← 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)

Sathaiya Ganapathy, Pudukottai vs. ITO, Ward 1, Bardoli

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 330/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.329 & 330/Srt/2025 Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Sathaiya Ganapathy, Vs. Ito, Ts No.4114, South 3 Rd Street, Ward – 1, Pukukottai, Tamil Nadu - 622001 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahbpg2414Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mayank A. Ogriwala, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

Section 111ASection 16Section 24Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

perused the material placed on record. The grounds raised revolve around (i) violation of principles of natural justice, (ii) sustainability of penalty under section 271(1)(c) on surviving additions and (ii) erroneous computation of penalty by the AO while giving effect to the appellate order due to failure

Sathaiya Ganapathy, Pudukottai vs. ITO, Ward 1, Bardoli

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 329/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.329 & 330/Srt/2025 Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Sathaiya Ganapathy, Vs. Ito, Ts No.4114, South 3 Rd Street, Ward – 1, Pukukottai, Tamil Nadu - 622001 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahbpg2414Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mayank A. Ogriwala, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

Section 111ASection 16Section 24Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

perused the material placed on record. The grounds raised revolve around (i) violation of principles of natural justice, (ii) sustainability of penalty under section 271(1)(c) on surviving additions and (ii) erroneous computation of penalty by the AO while giving effect to the appellate order due to failure

Kirti Milind Ranka, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed as

ITA 2176/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Milind Debaje, JCIT (virtual)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

There is a complete absence of mens rea of evading taxes. Under these given facts and circumstances, we are of the view that section 271(1)(c) of the Act should not have been invoked by Ld.AO and should have sympathetically considered the facts giving rise to such clerical mistake

Khajamohiaddin Ghousemohiaddin Syed, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 41(4)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 2852/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh MilwaniFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)Section 444DSection 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORESHRI. SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

Ceb Llc (Earlier Known As Ceb Inc.), United States of America vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2025/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Ceb Llc (Earlier Known As The Assistant Commissioner Ceb Inc.), 1201, Wildson Of Income Tax, Blvd. Arlington, Va 22209, Vs Circle- 1(2)(1), International United States Taxation E-2 Block, Civic Care Of Address Centre, Minto Road, New First International Financial Delhi-110002. Centre, Level-2 Plot No. C-54 & 55, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051, Maharashtra, India. Pan- Aadct5119K Assessee Revenue

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 153(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. The above grounds of appeal are all independent and without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to supplement, to cancel, to amend

Sigma Paradise, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Ward 2(2)(1), Ghaziabad

The appeal is allowed

ITA 823/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2013-14 Sigma Paradise, Vs Dcit, Km-78, Kavi Nagar, Ward 2(2)(1), Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh – 201 002. Pan:Aazfs9643L (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, Ca; & Shri Gagan R. Khandelwal & Shri Jaind Kumar Jaiswal, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, CA; &For Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 4Section 50CSection 6

Gain earned by the assessee during the A.Y. and the same is to be brought to the tax, accordingly. Further, Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act will be initiated separately for the inaccurate particulars of income submitted by the assessee. [Addition (Long Term Capital Gain): Rs.4

Gbt India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, OSD, Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed as above

ITA 1764/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act Each of the above grounds are independent and without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal preferred by the Appellant. GBT India

Santosh Singh Hukam Singh Karnawat, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(8), Surat

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

ITA 655/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

entries. The CIT(A) therefore upheld the addition and held that the assessee had indulged in bogus purchases. 4. Thereafter, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated and the AO held that the assessee had concealed income and furnished inaccurate particulars and levied penalty on the full amount ... disallowance had been restricted by the Tribunal to 5%. The CIT(A) therefore held that the assessee was liable for penalty under section 271(1)(c) to the extent of tax on 5% of such purchases and directed the AO to restrict the penalty accordingly. The appeal was thus partly

Janseva Majoor Sahakari Sanshtha Maryadit, Mahim vs. ITO 22(1)(6), Lower Parel, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5752/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. Piyush ChhachedFor Respondent: 12/11/2025
Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

Before us, the Ld. A.R. has taken a legal plea challenging the validity of notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) to argue that the AO has issued vague notice without specifying the charge under which the penalty is proposed to be levied, therefore, the whole ... basis of information available with the department, the income would have escaped assessment. Therefore, the AO was right in levying the penalty under section 271(1)(c) and his order should be upheld. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The AO levied

Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Kathiriya, Jamnagar vs. ITO Ward 2(10) Jamnagar, Jamnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA, No

ITA 530/RJT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 510, 511 & 512/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Vs. Ito Ward 2(10) Jamnagar Kathiriya Aayakar Bhavan, Jamnagar, Khitadia, Jamnagar, Jamnagar - 361006 Jamnagar – 361006 Pan No. - Αυτρκ7716N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271ASection 69A

technical grounds, which we have admitted. 10. The learned CIT(A), by way of passing separate penalty orders, confirmed the various penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, u/s Page 6 of 24 ITA Nos. 510 Rjt 2025 & 9 Ors. Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Kathiriya 271F ... assessment year 2015-16, therefore, various penalties imposed by the assessing officer on the assessee for assessment year 2015-16, such as, under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, u/s 271F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and u/s 271A of the Income

Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Kathiriya, Jamnagar vs. ITO Ward 2(10) Jamnagar, Jamnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA, No

ITA 527/RJT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 510, 511 & 512/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Vs. Ito Ward 2(10) Jamnagar Kathiriya Aayakar Bhavan, Jamnagar, Khitadia, Jamnagar, Jamnagar - 361006 Jamnagar – 361006 Pan No. - Αυτρκ7716N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271ASection 69A

technical grounds, which we have admitted. 10. The learned CIT(A), by way of passing separate penalty orders, confirmed the various penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, u/s Page 6 of 24 ITA Nos. 510 Rjt 2025 & 9 Ors. Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Kathiriya 271F ... assessment year 2015-16, therefore, various penalties imposed by the assessing officer on the assessee for assessment year 2015-16, such as, under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, u/s 271F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and u/s 271A of the Income

Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Kathiriya, Jamnagar vs. ITO Ward 2(10) Jamnagar, Jamnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA, No

ITA 525/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 510, 511 & 512/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Vs. Ito Ward 2(10) Jamnagar Kathiriya Aayakar Bhavan, Jamnagar, Khitadia, Jamnagar, Jamnagar - 361006 Jamnagar – 361006 Pan No. - Αυτρκ7716N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271ASection 69A

technical grounds, which we have admitted. 10. The learned CIT(A), by way of passing separate penalty orders, confirmed the various penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, u/s Page 6 of 24 ITA Nos. 510 Rjt 2025 & 9 Ors. Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Kathiriya 271F ... assessment year 2015-16, therefore, various penalties imposed by the assessing officer on the assessee for assessment year 2015-16, such as, under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, u/s 271F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and u/s 271A of the Income

Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Kathiriya, Jamnagar vs. ITO Ward 2(10) Jamnagar, Jamnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA, No

ITA 518/RJT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 510, 511 & 512/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Vs. Ito Ward 2(10) Jamnagar Kathiriya Aayakar Bhavan, Jamnagar, Khitadia, Jamnagar, Jamnagar - 361006 Jamnagar – 361006 Pan No. - Αυτρκ7716N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271ASection 69A

technical grounds, which we have admitted. 10. The learned CIT(A), by way of passing separate penalty orders, confirmed the various penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, u/s Page 6 of 24 ITA Nos. 510 Rjt 2025 & 9 Ors. Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Kathiriya 271F ... assessment year 2015-16, therefore, various penalties imposed by the assessing officer on the assessee for assessment year 2015-16, such as, under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, u/s 271F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and u/s 271A of the Income

Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Kathiriya, Jamnagar vs. ITO Ward 2(10) Jamnagar, Jamnagar

ITA 515/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 510, 511 & 512/Rjt/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Vs. Ito Ward 2(10) Jamnagar, Kathiriya Aayakar Bhavan, Jamnagar, Khitadia, Jamnagar, Jamnagar - 361006 Jamnagar - 361006 (Respondent) Pan No. - Aυτρκ7716N (Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 515,518,527&530/Rjt/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: (2015-16) Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Vs. Ito Ward 2(10) Jamnagar Kathiriya Aayakar Bhavan, Jamnagar, Khitadia, Jamnagar, Jamnagar - 361006 Jamnagar - 361006 (Respondent) Pan No. - Αυτρκ7716N (Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 513 & 514/Rjt/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: (2014-15) Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Vs. Ito Ward 2(10) Jamnagar Kathiriya Aayakar Bhavan, Jamnagar, Khitadia, Jamnagar, Jamnagar - 361006 Jamnagar - 361006 (Respondent) Pan No. - Aαυτρκ7716N (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271ASection 69A

technical grounds, which we have admitted. 10. The learned CIT(A), by way of passing separate penalty orders, confirmed the various penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, u/s Page 6 of 24 ITA Nos. 510 Rjt 2025 & 9 Ors. Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Kathiriya 271F

Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Kathiriya, Jamnagar vs. ITO Ward 2(10) Jamnagar, Jamnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA, No

ITA 514/RJT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 510, 511 & 512/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Vs. Ito Ward 2(10) Jamnagar Kathiriya Aayakar Bhavan, Jamnagar, Khitadia, Jamnagar, Jamnagar - 361006 Jamnagar – 361006 Pan No. - Αυτρκ7716N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271ASection 69A

technical grounds, which we have admitted. 10. The learned CIT(A), by way of passing separate penalty orders, confirmed the various penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, u/s Page 6 of 24 ITA Nos. 510 Rjt 2025 & 9 Ors. Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Kathiriya 271F ... assessment year 2015-16, therefore, various penalties imposed by the assessing officer on the assessee for assessment year 2015-16, such as, under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, u/s 271F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and u/s 271A of the Income

Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Kathiriya, Jamnagar vs. ITO Ward 2(10) Jamnagar, Jamnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA, No

