← 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)

Farukh Kabir, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Srinagar

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

ITA 47/ASR/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar08 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 47/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 249(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA

Veena Mishra Through Nitish Mishra, Patna vs. ACIT, Cent.Cir-1, Patna

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

ITA 152/PAT/2025[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 Sept 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

considering the material available on record. 13. For that the ld. Assessing officer has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) of the Act in the fact and circumstances of this case and Ld. CIT Appeal erred in confirming

Madan Gopal Sikawat HUF, Surat vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Surat

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are

ITA 1080/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethha Ati &./Ita Nos. 1080 & 1081/Srt/2024 (Ay 2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Madan Gopal Sikawat Huf National Faceless Assessment H-1572-73-74, Radhakrishna War | Centre, Delhi Textile Market, Ring Road, Surat- Vs 395 002 [Pan : Aakhm 4960 K] Aitereli/ Appellant Wert Respondent Fiuittdt Dt Siz A /Assessee By Shri Rajesh C Shah, Ca Weed Sh Six S /Revenue By Shri Ajay Uke- Sr-Dr Aare Hi Ankg/Date Of Hearing 24.07.2025 Sau Wt Arg/Date Of Pronouncement | 08.08.2025

Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

assessee has challenged the addition in the quantum assessment, wherein in ITA No.1081/SRT/2024, the assessee has challenged the validity of penalty levying under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 22.09.2022. As certain facts in both appeals are common, thus ... have restored the matter back to the file of AO grounds of appeal raised in quantum assessment, therefore, the penalty imposed under sections 271(1)(c) of the Act will not survive. However, the Assessing ITA No.129/SRT/2025 (A.Y.11-12) Narpatsinh P Solanki Officer is given liberty to initiate fresh penalty

Vipin Pansari, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 4(3), Jaipur

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

ITA 683/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, CA (Thru:VC)For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Nahid Khatoon, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-14(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1135/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P. Vinod, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

assessee had filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the penalty order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 28.06.2019 for the assessment year 2016-17. During the appellate proceedings

Vijay Tukaram Raundal, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Pune

ITA 1634/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Mihir NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 115JSection 131Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS ASTHA

M/S. Gyanchand Poddar HUF, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 43(1), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1391/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014
Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

prove the genuineness of the transactions for which bonafide explanation was filed and the department failed to prove that the provisions of section 271(1)(c) were applicable. 6 For that the penalty imposed is otherwise bad in law since all details and evidences to prove the capital gain were

Samastipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Patna vs. DCIT, Circle-3, Darbhanga

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 32/PAT/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Patna01 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.32/Pat/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Samastipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Merged With Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank)……………....Appellant C/O Nirmal & Associates, Ca, Nepali Kothi, Opp Gasoline Petrol Pump, Boring Road, Patna-800001. [Pan: Aafas8891R] Vs. Dcit, Circle-3, Darbhanga..…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Nishant Maitin, Ca Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Rinku Singh, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 21, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 1St, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.10.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Jamshedpur Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Regional Rural Bank & Had Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Nil Income After Claiming Deduction On Account Of Brought Forward Losses & Deductions U/S 80P Of The Act. The Deduction U/S 80P Was Withdrawn From The Statute W.E.F Asst Year 2007-08. Accordingly, In The Present Case Of The Assessee, Assessment Was Framed By Disallowing The Claim Of Brought Forward Losses & Deduction U/S 80P Of The Act.

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “PATNA BENCH, PATNA VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member and

Labh Singh Panchkula, Panchkula vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Panchkula

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 733/CHANDI/2025[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Chandigarh01 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 733/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Labh Singh, Ito, C/O M.K.Aggarwal & बनाम Ward 2, Associates, Panchkula Vs. Sco 1,First Floor, Sector 11, Panchkula "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Didps5445F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh Rishab Gupta, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Surinder Kaur Waraich, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28-08-2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01.09-2025 आदेश/Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Cit(A), Confirming The Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(B) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Assessing Officer (Ao), In The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, Issued Statutory Notices Under Sections 143(2) & 142(1) On Various Dates. Since The Assessee Did Not Comply With The Notices, The Ao Levied A Penalty Of ₹40,000/- Under Section 271(1)(B), Being ₹10,000/- For Each Of Four Defaults. The Learned Cit(A) Confirmed The Levy.

