← 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)

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

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

ITA 890/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

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 889/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

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

Madhya Bharat International Pvt Ltd, Indore vs. NFAC New Delhi, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 642/IND/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(viib)

aisha ster, sak ahs, saz IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Ganapati Technology Services Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 6(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 485/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jul 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 485/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Ganapati Technology Services Pvt. Ltd.,…Appellant 6B, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Sarani, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Aadcg2354D] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-6(3), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Sanjeev Kadel, A.R., 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 28, 2025 O R D E R

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 271(1)(c)

conjectures and surmises and 3 Ganapati Technology Services Private Limited without any credible evidence. The Learned Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income whereas in fact there is no concealment on the part of the Appellant Company. The Appellant being aggrieved

Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board, Dehradun vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

In the result, all three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5130/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 10(46)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, New Delhi [‘CIT(A)’]. 3. The assessee, vide various grounds has challenged the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) in all the above captioned appeals. 4. The relevant facts giving rise to these appeals ... Rs.23,14,94,016/- and Rs.23,12,25,364/- for AYs 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively. Later on, penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were levied, in all the relevant years, on the assessed income @ 100% of the tax. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee filed

Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board, Dehradun vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

In the result, all three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5129/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 10(46)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, New Delhi [‘CIT(A)’]. 3. The assessee, vide various grounds has challenged the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) in all the above captioned appeals. 4. The relevant facts giving rise to these appeals ... Rs.23,14,94,016/- and Rs.23,12,25,364/- for AYs 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively. Later on, penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were levied, in all the relevant years, on the assessed income @ 100% of the tax. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee filed

Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board, Dehradun vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

In the result, all three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5128/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 10(46)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, New Delhi [‘CIT(A)’]. 3. The assessee, vide various grounds has challenged the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) in all the above captioned appeals. 4. The relevant facts giving rise to these appeals ... Rs.23,14,94,016/- and Rs.23,12,25,364/- for AYs 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively. Later on, penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were levied, in all the relevant years, on the assessed income @ 100% of the tax. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee filed

Mahariva Pupil Educational Society, Noida vs. CIT(A)- 1, Noida

In the result, the assessee’s instant twin quantum appeals

ITA 7255/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Akshit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 10(23)(C)Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(ii)

passed in Appeal No. 91/2014-15/Noida and 234/2014-15/Noida in assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13, 2 involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) and section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”); respectively. 2. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 3. We advert to the assessee ... second quantum appeal no. 4466/Del/2017 (AY 2012-013) is partly allowed. 9. We are now left with the assessee as many as twin section 271(1)(c) consequential penalty appeals ITA No. 7254/Del/2017 and 7255/Del/2017. We make it clear that we have already reversed the learned CIT(A)’s enhancement

Mahariva Pupil Educational Society, Noida vs. JCIT, Range-1, Noida

In the result, the assessee’s instant twin quantum appeals

ITA 7254/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Akshit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 10(23)(C)Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(ii)

passed in Appeal No. 91/2014-15/Noida and 234/2014-15/Noida in assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13, 2 involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) and section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”); respectively. 2. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 3. We advert to the assessee ... second quantum appeal no. 4466/Del/2017 (AY 2012-013) is partly allowed. 9. We are now left with the assessee as many as twin section 271(1)(c) consequential penalty appeals ITA No. 7254/Del/2017 and 7255/Del/2017. We make it clear that we have already reversed the learned CIT(A)’s enhancement

Mahavira Pupil Educational Society, Noida vs. ITO(Exemption), Noida

In the result, the assessee's instant twin quantum appeals

ITA 4466/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Akshit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 10(23)(C)Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(ii)

orders dated 25.09.2017 passed in Appeal No. 91/2014-15/Noida and 234/2014-15/Noida in assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13, involving proceedings u/s.143(3) and section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”); respectively. 2. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 3. We advert ... second quantum appeal no. 4466/Del/2017 (AY 2012-013) is partly allowed. 9. We are now left with the assessee as many as twin section 271(1)(c) consequential penalty appeals ITA No. 7254/Del/2017 and 7255/Del/2017. We make it clear that we have already reversed the learned CIT(A)'s enhancement

