← 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)

Nandlal Commercial Private Limited, Howrah vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 505/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Income Tax Officer, Nandlal Commercial Private Ward 3(1), Kolkata Limited, Kolkata Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, 1, Mahendra Nath Roy, Chowringhee Square, Vs. Bye Lane, Kolkata-711101, Kolkata-700069 West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcn2898K Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, DR
Section 120Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 68

aside and quashed. Accordingly, the notice dated 6th January, 2010 regarding Nandlal Commercial Private Limited; A.Y. 2021-13 the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2006-07 is also set aside and quashed. The application being G. A. No. 81 of 2010 is also allowed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Manipal Hospitals (Bangalore) Private Limited, Bengaluru

In the result appeal of the Ld

ITA 959/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Hon’Ble & Shri Soundararajan K, Hon’Bledcit – Central Circle – 1(2) Vs. M/S. Manipal Hospitals Room No. 307, 3Rdfloor. (Bangalore) Private Limited C.R. Building, Queens Road 98/2, The Annex Bengaluru – 560001 Ruso Bagh Karnataka Off. Hal Airport Road Bengaluru – 560017 Karnataka Pan: Aaccv9562D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By: Sri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Department Represented By: Smt Prajakta Thakur, Jcit Date Of Hearing:09.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.07.2025 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi: 1. Captioned Appeal Is Filed By Dcit – Central Circle – 1(2), Bengaluru Against The Appellate Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Bengaluru (“The Ld.Cit(A)”) Dated 28.02.2025 Wherein The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Penalty Order Dated 25.03.2022 Passed By Dcit – Central

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

expenditure which was claimed by the assessee as revenue expenditure. Consequently, penalty notices were 3 M/s. Manipal Hospitals (Bangalore) Private Limited issued under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particular of income. A show cause notice was issued on 30.03.2015. On the merits of the case ... whether the order of the Ld.CIT(A) is correct while 5 6 M/s. Manipal Hospitals (Bangalore) Private Limited deleting the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act or not. 12. The Ld.CIT(A) has deleted the penalty as per Paragraph Nos. 4.3 to 4.4 as under

Swaran Nadhan Salaria, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

ITA 1055/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

matter though the expenses disallowed were genuine expenses and had been properly incurred. It was submitted that as per Explanation 5A of section 271(1)(c) of the Act it was not a fit case for levy of the penalty. 4.6 Those contentions of the assessee were rejected ... Processors and Others (2007) 295 ITR 244 (SC) the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated as under: "...the object behind the enactment of section 271(1)(c) read with the Explanations quoted above indicates that the said section has been enacted to provide for a remedy for loss of revenue

Swaran Nadhan Salaria, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

ITA 1054/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)

been properly incurred. It was submitted that as per had been properly incurred. It was submitted that as per Explanation 5A of section 271(1)(c) of the Act it was not a fit case Explanation 5A of section 271(1 ... case Explanation 5A of section 271(1)(c) of the Act it was not a fit case for levy of the penalty. for levy of the penalty. 4.6 Those contentions se contentions of the assessee were rejected by the were rejected by the Assessing Officer. The AO obs Assessing Officer

Swaran Nadhan Salaria, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

ITA 1053/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)

been properly incurred. It was submitted that as per had been properly incurred. It was submitted that as per Explanation 5A of section 271(1)(c) of the Act it was not a fit case Explanation 5A of section 271(1 ... case Explanation 5A of section 271(1)(c) of the Act it was not a fit case for levy of the penalty. for levy of the penalty. 4.6 Those contentions se contentions of the assessee were rejected by the were rejected by the Assessing Officer. The AO obs Assessing Officer

Swaran Nadhan Salaria, Mumbai vs. Dict Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

ITA 1052/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)

been properly incurred. It was submitted that as per had been properly incurred. It was submitted that as per Explanation 5A of section 271(1)(c) of the Act it was not a fit case Explanation 5A of section 271(1 ... case Explanation 5A of section 271(1)(c) of the Act it was not a fit case for levy of the penalty. for levy of the penalty. 4.6 Those contentions se contentions of the assessee were rejected by the were rejected by the Assessing Officer. The AO obs Assessing Officer

