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)

Coca-Cola India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. ACIT, Range-1, Pune

In the result, the cross appeals of the Revenue dismissed

ITA 926/PUN/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Aug 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm Sl. No. Ita No. Name Of Appellant Name Of Asst. Year Respondent 1-3 1386/Pun/2006 Coca Cola India Pvt. Dcit, Circle-1(1), 1999-2000 1387/Pun/2006 Ltd., Pune. 2000-01 1388/Pun/2006 Plot No.1109-10, 2001-02 Village Pirangut, Tal. Munshi, Pune. Pan : Aaacb8573G 4-5 150/Pun/2007 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Coca Cola India Pvt. 1999-2000 151/Pun/2007 Pune. Ltd., 2000-01 Plot No.1109-10, Village Pirangut, Tal. Munshi, Pune. Pan : Aaacb8573G 6-7 925/Pun/2011 Coca Cola India Pvt. Addl. Cit, Range-1, 2002-03 926/Pun/2011 Ltd., Pune. 2003-04 Plot No.1109-10, Village Pirangut, Tal. Munshi, Pune. Pan : Aaacb8573G Assessee By : Shri R. Murlidhar Shri Nikhil Garg Revenue By : Shri S. B. Prasad सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are 7 Appeals Under Consideration Involving The Assessment Years 1999-2000 To 2003-04. There Are No Cross-Appeals By The Revenue For The Assessment Years 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04. Two Cross- Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue For The Assessment Years 1999-2000 & 2000-01. Since The Facts & Levy Of Penalty Is The Common Issue For 2 Coca Cola India Private Limited All The 7 Appeals Under Consideration, Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Composite Order. 2. Since The Legal Issues Relating To Recording Of Satisfaction By The Assessing Officer At The Time Of Initiation Of The Penalty Proceedings & Arguments Of Both The Sides Involved In All These 7 Appeals Are Common, Therefore, The Appeal In Ita No.1386/Pun/2006 For The Assessment Year 1999-2000 Taken As The Lead Case For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri R. MurlidharFor Respondent: Shri S. B. Prasad
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Coca-Cola India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. ACIT, Range-1, Pune

In the result, the cross appeals of the Revenue dismissed

ITA 925/PUN/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Aug 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm Sl. No. Ita No. Name Of Appellant Name Of Asst. Year Respondent 1-3 1386/Pun/2006 Coca Cola India Pvt. Dcit, Circle-1(1), 1999-2000 1387/Pun/2006 Ltd., Pune. 2000-01 1388/Pun/2006 Plot No.1109-10, 2001-02 Village Pirangut, Tal. Munshi, Pune. Pan : Aaacb8573G 4-5 150/Pun/2007 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Coca Cola India Pvt. 1999-2000 151/Pun/2007 Pune. Ltd., 2000-01 Plot No.1109-10, Village Pirangut, Tal. Munshi, Pune. Pan : Aaacb8573G 6-7 925/Pun/2011 Coca Cola India Pvt. Addl. Cit, Range-1, 2002-03 926/Pun/2011 Ltd., Pune. 2003-04 Plot No.1109-10, Village Pirangut, Tal. Munshi, Pune. Pan : Aaacb8573G Assessee By : Shri R. Murlidhar Shri Nikhil Garg Revenue By : Shri S. B. Prasad सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are 7 Appeals Under Consideration Involving The Assessment Years 1999-2000 To 2003-04. There Are No Cross-Appeals By The Revenue For The Assessment Years 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04. Two Cross- Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue For The Assessment Years 1999-2000 & 2000-01. Since The Facts & Levy Of Penalty Is The Common Issue For 2 Coca Cola India Private Limited All The 7 Appeals Under Consideration, Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Composite Order. 2. Since The Legal Issues Relating To Recording Of Satisfaction By The Assessing Officer At The Time Of Initiation Of The Penalty Proceedings & Arguments Of Both The Sides Involved In All These 7 Appeals Are Common, Therefore, The Appeal In Ita No.1386/Pun/2006 For The Assessment Year 1999-2000 Taken As The Lead Case For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri R. MurlidharFor Respondent: Shri S. B. Prasad
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Tetra Pak India Private Ltd., Pune vs. Dy.CIT, Cir.7, Pune

