)

erroneous and liable to be set aside. 11. Initiation of penalty proceedings That the AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 12. Relief a) The Appellant prays that directions be given to grant all such reliefs arising from the above grounds and also

ITO Ward - 5(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Novell Software Development (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 280/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 280/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Micro Focus Software India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Novell Software Development The Income Tax (India) Pvt. Ltd.), Officer, Bagmane Tech Park ‘D’ Ward – 4 (1)(3), Block, Bangalore. ‘Laurel’ 65/2, Vs. C V Raman Nagar, Byrasandra, Bangalore – 560 093. Pan: Aaacn6992K Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 319/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Assessee) : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Has Been Filed By Revenue As Well As Assessee Against Order Dated 29.12.2015 Passed By Ld.Ito Ward 5(1)(1)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C(3)

erroneous and liable to be set aside. 11. Initiation of penalty proceedings That the AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 12. Relief a) The Appellant prays that directions be given to grant all such reliefs arising from the above grounds and also

Income Tax Officer WD -3(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Navjivan Engineering Works, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 58/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanita Nos. 58 & 59/Mum/2022 (A.Ys: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Ito, Ward 3(2) M/S Navjeevan 2Ndfloor,Ranimansion, Engineering Works Murbad, Road, D-18, Midc, Phase-Ii Kalyan(W)-42131 Manpada Road, Maharashtra Dombivali (E) Maharashtra – 421204 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aabfn2813K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Love Kumar.Dr Respondent By : None Date Of Hearing 26.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 27.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeals Centre (Nfac) Delhi Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri. Love Kumar.DRFor Respondent: None
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

estimated income. The disallowance of purchases on ad-hoc basis does not tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income under the provisions of Section 271(1) (c) of the ITA No. 58 & 59/Mum/2022 M/s Navjeevan Engineering Works, Mumbai. Act. The A.O. has not doubted the sales and made disallowance