← 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)

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

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

ITA 486/PAT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

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

Aspee Sons, Solan vs. Income Tax Officer, Parwanoo

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

ITA 1167/CHANDI/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80I

foreign exchange fluctuation not derived from manufacturing activity, and (ii) Rs. 9,86,497/- for excess deduction on additional depreciation. Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. While the assessee contested the depreciation disallowance and succeeded before the CIT(A) and ITAT ... documents despite repeated notices, relying only on unsubstantiated judicial citations. Holding that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars and invoking Explanation 1(A) to Section 271(1)(c), the AO levied a penalty of Rs. 5,66,616/-, being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded on the unchallenged addition

Suresh, Pinjore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Panchkula

In the result both the above appeals are allowed

ITA 1149/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Neelam Dhiman, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

cash deposits as unexplained credits under Section 68 and added Rs. 10,04,000/- to the assessee’s taxable income. Penalty proceedings under Sections 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) were also initiated. 5. Against the order of the AO the assessee went in appeal before ... assessee’s reply dated 01.09.2018 and violates principles of natural justice, exacerbated by parallel proceedings and an undated order. The penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was levied prematurely, pending quantum appeal. 7.2 On Merits assessee submitted that the deposit of Rs. 10 lakhs in the assessee’s account (supported

Suresh, Pinjore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4, Panchkula

In the result both the above appeals are allowed

ITA 1148/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Neelam Dhiman, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

cash deposits as unexplained credits under Section 68 and added Rs. 10,04,000/- to the assessee’s taxable income. Penalty proceedings under Sections 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) were also initiated. 5. Against the order of the AO the assessee went in appeal before ... assessee’s reply dated 01.09.2018 and violates principles of natural justice, exacerbated by parallel proceedings and an undated order. The penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was levied prematurely, pending quantum appeal. 7.2 On Merits assessee submitted that the deposit of Rs. 10 lakhs in the assessee’s account (supported

Parvinbanu Mayudin Kazi, Anand vs. The ITO, Ward-1 (Previously Ward-5), Anand

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 595/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2011-12 Parvinbanu Mayudin Kazi Ito, Ward-1 50/51, Sabnam Society Vs. Anand. Nr. New Water Tank Anand, Gujarat. Pan : Awppk 5536 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri B.T. Thakkar, Ar Assessee By : Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.05.2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)”], For A.Y. 2011–12, Confirming The Addition Of Rs.9,81,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer Under Section 69A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, In Respect Of Cash Deposits In Her Savings Bank Account Vide His Order Dated 26.12.2018 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

concluded assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147, assessing total income at Rs.11,55,240/-, and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). 3.2 The assessee challenged the addition before the CIT(A), NFAC. In the appeal proceedings, the assessee submitted a brief statement of facts, reiterating the explanation

Madanlal Girdharilal Bugaliya, Ahmedabad vs. ITO Ward 1(2)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2024/AHD/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri B. P. Makwana, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri B. P. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

said amount was treated as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act and added to the assessee’s income. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were also initiated. 4. In appeal, Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), after examining the assessment order and assessee’s submissions, noted that the Assessing Officer ... allowed for statistical purposes. Now we come to ITA No. 2024/Ahd/2024 relating to imposition of penalty in relation to the aforesaid transaction under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. ITA Nos. 2023&2024/Ahd/2024 Madanlal Girdharilal Bugaliya vs. ITO Asst.Year –2010-11 - 5– 10. The assessee

Madanlal Girdharilal Bugaliya, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(2)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2023/AHD/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri B. P. Makwana, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri B. P. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

said amount was treated as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act and added to the assessee’s income. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were also initiated. 4. In appeal, Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), after examining the assessment order and assessee’s submissions, noted that the Assessing Officer ... allowed for statistical purposes. Now we come to ITA No. 2024/Ahd/2024 relating to imposition of penalty in relation to the aforesaid transaction under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. ITA Nos. 2023&2024/Ahd/2024 Madanlal Girdharilal Bugaliya vs. ITO Asst.Year –2010-11 - 5– 10. The assessee

Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Aayakar Bhavan Near Sachin Tower Anand Nagar Road Vejalpur Ahmedabad vs. Dhwani Alpesh Shah, Uganda Park Soc, Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue for A

ITA 1818/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri P.D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69

assessee were unexplained credits assessable under section 69 read with section 115BBE of the Act. Accordingly, penalty proceedings were initiated under section 271(1)(c) for A.Y. 2016–17 and under section 271AAC(1) for A.Y. 2017–18. 2.4 In the appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A) the assessee

