BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI 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.

321 results for “disallowance”+ Section 12A(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai321Delhi287Bangalore121Ahmedabad90Kolkata90Pune89Chennai87Jaipur81Indore50Lucknow49Hyderabad47Visakhapatnam39Chandigarh33Cochin26Surat25Amritsar25Raipur24Jodhpur17Nagpur17Cuttack12Agra9Patna9Rajkot9SC6Panaji5Jabalpur4Guwahati4Allahabad4Ranchi3Dehradun3ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1

Key Topics

Section 11204Section 12A109Exemption81Section 143(3)79Section 2(15)66Addition to Income47Section 26342Section 11(2)38Disallowance38Charitable Trust

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ALL INDIA GEM AND JEWELLERY DOMESTIC COUNCIL, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4652/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Respondent: Mr. Firoz Andhyarujina
Section 11Section 2(15)

12A and subject to the conditions prescribed u/s 11 the assessee is eligible for exemption. the assessee is eligible for exemption. 4.2 The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT(E) v. Bombay CIT(E) v. Bombay Presidency Golf Club Ltd. Presidency Golf Club Ltd., ITA No. 235/2017, has clearly held that

JEEVANDEEP EDUMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE CIT-6, MUMBAI

In the result, the a In the result, the appeal of the assessee is stands allowed

Showing 1–20 of 321 · Page 1 of 17

...
34
Section 10(34)32
Section 143(1)32
ITA 2517/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed
ITAT Mumbai
17 Jul 2025
AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jeevandeep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd., Pr. Cit-6, 1St Floor, Sun Paradise Business 501,5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Plaza, Senapati Bapat Marg, Vs. Maharishi Karve Road, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aabcj 0180 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Parikh
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned PCIT erred in disallowing the deduction of donation paid and claimed in PCIT erred in disallowing the deduction of donation paid and PCIT erred in disallowing the deduction of donation paid and accordance with the provisions of section 80G of Income tax Act of accordance with

JAN SEVA MANDAL ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD -1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

ITA 3445/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2023-24 Jan Seva Mandal, Central Processing Centre Income Vinayalaya, Mahakali Caves Tax Deparment, Bengaluru, Vs. Road, Andheri (East), Income Tax Officer Exemption Mumbai-400093. Ward 1(4), Mumbai. 6Th Floor, Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Road, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaatj 4868 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Ketan PatelFor Respondent: Mr. Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)

12A(b) of of of the Act. 4. It It It is is is submitted submitted submitted that that that the the the denial denial denial of of of exemption exemption exemption under under under Section 11 of the Act, as discussed above, has led to Section 11 of the Act, as discussed above, has led to Section

THE GEM & JEWELLERY EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (E) RG 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for 10

ITA 752/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Gem & Jewellery Export Acit (Exemptions) Range- Promotion Council, 2(1), Vs. Tower-A, Aw-1010, G Block, 5Th Floor, Room No. 519, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, B.K.C., Bandra East, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaatt 3202 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Gem & Jewellery Export Dcit (Exemptions) Range- Promotion Council, 2(1), Tower-A, Aw-1010, G Block, Vs. 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Lalbaug, B.K.C., Bandra East, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaatt 3202 H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. P.C. Pardiwala &For Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Vishwas Rao
Section 11Section 2(15)Section 253

12A of the Act would not ipso facto ipso facto entitle the assessee for claim of exemption assessee for claim of exemption The Gem & Jewellery Exports Promotion Council The Gem & Jewellery Exports Promotion Council ITA No. 752/M/2017, 989/M/2019 & 2250/M/2019 AYs 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 AYs 2012 under section 11 of that unless conditions stipulated therein and under section

CREDIT GUARANTEE FUND TRUST FOR MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (E) , MUMBAI

ITA 2684/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Karkhanis, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) for the year under consideration claiming exemption under section 11 of the Act was subjected to scrutiny. The Assessing Officer (AO) by following the earlier year invoked proviso to section 2(15) of the Act and issued the notice under section 142(1) of the Act. Declining the submissions

SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

ITA 4154/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala a/wFor Respondent: Shri Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 1Section 10(34)Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 2(15)