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 111/PUN/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Aug 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.111/Pun/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Tetra Pak India Private Ltd., Mayfair Towers, Wakdewadi, Shivajinagar, Pune-411005. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaact3467B बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle-7, ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By : Shri S. B. Prasad सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of Assessing Officer/Tpo/Drp For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Tetra Pak India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Appellant’) Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Under Section 253(1)(D) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Act’), Against The Order Dated 25 November 2010 Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax- Circle 7 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Assessing Officer’) Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Act In Pursuance Of The Directions Dated 20 September 2010 Issued By The Honorable Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Honorable Drp’), On The Following Grounds: On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Honorable Drp & Consequentially The Learned Ao Have: I Grounds Of Objections In Respect Of Transfer Pricing Adjustment

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S. B. Prasad
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 253(1)(d)

DCIT Cir 1(1), Pune vs. Coco Cola India (P) Ltd, Pune

In the result, the cross appeals of the Revenue dismissed

ITA 151/PUN/2007[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Aug 2019AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm Sl. No. Ita No. Name Of Appellant Name Of Asst. Year Respondent 1-3 1386/Pun/2006 Coca Cola India Pvt. Dcit, Circle-1(1), 1999-2000 1387/Pun/2006 Ltd., Pune. 2000-01 1388/Pun/2006 Plot No.1109-10, 2001-02 Village Pirangut, Tal. Munshi, Pune. Pan : Aaacb8573G 4-5 150/Pun/2007 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Coca Cola India Pvt. 1999-2000 151/Pun/2007 Pune. Ltd., 2000-01 Plot No.1109-10, Village Pirangut, Tal. Munshi, Pune. Pan : Aaacb8573G 6-7 925/Pun/2011 Coca Cola India Pvt. Addl. Cit, Range-1, 2002-03 926/Pun/2011 Ltd., Pune. 2003-04 Plot No.1109-10, Village Pirangut, Tal. Munshi, Pune. Pan : Aaacb8573G Assessee By : Shri R. Murlidhar Shri Nikhil Garg Revenue By : Shri S. B. Prasad सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are 7 Appeals Under Consideration Involving The Assessment Years 1999-2000 To 2003-04. There Are No Cross-Appeals By The Revenue For The Assessment Years 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04. Two Cross- Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue For The Assessment Years 1999-2000 & 2000-01. Since The Facts & Levy Of Penalty Is The Common Issue For 2 Coca Cola India Private Limited All The 7 Appeals Under Consideration, Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Composite Order. 2. Since The Legal Issues Relating To Recording Of Satisfaction By The Assessing Officer At The Time Of Initiation Of The Penalty Proceedings & Arguments Of Both The Sides Involved In All These 7 Appeals Are Common, Therefore, The Appeal In Ita No.1386/Pun/2006 For The Assessment Year 1999-2000 Taken As The Lead Case For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri R. MurlidharFor Respondent: Shri S. B. Prasad
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

DCIT Cir 1(1), Pune vs. Coco Cola India (P) Ltd, Pune

In the result, the cross appeals of the Revenue dismissed

ITA 150/PUN/2007[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Aug 2019AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm Sl. No. Ita No. Name Of Appellant Name Of Asst. Year Respondent 1-3 1386/Pun/2006 Coca Cola India Pvt. Dcit, Circle-1(1), 1999-2000 1387/Pun/2006 Ltd., Pune. 2000-01 1388/Pun/2006 Plot No.1109-10, 2001-02 Village Pirangut, Tal. Munshi, Pune. Pan : Aaacb8573G 4-5 150/Pun/2007 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Coca Cola India Pvt. 1999-2000 151/Pun/2007 Pune. Ltd., 2000-01 Plot No.1109-10, Village Pirangut, Tal. Munshi, Pune. Pan : Aaacb8573G 6-7 925/Pun/2011 Coca Cola India Pvt. Addl. Cit, Range-1, 2002-03 926/Pun/2011 Ltd., Pune. 2003-04 Plot No.1109-10, Village Pirangut, Tal. Munshi, Pune. Pan : Aaacb8573G Assessee By : Shri R. Murlidhar Shri Nikhil Garg Revenue By : Shri S. B. Prasad सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are 7 Appeals Under Consideration Involving The Assessment Years 1999-2000 To 2003-04. There Are No Cross-Appeals By The Revenue For The Assessment Years 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04. Two Cross- Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue For The Assessment Years 1999-2000 & 2000-01. Since The Facts & Levy Of Penalty Is The Common Issue For 2 Coca Cola India Private Limited All The 7 Appeals Under Consideration, Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Composite Order. 2. Since The Legal Issues Relating To Recording Of Satisfaction By The Assessing Officer At The Time Of Initiation Of The Penalty Proceedings & Arguments Of Both The Sides Involved In All These 7 Appeals Are Common, Therefore, The Appeal In Ita No.1386/Pun/2006 For The Assessment Year 1999-2000 Taken As The Lead Case For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri R. MurlidharFor Respondent: Shri S. B. Prasad
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Coco Cola India (P) Ltd, Pune vs. DCIT Cir 1(1)

