← 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)

Sheetal Mehra, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-40(1), New Delhi

ITA 905/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Senior DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

separate impugned order of even dated 05.12.2018, passed by the ld. CIT (Appeals)-14, New Delhi in relation to the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10. 2. Facts

Sheetal Mehra, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-40(1), New Delhi

ITA 904/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Senior DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

separate impugned order of even dated 05.12.2018, passed by the ld. CIT (Appeals)-14, New Delhi in relation to the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10. 2. Facts

Dsv Solution P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/Asstt/CIT/ITO, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 922/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledvs Solutions Pvt Ltd Vs. Additional/Joint/ A-203, The Qube, Cts Assistant No. 1489, Mv Road, Commissioner Of Marol, Andheri East, Income Tax, National Mumbai – 400059. E- Assessment Centre, Delhi. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu5306L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Karishmaprataphekar.Ar Respondent By : Dr.Yogesh Kamat. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 24.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 11.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Ms.KarishmaPrataphekar.ARFor Respondent: Dr.Yogesh Kamat. CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 92C(1)

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO / learned TPO have erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income on adjustments made in the draft assessment order. The Appellant prays that the disallowance

Telecomone Teleservices India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 695/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Cherian K.Baby, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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

Telecomone Teleservices India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 694/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Cherian K.Baby, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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

M/S Robert Bosch Engineering and Business Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 608/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 608/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Robert Bosch The Deputy Engineering & Business Commissioner Of Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, #123, Industrial Layout, Large Tax Payers Unit, Hosur Road, Koramangala, Circle 1, Bangalore – 560095. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacr7108R Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 445/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Revenue) : Shri Percy Padiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 20-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 02-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 By The Ld.Dcit, Ltu, Circle -1, Bangalore U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Act For Assessment Year 2011-12. In Revenue’S Appeal, The Following Grounds Are Raised. “1. The Directions Of Drp Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 80J

erred in charging interest under section 234B and 234D of the Act 13. The Learned AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act disregarding the fact that all the adjustments carried out by the Learned AO are on account of difference on opinion

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Robert Bosch Engineering & Business Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore

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

ITA 445/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 608/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Robert Bosch The Deputy Engineering & Business Commissioner Of Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, #123, Industrial Layout, Large Tax Payers Unit, Hosur Road, Koramangala, Circle 1, Bangalore – 560095. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacr7108R Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 445/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Revenue) : Shri Percy Padiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 20-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 02-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 By The Ld.Dcit, Ltu, Circle -1, Bangalore U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Act For Assessment Year 2011-12. In Revenue’S Appeal, The Following Grounds Are Raised. “1. The Directions Of Drp Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 80J

erred in charging interest under section 234B and 234D of the Act 13. The Learned AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act disregarding the fact that all the adjustments carried out by the Learned AO are on account of difference on opinion

Sri. Shamanna Nagamma Balasubramany, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 682/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Ramasubramaniyan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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

Technocon Constructions & Infrastructure Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1) Represented by Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 670/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Rajgopal, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 3Section 30Section 32Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

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

Dy CIT - 32(1), Mumbai vs. Naresh Traders & Suresh Traders (Joint Venture), Mumbai

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 448/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 448/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dcit-32(1) बिधम/ Naresh Traders & Suresh Room No.702, 7Th Floor, Traders (Joint Venture) Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra 39A, Ganjawala Apt., Svp Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400092. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaan4364R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anant N. Pai Revenue By: Shri C. T. Mathews (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/01/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 11.02.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -44, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. “Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S.271(1)(C) Of The It. Act, 1961, Of Rs.27,00,000/- Without Appreciating The Fact That The Assessing Officer Has Correctly Held That A.Y.2009-10 The Assessee Bas Failed To Substantiate The Transactions Claimed In Its Return Of Income Thereby Evaded Taxes To That Extent.”

For Appellant: Shri Anant N. PaiFor Respondent: Shri C. T. Mathews (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

erred in appreciating the fact that the cat of the assessee clearly falls within the ambit of provisions of Explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act as the assessee has failed to offer an explanation or which was found by the AO to be false.” 3. “Whether ... case of Harigopal Singh V CIT (258 ITR 85) wherein it was held as under:- “In order to attract clause (c) of section 271(1), it is necessary that there must be concealment by the assessee of the particulars of his income or if he furnishes inaccurate particulars of such

Shri. Kirit J Kadecha, Mumbai vs. ITO 32 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the impugned order is quashed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6504/MUM/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 6504/मुं/2019 ("न. व. 2004-05 ) Shri Kirit Kadecha, Room No.1, Sai Sadan, Roshan Nagar, Chandavarkar Road, Borivali West, Mumbai 400 092 Pan: Aghpk-4337-R ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Ito-32(2)(2), Room No.108, 1St Floor, C-11, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai 400 051 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : None ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Smitha Nair सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 31/01/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/01/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Smitha Nair
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

aforesaid notice reveals that the notice has been issued to the assessee in a pre-printed performa. Both the charges of section 271(1)(c) of the Act i.e. “ concealing particulars of income” or “ furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” are mentioned in the said notice. The irrelevant charge/limb of section ... present case, we further observe that it is not clearly emanating from the assessment order as to under what limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the Assessing Officer wants to initiate penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the penultimate paragraph of the assessment