12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The assessee was established in 1919. The assessee filed the return of income for AY 2014-15 on 29.09.2014 with the total income at a deficit of Rs. 55,36,69,321/- During the year under consideration, the assessee earned dividend income from shares amounting

SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. ADDITIONAL /JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NFAC, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

ITA 4156/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala a/wFor Respondent: Shri Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 1Section 10(34)Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 2(15)

12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The assessee was established in 1919. The assessee filed the return of income for AY 2014-15 on 29.09.2014 with the total income at a deficit of Rs. 55,36,69,321/- During the year under consideration, the assessee earned dividend income from shares amounting

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(E)-2(1), MUMBAI, CUMBALA HILL, MUMBAI vs. THE GEM AND JEWELLERY EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL, MUMBAI

ITA 3175/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Adv. & Shri Ashwin KashinathFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule – CIT DR
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 2(15)Section 250

12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, since 1976 and is carrying out its activity strictly in conformity with its objects. The assessee filed return of income for both the assessment years declaring total income at Nil by claiming the exemption under section 11 of the Act. The notice under section 143(2) was issued and the assessment was completed

MEHLI MEHTA MUSIC FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-2(4), MUMBAI

ITA 4306/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala/ Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana (SR. D.R.)
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

disallowance for all the years under\nconsideration. The Ld. Sr. Counsel thus submitted that A.Y.2009-\n10 may be considered as it covers all the issues alleged by the\nassessee in present appeals even on merits. The submissions of the\nLd. Sr. Counsel was acceptable to the Ld. DR.\nAccordingly, grounds pertaining to A.Y. 2009-10 raised by the\nassessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) -2(1), MUMBAI, CUMBALA HILL vs. THE GEM AND JEWELLERY EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue in ITA nos

ITA 3176/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Adv. & Shri AshwinFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule – CIT DR
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 2(15)Section 250

12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, since 1976 and is carrying out its activity strictly in conformity with its objects. The assessee filed return of income for both the assessment years declaring total income at Nil by claiming the exemption under section 11 of the Act. The notice under section 143(2) was issued and the assessment was completed

ITO EXEMPTION 2 4 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. VAIBHAV MEDICAL AND EDUCATION FOUNDATION, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 5494/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailito (Exemption) – 2(4), Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Mtnl Building, Peddar Road, Mumbai – 400026 ……………. Appellant Maharashtra V/S Vaibhav Medical & Education Foundation, C-1, Aditya Birla Centre, S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, ……………. Respondent Mumbai - 400030, Maharashtra Pan – Aaatv3207A

For Appellant: S/Shri Ronal Doshi a/w Deep ChouhanFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Heliwal, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 13(2)(a)Section 13(2)(b)Section 13(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 145Section 24

disallowance of interest expenditure made under sections 13(2)(a), 13(2)(b) and 13(2)(g) of the Act. 4. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue as emanating from the record are: The assessee is registered as a charitable organization with DIT (Exemption), Mumbai under section 12A

MEHLI MEHTA MUSIC FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-2(4), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment\nyear 2009-10 stands partly allowed and appeals for assessment\nyears 2014-15, 2016-17 and 2017-18 stands allowed

ITA 4307/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala/ Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana (SR. D.R.)
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

disallowance for all the years under\nconsideration. The Ld. Sr. Counsel thus submitted that A.Y.2009-\n10 may be considered as it covers all the issues alleged by the\nassessee in present appeals even on merits. The submissions of the\nLd. Sr. Counsel was acceptable to the Ld. DR.\nAccordingly, grounds pertaining to A.Y. 2009-10 raised by the\nassessee

MEHLI MEHTA MUSIC FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD-2(4), MUMBAI

ITA 4260/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala/ Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana (SR. D.R.)
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

disallowance for all the years under\nconsideration. The Ld. Sr. Counsel thus submitted that A.Y.2009-\n10 may be considered as it covers all the issues alleged by the\nassessee in present appeals even on merits. The submissions of the\nLd. Sr. Counsel was acceptable to the Ld. DR.\nAccordingly, grounds pertaining to A.Y. 2009-10 raised by the\nassessee

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 465/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115Section 32Section 32ASection 80I