For Appellant: Sh Rishab Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Surinder Kaur Waraich, Addl. CIT
Section 271(1)(b)

आदेश/Order This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned CIT(A), confirming the penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The Assessing Officer (AO), in the course of assessment proceedings, issued statutory notices under sections ... 1) on various dates. Since the assessee did not comply with the notices, the AO levied a penalty of ₹40,000/- under section 271(1)(b), being ₹10,000/- for each of four defaults. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the levy. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before

Anil Kumar Sah, Banka vs. ITO, WD-1(4), Bhagalpur

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

ITA 324/PAT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 324/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Anil Kumar Sah,………………………....….………Appellant Near Bari Durga Mandir, Kajreli Road, Amarpur, Dist. Banka-813101, Bihar [Pan:Aqgps8735A] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………...…….Respondent Ward-1(4), Bhagalpur, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, R.N. Plaza, R B S S Road, Bhagalpur-812001, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: August 29, 2025 O R D E R

Section 143Section 143(1)

Rs.13,63,773/- plus Rs.2,06,932/-) and addition made for undisclosed Bank interest amounting to Rs.38,077/-)] and initiated penalty proceeding under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals

Moulimani Impex Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer- 1(1)(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 536/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c)

Moulimani Impex Pvt. Ltd. basis of invalid penalty order in which the limb of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 not mentioned. 2. Ground 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty ... under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 without passing speaking order. 3. Ground 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that the penalty is not leviable when the addition is made on estimation basis. 4. Ground

Moulimani Impex Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -1(1)(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 535/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c)

Moulimani Impex Pvt. Ltd. basis of invalid penalty order in which the limb of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 not mentioned. 2. Ground 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty ... under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 without passing speaking order. 3. Ground 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that the penalty is not leviable when the addition is made on estimation basis. 4. Ground

Moulimani Impex Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -1(1)(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 534/SRT/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c)

Moulimani Impex Pvt. Ltd. basis of invalid penalty order in which the limb of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 not mentioned. 2. Ground 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty ... under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 without passing speaking order. 3. Ground 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that the penalty is not leviable when the addition is made on estimation basis. 4. Ground

Moulimani Impex Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer- 1(1)(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 533/SRT/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c)

Moulimani Impex Pvt. Ltd. basis of invalid penalty order in which the limb of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 not mentioned. 2. Ground 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty ... under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 without passing speaking order. 3. Ground 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that the penalty is not leviable when the addition is made on estimation basis. 4. Ground

M/S Jupiter Tradelinks Private Limited, Lucknow vs. Dy, . Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-1, Lucknow

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

ITA 71/LKW/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2013-14 M/S Jupiter Tradelinks Private Vs. Dcit, Limited, Dobiriyal Complex Gole Central Circle-1, Lucknow Market Mahanagar, Lucknow Pan: Aaccj0525G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Akshay Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2025 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)-3, Lucknow Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 26.11.2024 Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Dated 4.06.2019, Passed Under Section 271(1)(C). The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Both Law & Facts Of The Case By Confirming The Penalty Of 2,20,41,900/- Levied By The Assessing Officer. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate That: A. The Appellant Has Neither Concealed The Particulars Of Its Income Nor Furnished Any Inaccurate Particulars Of Income; B. There Was No Failure On The Part Of The Appellant In Truly & Fully Disclosing All Material Facts C. Mere Disallowance Or Rejection Of The Claim Or Stand Taken By The Appellant Based On Reasonable Interpretation Of The Law Is Not Sufficient To Attract Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) 3. The Amount Of Penalty Confirmed By The Learned Cit(A) Is Invalid, Excessive & Unreasonable.”

