Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 271(1)(c) is CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), cited in 2,590 of the 25,141 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c)

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.

Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT
124 ITR 1 · 1980 · Supreme Court
622
citing judgments

Expenditure is classified as revenue or capital based on its practical business effect, necessity, or expediency, rather than solely on the juristic classification of rights; an enduring benefit does not automatically make an expenditure capital if it facilitates trading operations or business efficiency.

Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT
291 ITR 519 · 2007 · Supreme Court
565
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if the Assessing Officer fails to strike out the inapplicable limb (concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars) from the standard proforma, indicating non-application of mind. The initial burden of proving concealment or inaccurate particulars rests on the Revenue.

Judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

Dr. Subash Chandra Jena, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 45/CTK/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.40 To 45/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Ays. :2010-2011 To 2015-2016) Dr. Subash Chandra Jena, Vs. Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack Plot No.5/52, Gajapati Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Abrpj 2247 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Two Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, I.E. One Dated 11.12.2018 For The Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 & Other Dated 28.11.2018 For The Assessment Years 2012-2013 To 2015-2016. 2. First We Shall Take Up Appeals Of The Assessee For Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 In Ita Nos.40 & 41/Ctk/2019, Wherein The Sole Issue Involved Is With Regard To Confirming The Penalty Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was Working In Government Of Odisha As A Doctor & Also Engaged In Private Practice

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Pattnaik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

Dr. Subash Chandra Jena, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 44/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.40 To 45/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Ays. :2010-2011 To 2015-2016) Dr. Subash Chandra Jena, Vs. Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack Plot No.5/52, Gajapati Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Abrpj 2247 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Two Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, I.E. One Dated 11.12.2018 For The Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 & Other Dated 28.11.2018 For The Assessment Years 2012-2013 To 2015-2016. 2. First We Shall Take Up Appeals Of The Assessee For Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 In Ita Nos.40 & 41/Ctk/2019, Wherein The Sole Issue Involved Is With Regard To Confirming The Penalty Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was Working In Government Of Odisha As A Doctor & Also Engaged In Private Practice

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Pattnaik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

Dr. Subash Chandra Jena, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 43/CTK/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.40 To 45/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Ays. :2010-2011 To 2015-2016) Dr. Subash Chandra Jena, Vs. Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack Plot No.5/52, Gajapati Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Abrpj 2247 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Two Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, I.E. One Dated 11.12.2018 For The Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 & Other Dated 28.11.2018 For The Assessment Years 2012-2013 To 2015-2016. 2. First We Shall Take Up Appeals Of The Assessee For Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 In Ita Nos.40 & 41/Ctk/2019, Wherein The Sole Issue Involved Is With Regard To Confirming The Penalty Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was Working In Government Of Odisha As A Doctor & Also Engaged In Private Practice

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Pattnaik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

Dr. Subash Chandra Jena, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 42/CTK/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.40 To 45/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Ays. :2010-2011 To 2015-2016) Dr. Subash Chandra Jena, Vs. Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack Plot No.5/52, Gajapati Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Abrpj 2247 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Two Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, I.E. One Dated 11.12.2018 For The Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 & Other Dated 28.11.2018 For The Assessment Years 2012-2013 To 2015-2016. 2. First We Shall Take Up Appeals Of The Assessee For Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 In Ita Nos.40 & 41/Ctk/2019, Wherein The Sole Issue Involved Is With Regard To Confirming The Penalty Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was Working In Government Of Odisha As A Doctor & Also Engaged In Private Practice

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Pattnaik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

Dr. Subash Chandra Jena, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 41/CTK/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.40 To 45/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Ays. :2010-2011 To 2015-2016) Dr. Subash Chandra Jena, Vs. Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack Plot No.5/52, Gajapati Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Abrpj 2247 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Two Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, I.E. One Dated 11.12.2018 For The Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 & Other Dated 28.11.2018 For The Assessment Years 2012-2013 To 2015-2016. 2. First We Shall Take Up Appeals Of The Assessee For Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 In Ita Nos.40 & 41/Ctk/2019, Wherein The Sole Issue Involved Is With Regard To Confirming The Penalty Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was Working In Government Of Odisha As A Doctor & Also Engaged In Private Practice

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Pattnaik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