Mahavira Pupil Educational Society, Noida vs. ITO(Exemption), Noida

In the result, the assessee’s instant twin quantum appeals

ITA 4465/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Akshit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 10(23)(C)Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(ii)

passed in Appeal No. 91/2014-15/Noida and 234/2014-15/Noida in assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13, 2 involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) and section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”); respectively. 2. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 3. We advert to the assessee ... second quantum appeal no. 4466/Del/2017 (AY 2012-013) is partly allowed. 9. We are now left with the assessee as many as twin section 271(1)(c) consequential penalty appeals ITA No. 7254/Del/2017 and 7255/Del/2017. We make it clear that we have already reversed the learned CIT(A)’s enhancement

Prafulla Kumar Routray, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, International Taxation, Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 175/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 154Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 54Section 69A

order u/s 154 of the Act dated 29.05.2020 was passed which stated that a mistake had crept in the assessment order wherein inadvertently section 271(1)(b) of the Act was mentioned in place of correct section 272A(1)(d). It was stated that the provisions of section 271(1 ... initiated. Thereafter, an order u/s 154 dated 29/05/2020 was passed which stated that a mistake has crept in the assessment order wherein inadvertently section 271(1)(b) was mentioned in place of correct section 272A(1)(d). It stated that provisions of section 271(1)(b) were applicable till

Koti Narasimha Reddy Guttikonda, Guntur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 332/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.332/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17) Koti Narasimha Reddy Guttikonda Vs. Pr. Cit 1-99, Rudravaram – 522410 Siddhardha Public School Road Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh Mogalrajapurm Vijayawada – 520010 [Pan: Amcpg7882N] Andhra Pradesh (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri K.Siva Ram Kumar, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

Ld.Pr.CIT in exercising his powers under section 263 of the Act found that Ld. AO has failed to initiate penalty provisions under section 271(1)(c) of the Act as the assessee concealed his income particulars. Ld.Pr.CIT therefore considered assessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B ... Appeal.” 5. Assessee has challenged the notice issued under section 148 of the Act and has claimed immunity as per Explanation 4C to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has paid the entire tax on 26.11.2021 whereas notice under section

Ganesh Transports, Vijayawada vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 480/VIZ/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No. 479/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ganesh Transports Vs. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1(1) Cr Building, 1St Floor Annex Flat No. 504, Umamaheswari Towers West Ibrahimpatnam M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Vijayawada – 521456 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aaifm6717G] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No. 480/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ganesh Transports Vs. Asst. Cit – Circle – 1(1) Cr Building, 1St Floor Annex Flat No. 504, Umamaheswari Towers West Ibrahimpatnam M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Vijayawada – 521456 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaifm6717G] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Mv Prasad, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

centre, Delhi [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] in quantum appeal vide DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1067423862(1) dated 08.08.2024 and against the penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1067424264(1) dated 08.08.2024. 2. Briefly stated facts ... been remitted back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to decide the case afresh including the condonation of delay, penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act does not have legs to stand and accordingly grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 12. In the result, appeal

Ganesh Transports, Vijayawada vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 479/VIZ/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No. 479/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ganesh Transports Vs. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1(1) Cr Building, 1St Floor Annex Flat No. 504, Umamaheswari Towers West Ibrahimpatnam M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Vijayawada – 521456 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aaifm6717G] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No. 480/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ganesh Transports Vs. Asst. Cit – Circle – 1(1) Cr Building, 1St Floor Annex Flat No. 504, Umamaheswari Towers West Ibrahimpatnam M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Vijayawada – 521456 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaifm6717G] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Mv Prasad, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

centre, Delhi [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] in quantum appeal vide DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1067423862(1) dated 08.08.2024 and against the penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1067424264(1) dated 08.08.2024. 2. Briefly stated facts ... been remitted back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to decide the case afresh including the condonation of delay, penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act does not have legs to stand and accordingly grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 12. In the result, appeal

Ishit Kamleshbhai Sheth, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 753/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 270ASection 270A(2)(b)Section 270A(6)(a)

