← 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, Delhi vs. Ajayvision Education Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 4172/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 201Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

271(1)(c) of the Act which was issued and served upon the assessee read as under: "Notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Sir Madam Whereas in the course of proceedings before me for the Assessment Year ... representative at 11:00 AM on 05/05/2023 and show cause why an order imposing a penalty on you should not be made under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. If you do not wish to avail yourself of this opportunity of being heard in person

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(2), Delhi, I.P.Estate vs. Bureau Veritas Consumer Products Services (India) Private Limited, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3294/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

addition of Rs.41,18,161/- has been made to the returned income under Section 37 of the Act. Penalty proceedings is initiated under Section 271(1)(c) separately.” Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and succeeded. 4. The Ld. Sr. DR, placing reliance

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam vs. Venkata Sita Ramachandra Rao Kanchumarthy, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 352/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.352/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2016-17) Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Venkata Sita Ramachandra Rao Kanchumarty International Taxation, Circle H.No. 26-22-16 Ground Floor, Infinity Tower Near Chinna Anjaneya Swamy Temple Sankarmattam Road Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry Visakhapatnam – 530016 East Godavari District – 533103 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Edzpk3519Q]

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 292B

Sita Ramachandra Rao Kanchumarty “Ld.CIT(A)”] vide Appeal No. CIT(A)/HYD-10/10264/2015-16 dated 15.03.2025 for the A.Y.2016-17 arising out of order passed under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’). 2. Brief facts of the case are that, assessee is an individual and Non-Resident ... passed a consequential order determining the Long-Term Capital Gains as directed by the Ld. CIT(A). Thereafter, Ld.AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by issuing show-cause notice dated 27.12.2018, 31.05.2021 and 21.06.2021. In response, assessee cited various judicial pronouncements wherein

Maruti Multichem Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1644/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115BSection 147Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

levying interest u/s. 234A/B/C/D of the Act. The learned AO has erred in law and on facts in in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. I.T.A No. 1644/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 4 Maruti Multichem Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT 9. The appellant craves leave

Income Tax Officer 23 2 6, Mumbai vs. Manmohan Daulal Rathi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5467/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

furnish accurate particulars of the income and relevant evidences by the assessee, even at the penalty proceedings, which attracts the provision of section 271(1)(c) and explanation thereto, as held in the case of K.P. Madhusudhan Vs. CIT reported in 251 ITR 99 (SC) ?" 7. "Whether on the facts ... Court in the case of CIT Vs Atul Kumar Gupta in ITA No. 479/2014, which reinforces the Revenue Authority to impose penalties under section 271(1)(cl, in the cases where the assessee fails to provide accurate and satisfactory explanations for discrepancies in their accounts even if the addition

Patel Brass Works, Rajkot vs. DCIT, Cir 1(1), Rajkot

In the results, grounds of appeals in all these four appeals raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 416/RJT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 413 & 416/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2015-16 & 2016-17) Patel Brass Works Dcit, Cir-1(1), 2, Bhaktinagar Station Plot, Vs. It-Office, New Aayakar Bhavan, Rajkot (Gujarat) – 360002 Vatiak, Rajkot (Gujarat) - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfp7695L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G. R. Sanghavi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Singh, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(b)

Section 142(1) of the Act, does not survive. Since the entity does not exist in the eyes of law, hence penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act, does not survive and should be deleted. I Find that once the foundation fails, the superstructure also fails ... root of the order. I find that since the entity does not exist in the eyes of law, hence penalty under Sections 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Act do not survive. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, all the grounds of appeal raised

Patel Brass Works, Rajkot vs. DCIT, Cir 1(1), Rajkot

In the results, grounds of appeals in all these four appeals raised by the assessee

ITA 413/RJT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri G. R. Sanghavi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Singh, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(b)

Section 142(1) of the Act, does not survive. Since the entity does not exist in the eyes of law, hence penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act, does not survive and should be deleted. I Find that once the foundation fails, the superstructure also fails ... root of the order. I find that since the entity does not exist in the eyes of law, hence penalty under Sections 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Act do not survive. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, all the grounds of appeal raised