In the result, the cross appeals of the Revenue dismissed

ITA 1388/PUN/2006[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Aug 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm Sl. No. Ita No. Name Of Appellant Name Of Asst. Year Respondent 1-3 1386/Pun/2006 Coca Cola India Pvt. Dcit, Circle-1(1), 1999-2000 1387/Pun/2006 Ltd., Pune. 2000-01 1388/Pun/2006 Plot No.1109-10, 2001-02 Village Pirangut, Tal. Munshi, Pune. Pan : Aaacb8573G 4-5 150/Pun/2007 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Coca Cola India Pvt. 1999-2000 151/Pun/2007 Pune. Ltd., 2000-01 Plot No.1109-10, Village Pirangut, Tal. Munshi, Pune. Pan : Aaacb8573G 6-7 925/Pun/2011 Coca Cola India Pvt. Addl. Cit, Range-1, 2002-03 926/Pun/2011 Ltd., Pune. 2003-04 Plot No.1109-10, Village Pirangut, Tal. Munshi, Pune. Pan : Aaacb8573G Assessee By : Shri R. Murlidhar Shri Nikhil Garg Revenue By : Shri S. B. Prasad सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are 7 Appeals Under Consideration Involving The Assessment Years 1999-2000 To 2003-04. There Are No Cross-Appeals By The Revenue For The Assessment Years 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04. Two Cross- Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue For The Assessment Years 1999-2000 & 2000-01. Since The Facts & Levy Of Penalty Is The Common Issue For 2 Coca Cola India Private Limited All The 7 Appeals Under Consideration, Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Composite Order. 2. Since The Legal Issues Relating To Recording Of Satisfaction By The Assessing Officer At The Time Of Initiation Of The Penalty Proceedings & Arguments Of Both The Sides Involved In All These 7 Appeals Are Common, Therefore, The Appeal In Ita No.1386/Pun/2006 For The Assessment Year 1999-2000 Taken As The Lead Case For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri R. MurlidharFor Respondent: Shri S. B. Prasad
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Coco Cola India (P) Ltd, Pune vs. DCIT Cir 1(1)

In the result, the cross appeals of the Revenue dismissed

ITA 1387/PUN/2006[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Aug 2019AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm Sl. No. Ita No. Name Of Appellant Name Of Asst. Year Respondent 1-3 1386/Pun/2006 Coca Cola India Pvt. Dcit, Circle-1(1), 1999-2000 1387/Pun/2006 Ltd., Pune. 2000-01 1388/Pun/2006 Plot No.1109-10, 2001-02 Village Pirangut, Tal. Munshi, Pune. Pan : Aaacb8573G 4-5 150/Pun/2007 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Coca Cola India Pvt. 1999-2000 151/Pun/2007 Pune. Ltd., 2000-01 Plot No.1109-10, Village Pirangut, Tal. Munshi, Pune. Pan : Aaacb8573G 6-7 925/Pun/2011 Coca Cola India Pvt. Addl. Cit, Range-1, 2002-03 926/Pun/2011 Ltd., Pune. 2003-04 Plot No.1109-10, Village Pirangut, Tal. Munshi, Pune. Pan : Aaacb8573G Assessee By : Shri R. Murlidhar Shri Nikhil Garg Revenue By : Shri S. B. Prasad सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are 7 Appeals Under Consideration Involving The Assessment Years 1999-2000 To 2003-04. There Are No Cross-Appeals By The Revenue For The Assessment Years 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04. Two Cross- Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue For The Assessment Years 1999-2000 & 2000-01. Since The Facts & Levy Of Penalty Is The Common Issue For 2 Coca Cola India Private Limited All The 7 Appeals Under Consideration, Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Composite Order. 2. Since The Legal Issues Relating To Recording Of Satisfaction By The Assessing Officer At The Time Of Initiation Of The Penalty Proceedings & Arguments Of Both The Sides Involved In All These 7 Appeals Are Common, Therefore, The Appeal In Ita No.1386/Pun/2006 For The Assessment Year 1999-2000 Taken As The Lead Case For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri R. MurlidharFor Respondent: Shri S. B. Prasad
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Coco Cola India (P) Ltd, Pune vs. DCIT Cir 1(1)