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Aayakar Bhavan Near Sachin Tower Anand Nagar Road Vejalpur Ahmedabad vs. Dhwani Alpesh Shah, Uganda Park Soc, Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue for A

ITA 1817/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri P.D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69

assessee were unexplained credits assessable under section 69 read with section 115BBE of the Act. Accordingly, penalty proceedings were initiated under section 271(1)(c) for A.Y. 2016–17 and under section 271AAC(1) for A.Y. 2017–18. 2.4 In the appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A) the assessee

Dipakkumar Jagdishchandra Maheta, Chhotaudepur vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), (Previously ITO, Ward-3(1)(3)), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1331/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Dipakkumar Jagdishchandra Maheta The Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) Holi Chakla Vs. Vadodara. Alipura Char Rasta Bodeli,Chhotaudepur Gujarat. Pan : Ahtpm 6296 N (Applicant) (Responent) : Shhri Jigar Adhyaru, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 15.05.2024, Confirming The Addition Made By The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 3(1)(3), Baroda [Hereinafter Referred To As “Assessing Officer Or Ao”] Under Section 68 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] In Respect Of The Opening Capital Balance As On 01.04.2014 Amounting To Rs.96,10,209/–, In The Case Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015–16. 2. Facts Of The Case

For Respondent: Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

brought the same to tax under section 115BBE at the special rate. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) alleging concealment of income. 3. The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), inter alia, challenging the addition of Rs.96,10,209/– on the ground that

Mayankkumar Rameshchandra Bhatt, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 1284/AHD/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2007-08 Mayankkumar Rameschandra Ito, Ward-1(2)(1) Bhatt Vs. Vadodara. B/202, Laljikrupa Society B/H. Mothers School Gotri Road, Baroda. Pan : Agypb 2066 R (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29 /07/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.05.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], For The Assessment Year 2007–08, Arising Out Of The Reassessment Order Dated 27.03.2015 Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Act By The Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(2)(4), Vadodara [Hereinafter Referred To As “Assessing Officer Or Ao”].

For Respondent: Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Sr.DR
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

short-term capital gains from sale of shares, as the assessee did not furnish supporting documents. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) and levied interest under sections 234A/B/C/D of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A)-IV, Baroda ... share transaction was deleted, accepting the claim of long-term holding and STT-compliant sale. On the issue of initiation of penalty under section 271(1)(c), the CIT(A) dismissed the challenge as premature, holding that penalty proceedings are separate and independent. Despite the affidavit and supplementary evidence

Shivratan Motilal Rathi HUF, Pune vs. ITO, Jalna

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 606/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.605 & 606/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2011-12 Shivratan Motilalji Rathi Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Jalna. Huf, Rathi Rathi & Co., 501-504, Akshay Landmarks, Opp. Pu La Garden, Sinhagad Road, Jalna- 411030. Pan : Aaehr5318G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Miss Smruti Sabnis Revenue By Shri Akhilesh Srivastva : Date Of Hearing 24.07.2025 : Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 21.10.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. There Is Delay Of 64 Days In Filing Of The Present Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Affidavit For Condonation That The Applicant Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeals Within The Prescribed Time Limit. Ld. Dr Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection To Condone The Delay, Therefore We Condone The Delay Of 64 Days & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals. 3. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 4. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.605/Pun/2025 For Assessment Year 2008-09 As The Lead Case For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Miss Smruti Sabnis
Section 142(1)Section 142ASection 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 249(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

paid advance tax before filing of the appeal. We further observe that the quantum addition appeal, on the basis of which penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act was levied, has already been remanded by a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal vide order dated 14.02.2025 (supra

Shivratan Motilalji Rathi HUF, Pune vs. ITO, Jalna

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 605/PUN/2025[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2025AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.605 & 606/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2011-12 Shivratan Motilalji Rathi Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Jalna. Huf, Rathi Rathi & Co., 501-504, Akshay Landmarks, Opp. Pu La Garden, Sinhagad Road, Jalna- 411030. Pan : Aaehr5318G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Miss Smruti Sabnis Revenue By Shri Akhilesh Srivastva : Date Of Hearing 24.07.2025 : Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 21.10.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. There Is Delay Of 64 Days In Filing Of The Present Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Affidavit For Condonation That The Applicant Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeals Within The Prescribed Time Limit. Ld. Dr Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection To Condone The Delay, Therefore We Condone The Delay Of 64 Days & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals. 3. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 4. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.605/Pun/2025 For Assessment Year 2008-09 As The Lead Case For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Miss Smruti Sabnis
Section 142(1)Section 142ASection 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 249(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

paid advance tax before filing of the appeal. We further observe that the quantum addition appeal, on the basis of which penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act was levied, has already been remanded by a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal vide order dated 14.02.2025 (supra