12A) of section 80IA of the IT Act, merely neutralises applicability of sub-section (12) and does not disentitle the successor entities to claim deduction in accordance with section 80IA of the IT Act. Accordingly, AO is directed to allow the deduction as claimed by the assessee with respect to eligible units acquired from SCL. Accordingly, Ground no.1

DY CIT CC 1(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 931/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115Section 32Section 32ASection 80I

12A) of section 80IA of the IT Act, merely neutralises applicability of sub-section (12) and does not disentitle the successor entities to claim deduction in accordance with section 80IA of the IT Act. Accordingly, AO is directed to allow the deduction as claimed by the assessee with respect to eligible units acquired from SCL. Accordingly, Ground no.1

MEHLI MEHTA MUSIC FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD-2(4), MUMBAI

ITA 4261/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala/ Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana (SR. D.R.)
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

disallowance for all the years under\nconsideration. The Ld. Sr. Counsel thus submitted that A.Y.2009-\n10 may be considered as it covers all the issues alleged by the\nassessee in present appeals even on merits. The submissions of the\nLd. Sr. Counsel was acceptable to the Ld. DR.\nAccordingly, grounds pertaining to A.Y. 2009-10 raised by the\nassessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS)-2(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI RAILWAY VIKAS CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3818/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vipula Joshi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 2(15)Section 40

disallowance towards non deduction of tax at source u/s. 40(a)(ia) on professional/consultancy fee/fee for technical services u/s 194J. We take up all the three appeals together for adjudication by this consolidated order since common issue is involved. Ground no. 3 for Assessment Year 2018-19 shall be dealt separately. For the purpose of Mumbai Railway Vikas Corporation

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS)-2(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI RAILWAY VIKAS CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3817/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vipula Joshi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 2(15)Section 40

disallowance towards non deduction of tax at source u/s. 40(a)(ia) on professional/consultancy fee/fee for technical services u/s 194J. We take up all the three appeals together for adjudication by this consolidated order since common issue is involved. Ground no. 3 for Assessment Year 2018-19 shall be dealt separately. For the purpose of Mumbai Railway Vikas Corporation

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI RAILWAY VIKAS CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3819/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vipula Joshi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 2(15)Section 40

disallowance towards non deduction of tax at source u/s. 40(a)(ia) on professional/consultancy fee/fee for technical services u/s 194J. We take up all the three appeals together for adjudication by this consolidated order since common issue is involved. Ground no. 3 for Assessment Year 2018-19 shall be dealt separately. For the purpose of Mumbai Railway Vikas Corporation

CREDIT GUARANTEE FUND TRUST FOR MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4699/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2018-19 Credit Guarantee Fund Trust Deputy Commissioner Of For Micro & Small Enterprises, Income Tax, Exemption-1(1), 1St Floor, Vs. Mtnl Tel. Exch. Building, Sidbi Swavalamban Bhavan, Cumballa Hills, Pedder Road, Avenue 3, Lane 2, G-Block, Mumbai-400026. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan : Aaatc2613D (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Shailesh Shah & Shri Jay Dharod For Revenue : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15-09-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “(1) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld. Cit(A)], Nfac Has Erred In Confirming The Order Of Levying Penalty U/S 270A Of The Act Of Rs. 293,63,60,258/- On 2 Disallowances Made In The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144B Of The Act Without Appreciating The Fact That The Hon'Ble Itat, Mumbai Has Fully Deleted The Said Disallowances & Reasons Assigned By Him For Doing So Are Wrong & Contrary To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Provisions Of The Act & Income Tax Rules, 1962 ("The Rules") Made Thereunder. The Appellant Prays That The Penalty U/S 270A Of The Act Of Rs. 293,63,60,258/- Be Deleted. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend, Alter, Modify And/Or Delete All Or Any Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal, On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Shah &For Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 2(15)Section 270A

disallowance of the deduction of provision for guarantee claims of Rs.3,47,04,32,777/- and assessed income was determined at Rs 4,13,22,70,216/- vide order dated 14-04-2021 passed under section 143(3) read with section 144(3A) read with section 143(3B) of the Act. The penalty proceedings u/s 270A read with 274 were