← 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)

Shivani Batra, Noida vs. ITO, Ward - 3(4), Nodia

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 2546/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalita No. 2620/Del/2023 (A.Y 2011-12) Shivani Batra Vs. Ito A-6, Sector 31, Noida, Ward-3(4) Uttar Pradesh Secdtopr-24, Noida, Pan: Arepb2397L Uttar Pradesh

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

preferred the captioned Appeal in ITA No. 2546/Del/2024. 3. An order of penalty dated 23/05/2019 has been also passed against the Assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and the Appeal challenging the Order of Penalty has been dismissed by the CIT(A) vide order dated 17/08/2023, which

Shivani Batra, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 3(4), Noida

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 2620/DEL/2023[A.Y. 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalita No. 2620/Del/2023 (A.Y 2011-12) Shivani Batra Vs. Ito A-6, Sector 31, Noida, Ward-3(4) Uttar Pradesh Secdtopr-24, Noida, Pan: Arepb2397L Uttar Pradesh

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

preferred the captioned Appeal in ITA No. 2546/Del/2024. 3. An order of penalty dated 23/05/2019 has been also passed against the Assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and the Appeal challenging the Order of Penalty has been dismissed by the CIT(A) vide order dated 17/08/2023, which

Yasin Ansari, Ranchi vs. Iyo, Ward-1(1), Ranchi

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 115/RAN/2025[16-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi12 Jun 2025

Bench: BEFORES/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri M.K.Chowdhary, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Sr DR
Section 144Section 147rSection 148Section 27Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

confirming appeal. ITA No.11/Ran/2025 is against the order of the ld CIT(A) in confirming the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA No.114/Ran/2025 is against the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA No.114/Ran/2025 is against the penalty under section 271(1

Yasin Ansari, Ranchi vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Ranchi

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 114/RAN/2025[16-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi12 Jun 2025

Bench: BEFORES/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri M.K.Chowdhary, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Sr DR
Section 144Section 147rSection 148Section 27Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

confirming appeal. ITA No.11/Ran/2025 is against the order of the ld CIT(A) in confirming the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA No.114/Ran/2025 is against the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA No.114/Ran/2025 is against the penalty under section 271(1

Yasin Ansari, Ranchi vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Ranchi

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 113/RAN/2025[16-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi12 Jun 2025

Bench: BEFORES/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri M.K.Chowdhary, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Sr DR
Section 144Section 147rSection 148Section 27Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

confirming appeal. ITA No.11/Ran/2025 is against the order of the ld CIT(A) in confirming the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA No.114/Ran/2025 is against the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA No.114/Ran/2025 is against the penalty under section 271(1

Yasin Ansari, Ranchi vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Ranchi

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 112/RAN/2025[16-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi12 Jun 2025

Bench: BEFORES/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri M.K.Chowdhary, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Sr DR
Section 144Section 147rSection 148Section 27Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

confirming appeal. ITA No.11/Ran/2025 is against the order of the ld CIT(A) in confirming the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA No.114/Ran/2025 is against the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA No.114/Ran/2025 is against the penalty under section 271(1

W G Steel Industries, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 28(3)(5), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITAs No

ITA 1699/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee () & Miss Padmavathy. S()

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

orders of the Ld.Income-tax Officer, Ward 28(3)(5), Mumbai[for brevity, 2 ITAs1697 & 1699/Mum/2025 W.G. Steel Industries ‘Ld.AO’+ passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, date of order 12/08/2016 for both the orders. 2. Both appeals were filed with a delay of 375 days. The assessee ... material available on record. Both appeals are directed against the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A), wherein the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was upheld — amounting

W G Steel Industries, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 28(3)(5), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITAs No

ITA 1697/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee () & Miss Padmavathy. S()

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

orders of the Ld.Income-tax Officer, Ward 28(3)(5), Mumbai[for brevity, 2 ITAs1697 & 1699/Mum/2025 W.G. Steel Industries ‘Ld.AO’+ passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, date of order 12/08/2016 for both the orders. 2. Both appeals were filed with a delay of 375 days. The assessee ... material available on record. Both appeals are directed against the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A), wherein the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was upheld — amounting

Abhiney Ravindra Singh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-22(1)(6), Mumbai

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

ITA 5978/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Ld. Sr.D.R
Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)Section 274Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013

I.P. Constructions Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO -12(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 5531/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. I.P. Constructions Private Vs. Acit, Limited, 210 First Floor, Phool Circle-12(2), Singh Market Main, Delhi Vikas Marg, New Delhi Pin 1100 92 Pan No. Aabci4548K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Chandra Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 56(2)(viib)

reply was filed by assessee and assessment proceedings were not attended. Show cause notice 2 dated 23.10.2017 was issued for initiating penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act but none attended. Penalty order under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act was passed on 02.11.2017. On 01.12.2017, notices

Crystal Thermotech Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata vs. Deputy Commissioner Pf Income Tax, Central Circle, Jamshedpur

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

ITA 80/RAN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

failed to record a proper or transparent satisfaction in his notice while initiating proceedings under section 271(1)(c), thus rendering the entire penalty proceedings null and void. 3. That under the facts and circumstances, the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) are illegal and unsustainable ... concealment when the return income itself was accepted without modification and there was no undisclosed income which is sine qua non for invoking section 271(1)(c). 5. That the assessee craves lave to add, alter or amend any ground before or at the time of hearing." Crystal Thermotech

Crystal Thermotech Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Jamshedpur

