← 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Mohammed Salim Noorbhai Shaikh, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2(4), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1141/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

appeal was dismissed. The assessee only came to know about the dismissal of the appeal when he received a penalty order under section 271(1)(c) dated 31.03.2025. On learning this, the assessee immediately approached another professional, and it was only then that he became aware of the appellate order

Rasaiyan Mariya Alasu Rajan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-8(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 997/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. Lekha, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Kumar Chandan, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)Section 273B

itself was a big challenge during that period and hence non-compliance to the notices were not intentional. Therefore, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Act for non-compliance of notices was not warranted as there was a reasonable cause to the assessee

Amq Agro India Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-07, Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeals of the above mentioned AYs are

ITA 5874/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

lead case. 3. The sole substantive issue in the above captioned appeals revolve around the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) by the Assessing Officer (‘AO’) and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). 4. The relevant facts giving rise to the Appeal ... completed the assessments of AYs 2008-09 to 2012-13. After finalization of assessments in remitted proceedings, the AO levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in all these cases. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the all appeals of relevant

Amq Agro India Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-07, Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeals of the above mentioned AYs are

ITA 5873/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

lead case. 3. The sole substantive issue in the above captioned appeals revolve around the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) by the Assessing Officer (‘AO’) and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). 4. The relevant facts giving rise to the Appeal ... completed the assessments of AYs 2008-09 to 2012-13. After finalization of assessments in remitted proceedings, the AO levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in all these cases. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the all appeals of relevant

Amq Agro India Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-07, Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeals of the above mentioned AYs are

ITA 5872/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

lead case. 3. The sole substantive issue in the above captioned appeals revolve around the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) by the Assessing Officer (‘AO’) and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). 4. The relevant facts giving rise to the Appeal ... completed the assessments of AYs 2008-09 to 2012-13. After finalization of assessments in remitted proceedings, the AO levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in all these cases. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the all appeals of relevant

Amq Agro India Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-07, Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeals of the above mentioned AYs are

ITA 5871/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

lead case. 3. The sole substantive issue in the above captioned appeals revolve around the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) by the Assessing Officer (‘AO’) and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). 4. The relevant facts giving rise to the Appeal ... completed the assessments of AYs 2008-09 to 2012-13. After finalization of assessments in remitted proceedings, the AO levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in all these cases. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the all appeals of relevant

Amq Agro India Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-07, Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeals of the above mentioned AYs are

ITA 5870/DEL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

lead case. 3. The sole substantive issue in the above captioned appeals revolve around the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) by the Assessing Officer (‘AO’) and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). 4. The relevant facts giving rise to the Appeal ... completed the assessments of AYs 2008-09 to 2012-13. After finalization of assessments in remitted proceedings, the AO levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in all these cases. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the all appeals of relevant

Amq Agro India Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-07, Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeals of the above mentioned AYs are

ITA 5869/DEL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

lead case. 3. The sole substantive issue in the above captioned appeals revolve around the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) by the Assessing Officer (‘AO’) and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). 4. The relevant facts giving rise to the Appeal ... completed the assessments of AYs 2008-09 to 2012-13. After finalization of assessments in remitted proceedings, the AO levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in all these cases. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the all appeals of relevant

Amq Agro India Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-07, Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeals of the above mentioned AYs are

ITA 5868/DEL/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

lead case. 3. The sole substantive issue in the above captioned appeals revolve around the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) by the Assessing Officer (‘AO’) and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). 4. The relevant facts giving rise to the Appeal ... completed the assessments of AYs 2008-09 to 2012-13. After finalization of assessments in remitted proceedings, the AO levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in all these cases. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the all appeals of relevant

Maleckunnel Philip Varghese, Sambalpur vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Sambalpur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 258/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.256/Ctk/2025 & आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.258/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Maleckunnel Philip Varghese Vs Dcit, Central Circle, Sambalpur At/Po/Ps: Ainthapali, Dist : Sambalpur-768004 Pan No. :Abvpv 8418 K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Sh P.K.Mishra, Himanshu Jena & Narahari Swain, Ars राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 12/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12/08/2025

For Appellant: Sh P.K.Mishra, Himanshu Jena &For Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR

Section 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 271E

regarding penalty proceeding under Section 271E of the Act, though in that order the Assessing Officer wanted penalty proceeding to be initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could ... remand no satisfaction was recorded for initiating the proceedings under section 271E. Though the AO stated for initiation of proceedings under section 271(1)(c). The penalty proceeding was quashed on the ground that in absence of satisfaction recorded by the AO the penalty can not be imposed

Maleckunnel Philip Varghese, Sambalpur vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Sambalpur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 256/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.256/Ctk/2025 & आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.258/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Maleckunnel Philip Varghese Vs Dcit, Central Circle, Sambalpur At/Po/Ps: Ainthapali, Dist : Sambalpur-768004 Pan No. :Abvpv 8418 K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Sh P.K.Mishra, Himanshu Jena & Narahari Swain, Ars राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 12/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12/08/2025

For Appellant: Sh P.K.Mishra, Himanshu Jena &For Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR

Section 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 271E

regarding penalty proceeding under Section 271E of the Act, though in that order the Assessing Officer wanted penalty proceeding to be initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could ... remand no satisfaction was recorded for initiating the proceedings under section 271E. Though the AO stated for initiation of proceedings under section 271(1)(c). The penalty proceeding was quashed on the ground that in absence of satisfaction recorded by the AO the penalty can not be imposed

