BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

404 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Cash Depositclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi404Mumbai402Jaipur213Ahmedabad194Hyderabad170Chennai116Bangalore93Rajkot87Indore85Surat82Pune75Kolkata62Chandigarh54Amritsar50Nagpur41Visakhapatnam40Cochin37Lucknow33Allahabad31Raipur26Agra20Guwahati20Jabalpur18Patna17Cuttack12Jodhpur10Varanasi6Dehradun4Panaji1

Key Topics

Addition to Income78Section 271(1)(c)56Penalty55Section 6847Section 153A46Cash Deposit46Section 14442Section 14840Section 143(3)35Section 147

JCIT SPL. RANGE-12, NEW DELHI vs. ARIHANTA INDUSTRIES, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 963/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 131Section 68Section 801CSection 80I

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961 are being initiated separately. Since on one hand, the deduction u/s 80IC has been separately disallowed and on the other hand, the entire sales receipts of the assessee have been found to be bogus and have been added to the income of the assessee u/s

Showing 1–20 of 404 · Page 1 of 21

...
30
Section 143(2)25
Disallowance19

SHYAM SUNDER KANSAL,U.P vs. WARD 2(3)(2), U.P

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 139/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 50C

u/s 271(1)(c) was deleted, the Bench pronounced that since the assessee had not suppressed any material fact from the notice of the A.O. in these circumstances, the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act alleging furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income is not appropriate. Copy of judgment of Bhavya Anant

VISHWANATH AGGARWAL ,DELHI vs. THE ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-05, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 616/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

deposits in cash, thereby promoting transparency and discouraging cash transactions above a certain threshold. Moreover, the imposition of penalties ITAs No.611 to 618/Del/2022 under Sections 27ID and 27IE is contingent upon the contravention of specific statutory provisions governing cash transactions. These penalties are not contingent upon the outcomes of assessments or reassessments conducted pursuant to Section 153A.Therefore, even

VISHWANATH AGGARWAL ,DELHI vs. THE ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-05, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 611/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

deposits in cash, thereby promoting transparency and discouraging cash transactions above a certain threshold. Moreover, the imposition of penalties ITAs No.611 to 618/Del/2022 under Sections 27ID and 27IE is contingent upon the contravention of specific statutory provisions governing cash transactions. These penalties are not contingent upon the outcomes of assessments or reassessments conducted pursuant to Section 153A.Therefore, even

VISHWANATH AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. THE ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-05, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 612/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

deposits in cash, thereby promoting transparency and discouraging cash transactions above a certain threshold. Moreover, the imposition of penalties ITAs No.611 to 618/Del/2022 under Sections 27ID and 27IE is contingent upon the contravention of specific statutory provisions governing cash transactions. These penalties are not contingent upon the outcomes of assessments or reassessments conducted pursuant to Section 153A.Therefore, even

VISHWANATH AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. THE ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-05, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 618/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

deposits in cash, thereby promoting transparency and discouraging cash transactions above a certain threshold. Moreover, the imposition of penalties ITAs No.611 to 618/Del/2022 under Sections 27ID and 27IE is contingent upon the contravention of specific statutory provisions governing cash transactions. These penalties are not contingent upon the outcomes of assessments or reassessments conducted pursuant to Section 153A.Therefore, even

VISHWANATH AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. THE ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-05, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 615/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

deposits in cash, thereby promoting transparency and discouraging cash transactions above a certain threshold. Moreover, the imposition of penalties ITAs No.611 to 618/Del/2022 under Sections 27ID and 27IE is contingent upon the contravention of specific statutory provisions governing cash transactions. These penalties are not contingent upon the outcomes of assessments or reassessments conducted pursuant to Section 153A.Therefore, even

VISHWANATH AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. THE ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-05, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 617/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

deposits in cash, thereby promoting transparency and discouraging cash transactions above a certain threshold. Moreover, the imposition of penalties ITAs No.611 to 618/Del/2022 under Sections 27ID and 27IE is contingent upon the contravention of specific statutory provisions governing cash transactions. These penalties are not contingent upon the outcomes of assessments or reassessments conducted pursuant to Section 153A.Therefore, even