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

ITA 79/RAN/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

failed to record a proper or transparent satisfaction in his notice while initiating proceedings under section 271(1)(c), thus rendering the entire penalty proceedings null and void. 3. That under the facts and circumstances, the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) are illegal and unsustainable ... concealment when the return income itself was accepted without modification and there was no undisclosed income which is sine qua non for invoking section 271(1)(c). 5. That the assessee craves lave to add, alter or amend any ground before or at the time of hearing." Crystal Thermotech

Irm Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1590/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 1590/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Irm Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Irm House, बनाम/ Of Income Tax, V/S. Off. C.G Raod, Circle 2(1)(1), Navrangpura, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380009. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaaci3678M अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhijit, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, SR-DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 194HSection 194J

report from ITO Jalandhar. 4. Accordingly, the AO determined total assessed income at Rs. 2,14,81,080/- and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. Being not satisfied with the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) raising multiple ... furnished. The levy of interest under sections 234A to 234D was treated as consequential and upheld. The initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) was held to be a preliminary step and not subject to appellate adjudication at this stage. Aggrieved by the order

L K Sons Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. ACIT, Circle-9, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 45/PUN/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jun 2025

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

For Appellant: Ms. Diksha AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

held that the Learned First Appellate Authority erred in confirming the penalty levied by the Learned Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It be held that no penalty is imposable in case of the Appellant. The penalty levied be deleted. The Appellant be granted just ... after making disallowance of Rs.42,77,408/- on account of under valuation of closing stock. The Ld. AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In quantum appeal, the said addition/disallowance made by the Ld. AO was confirmed

Chaitali Hotels, Kolhapur vs. CIT(A)-11, Pune

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

ITA 1846/PUN/2024[AY-2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 Chaitali Hotels Cit(A)-11, Pune 257, Kadamwadi Road, Vs. Kolhapur – 416005 Pan: Aagfc8348F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 04-06-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-06-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271ASection 274Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

and/or appeal or revision proceedings, as the case may be and thereafter, levy of penalty for concealment by a separate order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The person who is making the assessment in the hands of a person, is the person authorized to give

Subhas Shibukumar Bose, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward -28(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 2739/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Blesubhas Shibukumar Bose Ito, Ward – 28(3)(1), Mumbai Room No. 102, Siddhi Samarth It-Office, Vasi Railway Station Co-Op Housing Society, Plot No. Vs Building, Vashi, Navi Mumbai, D-47, Sector-20, Nerul, Navi Maharashtra-400703. Mumbai, Maharashtra-400706. Pan: Ahtpb7474M (Appellant) (Respondent ) Assessee Represented By : Shri Rajesh S. Shah, Ca Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, Cit-Dr Department Represented By : Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 10.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement Of Order : 10.06.2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh;

Section 114BSection 144Section 147Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

order dated 29.12.2023 in ITA No. 2010-11. In the mean time, the assessing officer levied penalty of Rs. 9,73,441/-under section 271(1)(c) vide order dated 09.05.2018 The assessing officer while passing order giving effect accepted explanation of assessee and no addition was made ... assessee submits that once assessment order, which was the basis of initiation of penalty has been set aside, penalty order under section 271(1)(c) will not survive. Thus, the issue / grounds of appeal raised by assessee is covered in favour of assessee. 3. On the other hand

Income Tax Officer, Parwanoo, H.P vs. Deyem Industry, Nalagarh Solan

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 708/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 708/Chd/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The ITO Parwanoo, Himachal Pradesh बनाम DEYEM INDUSTRY Nalagarh, Ropar Road Near Hazat Khana, Nalagarh, H.P.- 174101 स्थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: AAGFD0437L अपीलार्थी/ Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Ankit Awal, Ms. Khushbu Sood, Advocates राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR (Virtual) सुनवाई की ता

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Awal & Ms. Khushbu Sood, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR (Virtual)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(47)Section 271(1)(c)Section 53A

assessee's income as under-declared LTCG and recomputed the total income at Rs. 25,04,43,560/-. Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were also initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The AO further noted that similar transactions were undertaken by the purchaser with other entities

C.I. Finlease Private Limited, Bhopal vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -1(1), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed

ITA 397/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

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

trigger the penalty u/s 271(1)(c). In that view of matter, the AO is wrong to invoke the provision of section 271(1)(c) and impose penalty. We, therefore, delete the penalty imposed by AO. The assessee succeeds in this appeal. 7. Resultantly, this appeal is allowed. Order pronounced

Ajmer Singh, Mohali vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(5), Mohali

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 965/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 965/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Ajmer Singh, Vs The Ito, C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate, Ward 6(5), # 527, Sector 10-D, Chandigarh. Mohali. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Cwjps6206H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R Per Raj Pal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)

file of CIT (Appeals). Thus, the quantum addition on whose foundation penalty is to be computed under sub-clause (iii) of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is yet to be finalized. Hence, the present penalty is not sustainable upon the assessee. The impugned order is set aside

St. Joshephs Institute of Science and Technology Trust, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-193), Chennai

ITA 3296/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3293 & 3294/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2020-21 St. Joseph'S Educational Trust, 56-C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. (Pan: Aamts 3888 G) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3295 To 3297/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 To 2020-21 St. Joseph'S Institute Of Science & Technology Trust, 56-C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. [Pan: Aahts 9943 B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. V. Balaji, Ca & Mr. K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate By Virtual प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.04.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2025 :: 2 ::

For Appellant: Mr. V. Balaji, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 270ASection 271A

Dakshinamoorthy Kumaresan Vs ITO in ITA No.2452/Chny/2024 dated 17 12-2024 Although those decisions were rendered in the context of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the same principle would equally apply to Section 271AAB of the Act Further, the Ld.DR reliance on the decision