ITA 513/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 510, 511 & 512/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Vs. Ito Ward 2(10) Jamnagar Kathiriya Aayakar Bhavan, Jamnagar, Khitadia, Jamnagar, Jamnagar - 361006 Jamnagar – 361006 Pan No. - Αυτρκ7716N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271ASection 69A

technical grounds, which we have admitted. 10. The learned CIT(A), by way of passing separate penalty orders, confirmed the various penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, u/s Page 6 of 24 ITA Nos. 510 Rjt 2025 & 9 Ors. Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Kathiriya 271F ... assessment year 2015-16, therefore, various penalties imposed by the assessing officer on the assessee for assessment year 2015-16, such as, under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, u/s 271F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and u/s 271A of the Income

Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Kathiriya, Jamnagar vs. ITO Ward 2(10) Jamnagar, Jamnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA, No

ITA 512/RJT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 510, 511 & 512/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Vs. Ito Ward 2(10) Jamnagar Kathiriya Aayakar Bhavan, Jamnagar, Khitadia, Jamnagar, Jamnagar - 361006 Jamnagar – 361006 Pan No. - Αυτρκ7716N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271ASection 69A

technical grounds, which we have admitted. 10. The learned CIT(A), by way of passing separate penalty orders, confirmed the various penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, u/s Page 6 of 24 ITA Nos. 510 Rjt 2025 & 9 Ors. Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Kathiriya 271F ... assessment year 2015-16, therefore, various penalties imposed by the assessing officer on the assessee for assessment year 2015-16, such as, under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, u/s 271F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and u/s 271A of the Income

Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Kathiriya, Jamnagar vs. ITO Ward 2(10) Jamnagar, Jamnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA, No

ITA 511/RJT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 510, 511 & 512/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Vs. Ito Ward 2(10) Jamnagar Kathiriya Aayakar Bhavan, Jamnagar, Khitadia, Jamnagar, Jamnagar - 361006 Jamnagar – 361006 Pan No. - Αυτρκ7716N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271ASection 69A

technical grounds, which we have admitted. 10. The learned CIT(A), by way of passing separate penalty orders, confirmed the various penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, u/s Page 6 of 24 ITA Nos. 510 Rjt 2025 & 9 Ors. Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Kathiriya 271F ... assessment year 2015-16, therefore, various penalties imposed by the assessing officer on the assessee for assessment year 2015-16, such as, under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, u/s 271F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and u/s 271A of the Income

Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Kathiriya, Jamnagar vs. ITO Ward 2(10) Jamnagar, Jamnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA, No

ITA 510/RJT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 510, 511 & 512/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Vs. Ito Ward 2(10) Jamnagar Kathiriya Aayakar Bhavan, Jamnagar, Khitadia, Jamnagar, Jamnagar - 361006 Jamnagar – 361006 Pan No. - Αυτρκ7716N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271ASection 69A

technical grounds, which we have admitted. 10. The learned CIT(A), by way of passing separate penalty orders, confirmed the various penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, u/s Page 6 of 24 ITA Nos. 510 Rjt 2025 & 9 Ors. Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Kathiriya 271F ... assessment year 2015-16, therefore, various penalties imposed by the assessing officer on the assessee for assessment year 2015-16, such as, under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, u/s 271F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and u/s 271A of the Income

Shri Swatantra Kumar Shukla, Kanpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Kanpur

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

ITA 575/LKW/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 Swatantra Kumar Shukla, Vs. Dy. Cit-3, Kanpur 61/139, Sita Ram Mohal, Kanpur- 208001 (U.P.) Pan: Acaps5484N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.11.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)- 1, Kanpur, Passed On 29.07.2019 Wherein The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Act For The A.Y. 2015-16 On 29.12.2017 Has Been Dismissed. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. That The Ld Cit(A) Was Wrong In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,39,81,850- Made By The Ao Without Any Valid Reason. 2. That The Revenue Was Wrong In Disallowing The Claim Of Long Term Capital Gains U/S 10(38) Of The Act & The Same Is Against Facts & Law. 3. That The Various Case Law Cited By The Revenue In Rejecting The Claim Is Wrong In As Much As The Facts Of The Appellant'S Case Are Distinguishable From The Cited Case Law. 4. That The Revenue Was Wrong In Invoking Section 68 Of The Act & The Same Is Not Justified & Unwarranted. 5. That It Was Wrong On The Part Of Revenue To Invoke Section 68 Of The Act In As Much As Initial Onus On The Assessee To Establish Identity, Credit Capacity Of The Creditor & Genuineness Of The Transaction Was Discharged. 6. That The Finding Of The Ld Ao That 'Long Term Capital Gains Of Rs.1 39,81,850/ Claimed By The Assessee Is Held To Have Been Arranged By The Assessee Through

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

displayed in its price. Accordingly, he made an addition of Rs. 1,39,81,850/- on this account and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). 3. Aggrieved with the said addition, the assessee went in appeal to the ld. CIT(A)-1, Kanpur. It was submitted that