For Appellant: Sh. Akshay Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Income Tax Act, 1961 on 26.11.2024 dismissing the appeals of the assessee against the orders of the ld. AO dated 4.06.2019, passed under section 271(1)(c). The grounds of appeal are as under: - “1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in both law and facts of the case ... presumptive addition to the income of the assessee company at 10% of the total investment i.e. Rs.2,79,20,000/-. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated separately. 3. Aggrieved with the said assessment order, the assessee company preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)-2, Kolkata

Kobsai Hospitallities Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Lucknow

In the result, ITA No.290/LKW/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes while

ITA 291/LKW/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(a)Section 69

assessee against the orders of the ld. AO passed on 28.03.2022, under section 144 of the Income Tax Act and on 26.09.2022, under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As both the appeals relate to the same assessment year and the penalty proceedings emanate ... NFAC, has erred on facts and in law in upholding the levy of penalty of Rs.1,51,50,193/-under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which penalty is bad in law, in as much as, there being no violation of provisions of section 271(1)(c), the penalty

Kobsai Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Lucknow

In the result, ITA No.290/LKW/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes while

ITA 290/LKW/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(a)Section 69

assessee against the orders of the ld. AO passed on 28.03.2022, under section 144 of the Income Tax Act and on 26.09.2022, under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As both the appeals relate to the same assessment year and the penalty proceedings emanate ... NFAC, has erred on facts and in law in upholding the levy of penalty of Rs.1,51,50,193/-under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which penalty is bad in law, in as much as, there being no violation of provisions of section 271(1)(c), the penalty

Khandelwal Soya Industries Limited, Rampur vs. ACIT(Centeral), Bareilly

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the

ITA 93/LKW/2022[F.Y.2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. H. Usmani, CIT(DR)
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 194H

appropriate writ or order quashing the orders dated 27.10.2006 passed by the respondent No.2 in purported exercise of the powers under section 271(1)9b) of the Act for the assessment year 2000-01 (AnnexureP/ 12) and assessment year 2001-02 (Annexure P/ 16) f. Issue a writ of certiorari

Pradeep Kumar Jhamumal Jethani, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissoner of Income Tax, Piramal Chambers, Mumbai

ITA 3910/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhrimr. Pradeep Kumar V/S. Commissioner Of Jhamulal Jethani Income Tax (Appeals) 203, Quantum Park Chs National Faceless Ltd, Appeal Centre (Nfac), Union Park, Khar Gulab Delhi Nagar, Dcit Circle 23(1) Opp. Olive Restaurant, Piramal Chambers Lalbaug, Khar (West), Pavel, Mumbai-400052. Mumbai-400012. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaapj8162G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. M SubramnaimFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan (SR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

upholding the penalty of ₹1,62,450/- imposed under P a g e | 2 A.Y. 2007-08 M/s. Pradeep Kumar Jhamumal Jethani Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which represents 100% of the tax payable on the addition of ₹5,41,503/- to the total income ... appeal was, however, dismissed by Ld. CIT(A) holding that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, since it had failed to produce credible and verifiable evidence in support of the purchases which were held to be bogus

Income Tax Officer-19(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Khodiyar Impex, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3029/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Us Is Whether The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Was Justified In Restricting The Penalty To The Tax Sought To Be Evaded On An Addition Of ₹5,59,500/–, As Against The Penalty Levied By The Assessing Officer On The Entire

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Revenue arises out of the order dated 05/02/2025 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, in relation to penalty proceedings initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2007–08. The narrow controversy before us is whether the learned Commissioner ... furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The learned CIT(A), upon appeal, examined the matter afresh. He noted that penalty 3 Khodiyar Impex under section 271(1)(c) can only be levied on the amount of income which ultimately survives after the appellate process, and not on amounts which have already been