Ratnadeep Infrastructure Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Old Ward 3(1)(3), New Ward 3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1491/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1490/Ahd/2025, Asst.Year 2011-12 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1491/Ahd/2025, Asst.Year 2012-13 Ratnadeep Infrastructure The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Private Limited Old Ward-3(1)(3) V/S. 126, 1St Floor New 3 (1) (2) Neelam Shopping Center Krishna Nagar Chowk Ahmedabad – 382 346 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaecr 5728 F (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhijit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Of Even Date 01/07/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2011-2012 & 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No.1490/Ahd/2025 For Ay 2011-12:

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

read with section 147 of the Act on 24.12.2018, determining the total income at Rs. 59,56,319/-, and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, challenging both the reopening under section ... confirmed the addition of Rs. 60,00,000/- as unexplained investment under section 69 and upheld the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c), thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee in its entirety. 6. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed

Ratnadeep Infrastructure Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Old Ward 3(1)(3) New Ward3(1)(2)), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1490/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1490/Ahd/2025, Asst.Year 2011-12 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1491/Ahd/2025, Asst.Year 2012-13 Ratnadeep Infrastructure The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Private Limited Old Ward-3(1)(3) V/S. 126, 1St Floor New 3 (1) (2) Neelam Shopping Center Krishna Nagar Chowk Ahmedabad – 382 346 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaecr 5728 F (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhijit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Of Even Date 01/07/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2011-2012 & 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No.1490/Ahd/2025 For Ay 2011-12:

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

read with section 147 of the Act on 24.12.2018, determining the total income at Rs. 59,56,319/-, and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, challenging both the reopening under section ... confirmed the addition of Rs. 60,00,000/- as unexplained investment under section 69 and upheld the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c), thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee in its entirety. 6. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed

Yogesh Jashubhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4) Now Ward- 1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 159/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.158/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.159/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 Yogesh Jashubhai Patel, The Income Tax Officer Harivallabh Society बनाम/ Ward-3(4) V/S. Naroda Now Ward-1(2)(1) Opp. Devi Cinema Ahmedabad – 380 051 Ahmedabad – 382 345 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Audpp 9058 L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 06/01/2023 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-2012. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No.158/Ahd/2023:

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.DR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

account of understatement of LTCG. The AO assessed the income at Rs. 6,19,780/-. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ... limine, without adjudicating the matter on merits. It was also noted that a similar delay existed in the penalty appeal filed under section 271(1)(c), which was also similarly dismissed. Thus, both appeals of the assessee were rejected at the threshold as time- barred, and no relief was granted

Yogesh Jashubhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4) Now Ward- 1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 158/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.158/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.159/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 Yogesh Jashubhai Patel, The Income Tax Officer Harivallabh Society बनाम/ Ward-3(4) V/S. Naroda Now Ward-1(2)(1) Opp. Devi Cinema Ahmedabad – 380 051 Ahmedabad – 382 345 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Audpp 9058 L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 06/01/2023 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-2012. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No.158/Ahd/2023:

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.DR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

account of understatement of LTCG. The AO assessed the income at Rs. 6,19,780/-. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ... limine, without adjudicating the matter on merits. It was also noted that a similar delay existed in the penalty appeal filed under section 271(1)(c), which was also similarly dismissed. Thus, both appeals of the assessee were rejected at the threshold as time- barred, and no relief was granted

Shri Rajkot District Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Rajkot vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1(2), Rajkot

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 196/RJT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.196/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) Shri Rajkot District Co-Operative Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle-1(1), Jilla Bank Bhavan, Kasturba Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Opp. Chaudhary High School, Road, Rajkot-360001 Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afups2094H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Smt. Pallavi, Ld. Cit(Dr) : 06/08/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 04/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay)-2018-19, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax Office [(In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 29.12.2023, Which In Turn Assessment Order Passed By Income Tax Department / Assessing Officer Under Section 144C(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Vide Order Dated 30.03.2023 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee, Are As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Pallavi, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

allege or to hold the entries under dispute as "furnishing inaccurate particulars of income" so as to invoke provision of Section 271(1)(c). 6. Subsequently, in pursuance of the order u/s 263 dated 21.03.2016 passed by the Principal CIT, Rajkot-1, a fresh order u/s 143(3) r.w.s