In the result, the cross appeals of the Revenue dismissed

ITA 1386/PUN/2006[99-00]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Aug 2019

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm Sl. No. Ita No. Name Of Appellant Name Of Asst. Year Respondent 1-3 1386/Pun/2006 Coca Cola India Pvt. Dcit, Circle-1(1), 1999-2000 1387/Pun/2006 Ltd., Pune. 2000-01 1388/Pun/2006 Plot No.1109-10, 2001-02 Village Pirangut, Tal. Munshi, Pune. Pan : Aaacb8573G 4-5 150/Pun/2007 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Coca Cola India Pvt. 1999-2000 151/Pun/2007 Pune. Ltd., 2000-01 Plot No.1109-10, Village Pirangut, Tal. Munshi, Pune. Pan : Aaacb8573G 6-7 925/Pun/2011 Coca Cola India Pvt. Addl. Cit, Range-1, 2002-03 926/Pun/2011 Ltd., Pune. 2003-04 Plot No.1109-10, Village Pirangut, Tal. Munshi, Pune. Pan : Aaacb8573G Assessee By : Shri R. Murlidhar Shri Nikhil Garg Revenue By : Shri S. B. Prasad सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are 7 Appeals Under Consideration Involving The Assessment Years 1999-2000 To 2003-04. There Are No Cross-Appeals By The Revenue For The Assessment Years 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04. Two Cross- Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue For The Assessment Years 1999-2000 & 2000-01. Since The Facts & Levy Of Penalty Is The Common Issue For 2 Coca Cola India Private Limited All The 7 Appeals Under Consideration, Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Composite Order. 2. Since The Legal Issues Relating To Recording Of Satisfaction By The Assessing Officer At The Time Of Initiation Of The Penalty Proceedings & Arguments Of Both The Sides Involved In All These 7 Appeals Are Common, Therefore, The Appeal In Ita No.1386/Pun/2006 For The Assessment Year 1999-2000 Taken As The Lead Case For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri R. MurlidharFor Respondent: Shri S. B. Prasad
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Bayer Vapi Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Bilag Industries Pvt.Ltd., Vapi vs. The A CIT., Vapi Circle, Vapi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1688/AHD/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Aug 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No.1688/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2005-06 Bayer Vapi Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Bilag Industries Income Tax, Private Limited), Plot No.306/3, Vapi Circle, Vapi. Phase-Ii, Vapi – 396 195, Gujarat. [Pan: Aabcb 2100 L] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Mehul K Patel, Advocate & Shri A. Gopalakrishnan, Ca Shri Prasenjit Singh – Cit(Dr) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By 18.07.2019 सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On: 27.08.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per O.P.Meena, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The 1. Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)- Valsad, Valsad(In Short “The Cit(A)”) Dated 31.03.2014 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2005-06. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita 2. No.1688/Ahd/2014 Read As Under : “01. The Appellant Company Has Neither Concealed Its Income Nor Submitted Any Inaccurate Particulars Of Income & The Adjustments/ Additions Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Contrary To The Facts Of The Case & Law & Deserves To Be Deleted. 02. On Appreciation Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Bayer Vapi Pvt. Ltd.,(Formerly Known As Bilag Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vs.Acit-Vapi/Ita No.1688/Ahd/2014: A.Y.2005-06 Page 2 Of 20

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)