Sujata Surendra Khandekar, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 4135/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 4135/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Sujata Surendra Khandekar बिधम/ Ito 19(3)(4) 6. Federation House, 4Th Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Vs. Floor, 24/30, A.P. Marg, Mumbai-400007. Opp. Metro, Mumbai- 400002. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abbpk9552B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Hoshang B. Irani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24/01/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/01/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 08.05.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-52, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2008-09 In Which The Penalty Levied By Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Appeals)-52, Mumbai Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Assessing Officer, Mumbai In

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Appeals)-52, Mumbai erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer, Mumbai in ITA. No.4135/Mum/2018 A.Y. 2008-09 levying the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The appellant craves to leave to add, to alter, to amend, to modify and to substitute

Sri. P Anand Vardhan Reddy, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 663/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.S.Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43E

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

Venkara Reddy Pramod Reddy, Tumkuru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 659/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Gopinath C.H., CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

payable by the assessee, which was a sine-quo-non for imposition of penalty. Amendments were made by the Finance Act, 2002, to Section 271(1)(iii) of the Act by incorporating the expression "if any" and also in Explanation 4 setting out the meaning of the 7 Sri.Venkara Reddy ... Singh and Co. is also not very important because that was in relation to the assessment year 1970-71 when Explanation 4 to Section 271 (1) ((c) was not in existence. The view of this Court in Horprasods case (supra) Leads to the irresistible conclusion that income also includes Losses

Deepak Garg, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2053/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhry

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

filed by the Assessee by observing that the Assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income which deemed as concealment under Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) of Act as full material facts were not disclosed in the audited accounts and return of income and Assessee’s explanation has also

Rupinder Dhanoa Sidhu, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 31, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 7470/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N. K. Choudhryrupinderdhanoasidhu, Vs. Acit, C/O. R.S. Ahuja& Co, Ca Central Circle-31, C-353, Defence Colony, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Acipd0250F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Ahuja, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Atiq Ahmed, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132oSection 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271ASection 274Section 69A

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI N. K. CHOUDHRY

Looms India Patner, Mumbai vs. ITO 18 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7188/MUM/2019[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2022AY 2003-04
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(a)Section 3

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s

Asst. CIT-6 (2)(2), Mumbai vs. Enhance Ambient Communication Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 6285/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Jhaveri, D.R
Section 271GSection 92CSection 92D(3)

dispute that when the TPO has recorded his satisfaction to initiate the penalty proceedings, he sought to initiate the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is also not in dispute that the impugned penalty order has been passed by the TPO levying penalty under section ... that section.” This satisfaction recorded by the TPO is not a valid one, because the penalty proceedings sought to be initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Act are not attracted at all to the issue in controversy rather notice was required to be issued under section

M/S Harivardhan Steel & Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 12(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3302/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Nikalje, D.R
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 68

satisfied that the appellant has concealed particulars income of Rs. 90,00,000/within the meaning of explanation 1 to section 271(1) of the Act. Accordingly, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) are initiated for concealing particulars of income.” 12. We note on the examination of records before

Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, Rohtak vs. ACIT, Rohtak Circle, Rohtak

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

ITA 677/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2012-13 Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, Vs Acit, Shgb House, Plot No.1, Rohtak Circle, Sector-3, Rohtak, Rohtak. Haryana. Pan: Aakas1464M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vivek Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Parmita Biswas, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.11.2018 Of The Cit(A), Rohtak, Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Provisions Of The Law, The Order U/S 271(1)(C) Dated 30/03/2017 Of The Ld Ao & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A), Being Passed In The Name Of The Non-Existence Assessee, Is Void Ab Initio & Therefore The Same Needs To Be Quashed. 2. That Without Prejudice To Ground No 1 Above & On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Provisions Of The Law, Ld Ao As Well As Ld Cit(A) Erred In Levying/ Confirming The Penalty Under Action 271(1)(C) Despite Of Existence Of Non Curable Defects In Issuance Of Notice Under Section 271(1)(C) By The Ld Ao. 3. That Without Prejudice To Ground No 1 & 2 Above & On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Provisions Of The Law, The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining The Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) In Respect Of Rs. 20,39,000/- Towards Provision For Fraud Cases.”

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Parmita Biswas, CIT, DR
Section 271(1)(c)

erred in levying/ confirming the penalty under action 271(1)(c) despite of existence of non curable defects in issuance of notice under section 271(1)(c) by the Ld AO. 3. That without prejudice to ground no 1 and 2 above and on the facts and circumstances ... case & provisions of the law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in sustaining the penalty under section 271(1)(c) in respect of Rs. 20,39,000/- towards provision for fraud cases.” 3. The ld. counsel for the assessee, at the outset, filed a copy of the order of the Tribunal