Swaran Nadhan Salaria, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

ITA 1051/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)

been properly incurred. It was submitted that as per had been properly incurred. It was submitted that as per Explanation 5A of section 271(1)(c) of the Act it was not a fit case Explanation 5A of section 271(1 ... case Explanation 5A of section 271(1)(c) of the Act it was not a fit case for levy of the penalty. for levy of the penalty. 4.6 Those contentions se contentions of the assessee were rejected by the were rejected by the Assessing Officer. The AO obs Assessing Officer

Swaran Nadhan Salaria, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014-15 to AY

ITA 1050/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

matter though the expenses disallowed were genuine expenses and had been properly incurred. It was submitted that as per Explanation 5A of section 271(1)(c) of the Act it was not a fit case for levy of the penalty. 4.6 Those contentions of the assessee were rejected ... Processors and Others (2007) 295 ITR 244 (SC) the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated as under: "...the object behind the enactment of section 271(1)(c) read with the Explanations quoted above indicates that the said section has been enacted to provide for a remedy for loss of revenue

Swaran Nadhan Salaria, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014-15 to AY

ITA 1049/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

matter though the expenses disallowed were genuine expenses and had been properly incurred. It was submitted that as per Explanation 5A of section 271(1)(c) of the Act it was not a fit case for levy of the penalty. 4.6 Those contentions of the assessee were rejected ... Processors and Others (2007) 295 ITR 244 (SC) the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated as under: "...the object behind the enactment of section 271(1)(c) read with the Explanations quoted above indicates that the said section has been enacted to provide for a remedy for loss of revenue

Azad Coach Private Limited, Rajasthan vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6075/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Azad Coach Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, A. Amer Road, Jaipur, Circle-1(1), Jaipur -110054 New Delhi Rajasthan (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaeca3035A

For Appellant: Smt Ananya Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

available on record. We find that the ld. AR placed on record the show cause notice issued for penalty u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c ) of the Act dated 27.12.2017 wherein it is very clear that the ld. AO had not specifically mentioned the offence committed ... case of a mandatory provision of law which is conceived not only in individual interest but also in the public interest". 190. Here, section 271(1)(c) is one such provision. With calamitous, albeit commercial, consequences, the provision is mandatory and brooks no trifling with or dilution. For a further

M/S. Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-27(1), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9005/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalआअसं.9005/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2015-16) Unitech Reliable Projects P. Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-8206-H बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 Assessee By : Shri D.C Garg, Chartered Accountant Department By : Ms. Monika Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 16/07/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 30/07/2025

For Appellant: Shri D.C Garg, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act has not been struck of by the AO. The notice mentions both charges of section 271(1)(c) of the Act i.e. “concealed the particulars of income” and “furnish inaccurate particulars of income” with conjunction “or”. This makes the notice ambiguous

Kaajal Aijaz Ilmi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-20, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7005/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalita Nos.2228 & 2229/Del/2018 & 7004 & 7005/Del/2019 [Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 2015-16 & 2014-15 & 2015-16] Kaajal Aijaz Ilmi, Vs Acit, C/O-Rra Tazindia, D-28, Central Circle-20, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi New Delhi-110049. Pan-Aabpi4222R Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. & Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.07.2025

Section 1Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(1)(vii)

ITA Nos.2228 & 2229/Del/2018, 7004 & 7005/Del/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “F” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH

Kaajal Aijaz Ilmi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-20, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7004/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalita Nos.2228 & 2229/Del/2018 & 7004 & 7005/Del/2019 [Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 2015-16 & 2014-15 & 2015-16] Kaajal Aijaz Ilmi, Vs Acit, C/O-Rra Tazindia, D-28, Central Circle-20, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi New Delhi-110049. Pan-Aabpi4222R Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. & Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.07.2025

Section 1Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(1)(vii)

ITA Nos.2228 & 2229/Del/2018, 7004 & 7005/Del/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “F” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH

Unitech Hi-Tech Developers Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 27(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2913/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalआअसं.2909/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2011-12) Unitech Hospitality Services Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-8460-H बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 आअसं.2912/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2013-14) Unitech Acacia Services Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-9453-H बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 आअसं.2913/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2013-14) Unitech Hi-Tech Developers Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-8064-B बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 (Ays 2011-12 & 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri D.C Garg, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 144CSection 271(1)(c)Section 274

been levied. The notice has (AYs 2011-12 & 2013-14) been issued in an omnibus performa without striking off irrelevant clause of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. This makes the notice ambiguous and defective. No penalty can be levied on the basis of defective notice ... Samson Perinchery, 392 ITR 4 has held that penalty initiated on one limb and levied on the other limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act is unsustainable. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. DCIT(supra) has held that