VISHWANATH AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. THE ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-05, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 613/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

deposits in cash, thereby promoting transparency and discouraging cash transactions above a certain threshold. Moreover, the imposition of penalties ITAs No.611 to 618/Del/2022 under Sections 27ID and 27IE is contingent upon the contravention of specific statutory provisions governing cash transactions. These penalties are not contingent upon the outcomes of assessments or reassessments conducted pursuant to Section 153A.Therefore, even

VISHWANATH AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. THE ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-05, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 614/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

deposits in cash, thereby promoting transparency and discouraging cash transactions above a certain threshold. Moreover, the imposition of penalties ITAs No.611 to 618/Del/2022 under Sections 27ID and 27IE is contingent upon the contravention of specific statutory provisions governing cash transactions. These penalties are not contingent upon the outcomes of assessments or reassessments conducted pursuant to Section 153A.Therefore, even

ATMA RAM BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED, NEW DELHI,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 3593/DEL/2025[A.Y. 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 269TSection 270ASection 271ESection 69ASection 80G

cash unless it is established that moneys moved from one person to another person, which is in the nature of loans or deposits, that the transaction of adjusting minimum guarantee amount with security deposit is genuine and accordingly the 7 Atma Ram Builders Pvt. Ltd. purpose for which the enactment of section 269SS and 269T was introduced has no application

KRISHNA ENTERPRISES,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 34(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5654/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2013-14] Krishna Enterprises, Assistant Commissioner Of 202, Bhagirathi Apartment, Income Tax, Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi- Vs Circle 34(1), 110085. Delhi. Pan- Aahfk4892P Assessee Revenue

Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

cash deposits in his bank accounts, the assessee did not care to get his accounts audited under Section 44AB of the Act. It is also noteworthy that the assessee did file his return of income only after a notice under Section 148 of the Act, which was issued to him. Thus, it is clear that the appellant is having

DAIRY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CIRCLE - 7(1), DELHI

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

ITA 1987/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Bhupinderjit Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

deposits to the extent of Rs.42,4,64,725/- were explained by cash sales, the balance i.e., Rs.53,51 ,020/- was not explained. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts holding that the appellant had not given verifiable documentary evidence in support of its claim of cash incoming, although the appellant had furnished sufficient

DEVENDER MAVI,GAUTOM BUDDH NAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 1(2), GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 1901/DEL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 68

cash deposited explained as u/s 68 of Income tax act 1961. 6. That the impugned penalty order is arbitrary, illegal, bad in law in violation of rudimentary principal of contemporary jurisprudence. 7. That the provisions of section 271

DEVENDER MAVI,GAUTOM BUDDH NAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 1(2), GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 1900/DEL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 68

cash deposited explained as u/s 68 of Income tax act 1961. 6. That the impugned penalty order is arbitrary, illegal, bad in law in violation of rudimentary principal of contemporary jurisprudence. 7. That the provisions of section 271

DEVENDER MAVI,GAUTOM BUDDH NAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 1(2), GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 1902/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 68

cash deposited explained as u/s 68 of Income tax act 1961. 6. That the impugned penalty order is arbitrary, illegal, bad in law in violation of rudimentary principal of contemporary jurisprudence. 7. That the provisions of section 271

DEVENDER MAVI,GAUTOM BUDDH NAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 1(2), GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 1903/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 68

cash deposited explained as u/s 68 of Income tax act 1961. 6. That the impugned penalty order is arbitrary, illegal, bad in law in violation of rudimentary principal of contemporary jurisprudence. 7. That the provisions of section 271

ITO WARD-51(5), DELHI vs. RAMESH CHANDER RAJPUT , DELHI

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

ITA 1189/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

penalty notices. Subsequently, he noticed that he has uploaded wrong assessment order in ITBA Portal and the above said mistake could not be rectified through the system, he has passed the corrigendum order within the limitation period and passed the same on 24/12/2019 and all other demand and notices, computation sheet etc. are not modified or changed. Considering the fact

RAJESH MANGLA,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2996/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

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

penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Assessment Year 2011-12 17. The only dispute in the present appeal is in relation to addition of Rs.13,50,000/- made on account of cash deposits

RAJESH MANGLA,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, FARIDABAD

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2994/DEL/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

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

penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Assessment Year 2011-12 17. The only dispute in the present appeal is in relation to addition of Rs.13,50,000/- made on account of cash deposits