Navneetbhai Ramanlal Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 223/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.223/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Navneetbhai Ramanlal Patel The Ito बनाम/ 19, New Ambica Park Society Ward-2(1)(2) V/S. D Cabin Sabarmati Ahmedabad – 380 051 Ahmedabad – 380 019 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aqzpp 2479 D (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hiren Trivedi, Ar Revenue By : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 14/10/2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-2017. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Trivedi, ARFor Respondent: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

234A/B/C/D. 6. Without prejudice to above, in law and in the facts and circumstances the Ld.CIT(A)-NFAC erred in initiating proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. during the course of hearing of the appeal. The appellant craves leave to add to alter, amend and/or withdraw

Hitesh Kumar Prithviraj Kawad, Chennai vs. DCIT, Non-Corporten Circle-4(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 352/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. Raghupathy, Addl. C.I.T
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271(1)Section 54F

owned more than one asset while claiming deduction under section 54F of the Act. 9. The NFAC erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1) (c) of the Act. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, amend or delete one or more of the above grounds

Matrix Automotive, Mumbai vs. Ward 41(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2607/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Matrix Automotive Income Tax Officer-Ward Shop No. 1,2,3,4 Ground Floor, 41(3)(2), Mumbai Business Classic, Chincholi Vs. Kautilya Bhawan, G Block Bunder Road, Malad West, Bkc, Gilban Area, Bandra Mumbai 400064 Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai 400051 Pan No. Aaxfm5446P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Dipesh Ruparelia (Virtually appear)For Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234DSection 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Appellant; 10. Erred in levying interest under Section 234B and Section 234D of the Act; and 11. Erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) and Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds

Dhirajlal Nathubhai Bhut, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), Rajkot

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

ITA 574/RJT/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Oct 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 251Section 271(1)(b)Section 272(1)

arareat attetta aiftrennr gente arate, etehtel IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC” RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow vs. Sudhanshu Trivedi, Lucknow

ITA 418/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2015-16 The Acit V. Sudhanshu Trivedi Lucknow 21/1013, Sector 21 Indira Nagar, Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Ackpt4164G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Amit Singh Chouhan, D.R. Respondent By: S/Shri Rajat Jain & Akshat Jain, Cas O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Amit Singh Chouhan, D.RFor Respondent: S/Shri Rajat Jain and Akshat Jain, CAs
Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 149Section 271(1)(c)

No.418/LKW/2024 Page 4 of 14 2.1 The AO also invoked the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, separately. 2.2 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority. The main issued raised before

Narsinga Rao Aleti, Nalgonda vs. ITO., Ward-1, Suryapet

ITA 1419/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Us:

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 249(4)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, dated 07/08/2025, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer (for short, “A.O.”) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 2 Narsinga Rao Aleti vs. ITO 1961 (for short “the Act”) dated 23/06/2025 ... asessee’s unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. Also, the AO while culminating the assessment initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealing particulars of income. 4. Thereafter, the AO vide his order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated

The Bank Employees Co Operative Bank Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-36, Kolkata

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

ITA 362/KOL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 362/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 The Bank Employees Cooperative Bank Limited,………………………………………………….Appellant 23A, Netaji Subhas Road, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Aabat5298D] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,..…….Respondent Circle-36, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107 Appearances By: Shri Sanbarta Koley, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Ms. Archana Gupta, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: August 07, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: October 31, 2025 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(v)Section 40A(9)Section 83

Welfare Fund, ld. Assessing Officer added the amount of Rs.25,20,700/- to the total income along with initiation of penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income as the amount of interest earned on Members Welfare Fund was shown as income ... before the Hon’ble ITAT against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) passed on 20th December 2024 with respect to penalty under section 271(1)(c). 2. That during the course of preparation for the hearing of the appeal, the Appellant, upon consultation with legal and tax advisors

Shri V. Natarajan (Individual), Rasipuram vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Salem

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA No

ITA 1801/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2015-16 V. Varadappan Natarajan/ The Acit, V. Natarajan (Individual), Central Circle, No.64-C, Rotary Nagar, Salem. Rasipuram Tamil Nadu-637 408. [Pan: Acgpn1477Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025

For Appellant: Mr.T.S. LakshmiFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 37Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘बी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरर, न्यागिक