Baidya Nath Dey, Burdwan vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Durgapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 337/KOL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ito, Ward 1(3), Durgapur, Baidya Nath Dey Aaykar Bhavan, Aykar Bithi, City Station More, P.O. Ukhra Centre, Durgapur, Vs. Burdwan-713363, West Bengal West Bengal-713216 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahppd0247E Assessee By : Shri Shuvo Chackrborty, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Shuvo Chackrborty, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

imposed by the ld. AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, on the basis of invalid notice issued u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 03. The facts in brief are that the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income ... dated 14.12.2018, was framed assessing the income of ₹18,51,630/-. The ld. AO issued notice u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 14.12.2018 initiating the penalty Baidya Nath Dey; A.Y. 2011-12 proceedings. Finally, the ld. AO imposed the penalty u/s 271(1

Bhagwati Developers, Bishnupur vs. I.T.O.Ward-26(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2166/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2166/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Bhagwati Developers,………………………..…Appellant Chandandaha Bibirhat, P.O. Charashyamdas P.S. Bishnupur, South 24-Parganas-700162 [Pan:Aakfb2520N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-26(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, Dakshin, 2, Gariahat Road, Kolkata-700031 Appearances By: Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Susanta Saha, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: May 21, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 29, 2025 O R D E R

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

claim. Thus the ld. Assessing Officer assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.21,37,917/- and penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. CIT(Appeals) in his impugned order confirmed

Oriental Relays LLP (Successor to Oriental Relays Pvt. Ltd.), Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 8(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1574/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jul 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Oriental Relays Llp Pan No. Aahfo5108L Acit, Circle 8(2), (Successor To Oriental Relays Aaykar Bhavan, P7, Pvt. Ltd Pan No. Aaaco3456H) Chowringhee Square, Vs. 2Nd Floor, S.B. Tower, 37 Kolkata-700069, West Bengal Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700017, West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Shreya Loyalka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

imposed by the ld. AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, on the basis of invalid notice issued u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 03. The facts in brief are that the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income ... consequential proceedings/ orders are invalid and may be quashed. The ld. AR referred to the notice issued u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act and submitted that the ld. AO has not struck off the irrelevant limb nor indicated the relevant limb in the penalty notice

M/S.Redington Distributions Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Intltaxation Circle-2(1), Chennai

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

ITA 894/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 144CSection 148Section 271(1)(c)

levy of penalty. The levy of penalty is not automatic and it also cannot be levied solely on a presumption. The provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act provides that ITA Nos.889 to 894/Chny/2025 (AYs 2011-12 to 2016-17) M/s. Redington Distribution Pte Ltd. :: 15 :: only where ... follows: "Both the CIT(A) as well as the ITAT have set aside the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. 1961 on the ground that the issue of deduction under section 14A of the Act was a debatable issue

M/S.Redington Distributions Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Intltaxation Circle-2(1), Chennai

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

ITA 893/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 144CSection 148Section 271(1)(c)

levy of penalty. The levy of penalty is not automatic and it also cannot be levied solely on a presumption. The provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act provides that ITA Nos.889 to 894/Chny/2025 (AYs 2011-12 to 2016-17) M/s. Redington Distribution Pte Ltd. :: 15 :: only where ... follows: "Both the CIT(A) as well as the ITAT have set aside the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. 1961 on the ground that the issue of deduction under section 14A of the Act was a debatable issue

M/S. Redington Distribution Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Intl Taxation Circle-2(1), Chennai

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

ITA 892/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 144CSection 148Section 271(1)(c)

levy of penalty. The levy of penalty is not automatic and it also cannot be levied solely on a presumption. The provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act provides that ITA Nos.889 to 894/Chny/2025 (AYs 2011-12 to 2016-17) M/s. Redington Distribution Pte Ltd. :: 15 :: only where ... follows: "Both the CIT(A) as well as the ITAT have set aside the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. 1961 on the ground that the issue of deduction under section 14A of the Act was a debatable issue

M/S. Redington Distribution Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Intl Taxation Circle-2(1), Chennai

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

ITA 891/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 144CSection 148Section 271(1)(c)

levy of penalty. The levy of penalty is not automatic and it also cannot be levied solely on a presumption. The provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act provides that ITA Nos.889 to 894/Chny/2025 (AYs 2011-12 to 2016-17) M/s. Redington Distribution Pte Ltd. :: 15 :: only where ... follows: "Both the CIT(A) as well as the ITAT have set aside the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. 1961 on the ground that the issue of deduction under section 14A of the Act was a debatable issue