Unitech Acacia Projects P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-27(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2912/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalआअसं.2909/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2011-12) Unitech Hospitality Services Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-8460-H बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 आअसं.2912/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2013-14) Unitech Acacia Services Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-9453-H बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 आअसं.2913/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2013-14) Unitech Hi-Tech Developers Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-8064-B बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 (Ays 2011-12 & 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri D.C Garg, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 144CSection 271(1)(c)Section 274

been levied. The notice has (AYs 2011-12 & 2013-14) been issued in an omnibus performa without striking off irrelevant clause of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. This makes the notice ambiguous and defective. No penalty can be levied on the basis of defective notice ... Samson Perinchery, 392 ITR 4 has held that penalty initiated on one limb and levied on the other limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act is unsustainable. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. DCIT(supra) has held that

Unitech Hospitality Services Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-27(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2909/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalआअसं.2909/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2011-12) Unitech Hospitality Services Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-8460-H बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 आअसं.2912/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2013-14) Unitech Acacia Services Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-9453-H बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 आअसं.2913/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2013-14) Unitech Hi-Tech Developers Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-8064-B बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 (Ays 2011-12 & 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri D.C Garg, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 144CSection 271(1)(c)Section 274

been levied. The notice has (AYs 2011-12 & 2013-14) been issued in an omnibus performa without striking off irrelevant clause of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. This makes the notice ambiguous and defective. No penalty can be levied on the basis of defective notice ... Samson Perinchery, 392 ITR 4 has held that penalty initiated on one limb and levied on the other limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act is unsustainable. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. DCIT(supra) has held that

Kaajal Aijaz Ilmi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-20, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2229/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalita Nos.2228 & 2229/Del/2018 & 7004 & 7005/Del/2019 [Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 2015-16 & 2014-15 & 2015-16] Kaajal Aijaz Ilmi, Vs Acit, C/O-Rra Tazindia, D-28, Central Circle-20, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi New Delhi-110049. Pan-Aabpi4222R Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. & Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.07.2025

Section 1Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(1)(vii)

ITA Nos.2228 & 2229/Del/2018, 7004 & 7005/Del/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “F” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH

Kaajal Aijaz Ilmi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-20, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2228/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalita Nos.2228 & 2229/Del/2018 & 7004 & 7005/Del/2019 [Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 2015-16 & 2014-15 & 2015-16] Kaajal Aijaz Ilmi, Vs Acit, C/O-Rra Tazindia, D-28, Central Circle-20, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi New Delhi-110049. Pan-Aabpi4222R Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. & Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.07.2025

Section 1Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(1)(vii)

ITA Nos.2228 & 2229/Del/2018, 7004 & 7005/Del/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “F” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH

Shree Mangalam Aluminium, Patna vs. Dc/ACIT, Central Circle-3, Patna

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

ITA 488/PAT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. Nos. 486 To 488/Pat/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 To 2016-2017 Shree Mangalam Aluminium,…...….………Appellant Pandey Plaza Building, Exhibition Road, Patna-800001, Bihar [Pan:Abkfs3963M] -Vs.- Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,……………………………………………………..Respondent Central Circle-3, Patna, Bihar

Section 106Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)

provisions of Evidence Act are strictly not applicable. . (4) For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in invoking Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c) in a case where the income has been determined by the Assessing Officer on estimate basis. (5) For that Ld. CIT(A) has erred ... down by the Hon’ble High Court, Delhi and Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal, it is crystal clear that the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) based on estimation by the ld. Assessing Officer cannot be sustained. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the penalty levied

Shree Mangalam Aluminium, Patna vs. Dc/ACIT, Central Circle-3, Patna

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

ITA 487/PAT/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. Nos. 486 To 488/Pat/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 To 2016-2017 Shree Mangalam Aluminium,…...….………Appellant Pandey Plaza Building, Exhibition Road, Patna-800001, Bihar [Pan:Abkfs3963M] -Vs.- Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,……………………………………………………..Respondent Central Circle-3, Patna, Bihar

Section 106Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)

provisions of Evidence Act are strictly not applicable. . (4) For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in invoking Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c) in a case where the income has been determined by the Assessing Officer on estimate basis. (5) For that Ld. CIT(A) has erred ... down by the Hon’ble High Court, Delhi and Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal, it is crystal clear that the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) based on estimation by the ld. Assessing Officer cannot be sustained. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the penalty levied