Assessing Officer in income as disclosed in pursuance of notice under section 148 of the Act, no penalty can be levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The AR also placed reliance on the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in case of Suresh Rao Vs. ITO (ITA No.1235/Ahd/2024 ... Assessing Officer in the income as disclosed in pursuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act, no penalty can be levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The relevant paras are reproduced here for the sake of clarity — 14. 11. Insofar as ITA No. 5278/Mum/ 2024 (assessment

Subhash Silk Mills Limited, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer Cirle -11(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse bearing

ITA 3385/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjeesubhash Silk Mills Limited Vs Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax G-15, Prem Kutir, 177 Marine (Osd), Circle 11(2)(2), Mumbai Drive, Marine Lines, Mumbai- 400 020 Pan: Aaacs9966J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Govind PrasadFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary – Sr AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

order of the Ld. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (OSD), Circle 11(2)(2), Mumbai (in short, ‘the Ld. AO’) passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, date of order 10/04/2019. 2 ITA 3385/Mum /2025 Subhash Silks Mills Limited 2. The brief facts of the case are that ... Income from house property’. The Ld.AO has treated the alleged undisclosed income under “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” and by invoking provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, penalty of Rs.1,61,315/- being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded was levied. On appeal, the Ld.CIT

Fresenius Kabi Oncology Limited, West Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax/ National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 176/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Fresenius Kabi Oncology Vs. Dcit/ National Faceless Limited B-310 Somdatt Assessment Centre Chambers I R K Puram New Delhi (Main) South West Delhi 110006 Pan No. Aabcd7720L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Aditya Vohra, Advocate Ms. Aakriti Bansal, Ca Respondent By Sh. Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22 /07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/07/2025 Order Per Sudhir Kumar: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-26 New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 12.11.2024 Pertaining To A.Y. 2012-13 Confirming The Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (In Short ‘The Act’).

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] vide order dated 12.11.2024 pertaining to A.Y. 2012-13 confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (in short ‘the Act’). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds in appeal: 1. That the order ... passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ["CIT(A)"] upholding levy of penalty of Rs.19,66,59,439 on the Appellant under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") for assessment year 2012-13 is invalid, bad in law and liable

Ravindra Nath Patel, Maharajganj vs. Income Tax Officer, Gorkhpur

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

ITA 27/ALLD/2025[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad24 Jul 2025AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaravindra Nath Patel Kasmaria V. Income Tax Officer Kasmaria, Maharajganj, Uttar Aayakar Bhawan, Income Pradesh-273303. Tax Office, Anand Nagar Road, Maharajganj, Up- 273165. Pan: Akbpp8792R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms Vidisha Srivastava, Adv Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. Dr O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms Vidisha Srivastava, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned appellate order dated 19.03.2015 passed by the Income Tax Department, Gorakhpur under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to “the Act”) for the assessment year 2008-09. The grounds of appeal ... assessee are as under: - “1. Because the Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts and law to pass the order under section 271(1)(c) on 05.03.2024 imposing the penalty of Rs. 3,04,000/- whereas a request letter was submitted before the Ld. AO to keep the penalty proceedings

Dinesh Baranwal, East Champaran vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Motihari

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

ITA 593/PAT/2024[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Patna24 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.593/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sri Dinesh Baranwal……………….....…..…………………....Appellant C/ M/S Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, C. R Avenue, 3Rd Floor, Kol-72. [Pan: Adkpg6603N] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Motihari…...……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 23, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 24 , 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.05.2024 Passed By The Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 57 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Petition Explaining The Reasons Or Such Delay. After Considering The Submissions & Materials On Record, We Are Satisfied That There Was Reasonable Cause For The Delay In Filing The Appeal. Accordingly, The Said Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was A Dealer Of A Telecom Service Operator, Namely M/S Unitech Wireless Tamil Nadu Pvt.

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

Assessing Officer completed the reassessment under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 vide order dated 09.12 2019, estimating income and initiating penalty proceedings under Sections 271(1)(c) of the act. The AO levied penalty of Rs.1,53,232 under Section 271(1)(c) vide order dated 21.12.2021. The assessee contended that ... Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Since the foundation of the penalty-i.e., the reassessment order dated 09.12.2019 1onger survives, the penalty under Section 271(1)(C) cannot be sustained at this stage. 5. On the other hand, the learned DR opposed the prayer, but could not controvert the fact