Junaid Suleman Motara, Na vs. Arivs.the Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3, Navsari

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 674/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsaa 3Ittt F./Ita Nos. 567 & 674/Srt/2023 (Ays 2015-16 & 2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Junaid Suleman Motara Assistant Commissioner Of 27, Vohra Wad Telada Vesma, Income-Tax, Osd, Ward-3, Navsari-396 445 Navsasi Ranga Puja Complex, 1* [Pan : Bxupm 1984 R] Floor, Junathana Navsari-396 445 Colt Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Income Tax Office, Charpool, Awabaug, Navsari-396 445 Ardenelf/ Appellant Weet Respondent Prafftdt #1 Sik A /Assessee By Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Ca Weed Bt Ix S /Revenue By Shri Ajay Uke- Sr-Dr | Aare Ct Artg/Date Of Hearing 24.07.2025 Squrgun Ct Arrg/Date Of Pronouncement 12.08.2025

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(1)Section 254(1)

making addition to the total. 5.2 GROUND No.2 This ground of appeal relates to the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)© of the Act. (i) During assessment proceedings, the AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)© of the Act. This is objected to in the appeal

Junaid Suleman Motara, Na vs. Arivs.ACIT OSD, Ward Theree Navsari

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 567/SRT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsaa 3Ittt F./Ita Nos. 567 & 674/Srt/2023 (Ays 2015-16 & 2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Junaid Suleman Motara Assistant Commissioner Of 27, Vohra Wad Telada Vesma, Income-Tax, Osd, Ward-3, Navsari-396 445 Navsasi Ranga Puja Complex, 1* [Pan : Bxupm 1984 R] Floor, Junathana Navsari-396 445 Colt Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Income Tax Office, Charpool, Awabaug, Navsari-396 445 Ardenelf/ Appellant Weet Respondent Prafftdt #1 Sik A /Assessee By Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Ca Weed Bt Ix S /Revenue By Shri Ajay Uke- Sr-Dr | Aare Ct Artg/Date Of Hearing 24.07.2025 Squrgun Ct Arrg/Date Of Pronouncement 12.08.2025

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(1)Section 254(1)

making addition to the total. 5.2 GROUND No.2 This ground of appeal relates to the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)© of the Act. (i) During assessment proceedings, the AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)© of the Act. This is objected to in the appeal

Alok Kumar Tripathi, Faizabad vs. CIT(A), NFAC

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

ITA 615/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Lucknow12 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 Alok Kumar Tripathi V. The Cit(A) Mig-4, Anjanipuram Colony Nfac Dewkali, Faizabad (U.P) Tan/Pan:Akspt2197B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Smt. Anjali Singh, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Smt. Anjali Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.56,77,110/-. 3. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, separately. ITA No.615/LKW/2024 Page 3 of 5 4. Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the assessee

Mahendrabhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. ITO Ward 3(3)(2) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 993/AHD/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Aug 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2012-13 Mahendrabhai Patel Ito, Ward-3(3)(2) 51, Shivranjini Society Vs. Ahmedabad. Satellite, Azad Society So Ahmedabad. Pan : Awspp 5117 H (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Mehul B. Dhrangadhariya, Ar Assessee By : Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/08/2025

For Appellant: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250

gain in the hands of the assessee. No deduction on account of cost of acquisition, improvement or expenses was allowed. Penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) were initiated separately. The total assessed income was determined at Rs.40,99,390/‑ as against the returned income ... NFAC portal in response to proceedings. However, due to inadvertence, the documents were submitted under the tab corresponding to penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) and hence were not considered in the appellate proceedings under section 250. The AR placed on record a copy of the e-submission acknowledgement

Rajeshbhai Bhagwandas Patel, Vadodara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5 (3) (2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, and the assessment order is quashed

ITA 985/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 50C

long-term capital gain under the head “capital gains”. The AO also recorded satisfaction for concealment of income and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Additionally, penalty under section 271(1)(b) was initiated for non-compliance with notices under

Nehal Ramanbhai Patel, Anand vs. The ITO, Ward-3 Now Ward-1, Anand

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 131/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2013-20140 Nehal Ramanbhai Patel Ito, Ward-(3) Gold Street Pamol, Borsad Vs. Anand. Anand-388 540, Gujarat Pan : Atdpp 4094 K (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Darshan Belani, Ar Assessee By : Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/08/2025

For Appellant: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and added the same to the income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were also initiated. 4.2 The assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), which was originally instituted on 16.12.2017. As recorded in the appellate

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Limited, Vadodara

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1655/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish J Shah & Shri RushinFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT. DR

Section 250Section 50(2)

appeal against penalty levied by the AO for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income / concealing particulars of income in terms of the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We have gone through the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and we find that

Gujarat State Electricity Corpn. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1598/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish J Shah & Shri RushinFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT. DR

Section 250Section 50(2)

appeal against penalty levied by the AO for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income / concealing particulars of income in terms of the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We have gone through the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and we find that

Gujarat State Electricity Corpn. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1597/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish J Shah & Shri RushinFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT. DR

Section 250Section 50(2)

appeal against penalty levied by the AO for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income / concealing particulars of income in terms of the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We have gone through the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and we find that