Dr. Subash Chandra Jena, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 40/CTK/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.40 To 45/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Ays. :2010-2011 To 2015-2016) Dr. Subash Chandra Jena, Vs. Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack Plot No.5/52, Gajapati Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Abrpj 2247 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Two Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, I.E. One Dated 11.12.2018 For The Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 & Other Dated 28.11.2018 For The Assessment Years 2012-2013 To 2015-2016. 2. First We Shall Take Up Appeals Of The Assessee For Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 In Ita Nos.40 & 41/Ctk/2019, Wherein The Sole Issue Involved Is With Regard To Confirming The Penalty Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was Working In Government Of Odisha As A Doctor & Also Engaged In Private Practice

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Pattnaik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

Dibyajyoti Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Dhenkanal vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 320/CTK/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Harichandan, ARFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Lenka, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Dibyajyoti Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Dhenkanal vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 51/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Harichandan, ARFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Lenka, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Shri Yash Bhatia, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota

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

ITA 1142/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jan 2020AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Roonipal (JCIT)
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer vs. Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Ajmer

In the result, the ground of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 936/JPR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 936/Jp/2017 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2010-11 Cuke The Acit M/S. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd Circle – 2 Vs. Vidyut Bhawan, Ajmer Panchsheel Nagar, Ajmer Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@ Pan/Gir No.: Aacca 8526 E Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 943/Jp/2017 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2010-11 Cuke M/S. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd The Acit Vs. Vidyut Bhawan, Circle – 2 Panchsheel Nagar, Ajmer Ajmer Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@ Pan/Gir No.: Aacca 8526 E Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta, Cit-Dr Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Sunil Porwal, Ca Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 08 /01/2020 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 09 /01/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm These Cross Appeals Are Directed Against The Order Dated 21-09-2017 Of Ld. Cit(A), Ajmer Arising From Penalty Order Passed U/S 271 (1) ( C) Of The Act For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2 The Acit, Circle – 2, Ajmer Vs Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Ajmer 2.1 In The Scrutiny Assessment Completed On 28-03-2013, The Ao Inter

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Porwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta, CIT-DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Zenith Engineering Corportion, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 33(3), Mumbai

ITA 6411/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: S/Shri Nitesh Joshi & Vipul K. Mody-LdFor Respondent: Shri N. Padmanabhan-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(C)

Wsa Shipping Bombay Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT-11(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4869/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4869/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Nitin A. Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

DCIT 12(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Asp Investment Consultants P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3734/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri M Balaganesh, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3734/Mum/2017 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2012-13) The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Asp Investment Income Tax, Circle 12(1)(1) Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 223, 2Nd Floor, 603, Dheeraj Savera Tower, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Rd, Khatau Mills Compound, Vs. Mumbai-20 Borivali (E), Mumbai-400 066 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aagca6735K अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri S. Michael Jerald, Dr प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri K Shivaram & Sashank Dundu, Ar ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05.12.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2020 आदेश / O R D E R महावीर ससुंह, न्याययक सदस्य/ Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri S. Michael Jerald, DRFor Respondent: Shri
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 45(2)

Narendra Kumar Aggarwal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 38(3), New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 1509/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu[Assessment Year: 2014-15]

For Appellant: Sh. R.K. Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjog Kapoor, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 68

Narender Aggarwal (HUF), New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 39(4), New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 1508/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu[Assessment Year: 2014-15]

For Appellant: Sh. R.K. Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjog Kapoor, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 68

Turner International India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 25(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 5377/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2013-14 Turner International India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, 5Th Floor, Radisson Commercial Plaza, Circle-25(2), Nh-8, Mahipalpur, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaact3821H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ravi Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri H.K. Choudhary, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.10.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:-

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C

Gujarat Rajya Kamdar Sabha Union Machiwadi vs. The Income Tax Officer

In the result, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed

TAXAP/1064/2018HC Gujarat07 Jan 2020
Section 148Section 260A

Shri Pavitar Singh, Yamunanagar vs. ITO, W-3, Yamunanagar

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

ITA 900/CHANDI/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Jan 2020AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri. Rachit Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Sudershan, JCIT
Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(C)

ACIT- 17 (1), Mumbai vs. Anukool Steel, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 5627/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm The Acit-17(1), M/S. Anukool Steel Room No. 117, Aayakar Bhavan, 402, Gupta Bhavan, Vs. M. K. Marg, Mumbai-400 020 64-B, Ahmedabad Street, Mumbai-400 009 Pan/Gir No. Aaefa 7195 E (Appellant) : (Respondent)

For Respondent: None

Sanjay Kaul, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-24(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1593/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69CSection 70