← All Phrases

“Section 271(1)(b)”

Section References (mined)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)1,252 judgments

MD. BABAR ALI,MALDA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1), MALDA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3175/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH AT KOLKATA Before SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

MD. BABAR ALI,MALDA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1), MALDA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3174/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH AT KOLKATA Before SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

MD. BABAR ALI,MALDA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1), MALDA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3173/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH AT KOLKATA Before SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

AKSHIT MAHESH KARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 3(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 6052/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2026AY 2015-16
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

facts in ignoring that the penalty imposed is invalid and void as it has\nbeen imposed in violation of the provisions of Section 271(1)(b) of the Act that a penalty\nof Rs.10,000/- may be imposed for each default but the A.O. has imposed a single penalty

PLATINUM SALES,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD2(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1156/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1156/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Platinum Sales, The Ito, Scf-10, Sector 9-D, बनाम Ward 2(1), Chandigarh Chandigarh Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aanfp7207P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Phsyical Hearing) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Ms. Ekakshra Mandhar, Advocate & Sh. Atul Mandhar, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr.Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2026 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2026 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am : Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 14.07.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi.

For Appellant: Ms. Ekakshra Mandhar, Advocate, and Sh. Atul Mandhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr.DR
Section 147Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Provisions of Section 271(1)(c). 6. That the Lrd. CIT(A) has been unjustified in upholding Penalty proceedings under the Provisions of Section 271(1)(b). 7. That any other ground which would be taken up at the time of hearing with the kind permission

AWLA INFRA,FEROZEPUR vs. ASSITANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, FEROZEPUR

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

ITA 53/ASR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, C. A
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (PHYSICAL HEARING) BEFORE SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH

PAWAN KUMAR CHANDRAKAR, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI vs. ITO, WARD-DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 687/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 685, 686 & 687/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16) Pawan Kumar Chandrakar, Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward Dhamtari, Gandhi Chowk, Kurud, Shankardan Road, Village:Haraftarai, Dhamtari-493663, Chhattisgarh. Dhamtari-493773, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Aqdpc2033J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Veekas S Sharma, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 12/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Veekas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 2(14)(iii)Section 250

later on, also levied penalties of Rs.40,41,788/- under section 271(1) (c) of the Act and Rs.20,000/- under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. Aggrieved with the above mentioned assessment order and penalty orders, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed

PAWAN KUMAR CHANDRAKAR, DHAMTARI,DHAMTARI vs. ITO, WARD-DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 686/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 685, 686 & 687/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16) Pawan Kumar Chandrakar, Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward Dhamtari, Gandhi Chowk, Kurud, Shankardan Road, Village:Haraftarai, Dhamtari-493663, Chhattisgarh. Dhamtari-493773, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Aqdpc2033J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Veekas S Sharma, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 12/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Veekas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 2(14)(iii)Section 250

later on, also levied penalties of Rs.40,41,788/- under section 271(1) (c) of the Act and Rs.20,000/- under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. Aggrieved with the above mentioned assessment order and penalty orders, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed

PAWAN KUMAR CHANDRAKAR, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI vs. ITO,WARD-DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 685/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 685, 686 & 687/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16) Pawan Kumar Chandrakar, Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward Dhamtari, Gandhi Chowk, Kurud, Shankardan Road, Village:Haraftarai, Dhamtari-493663, Chhattisgarh. Dhamtari-493773, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Aqdpc2033J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Veekas S Sharma, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 12/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Veekas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 2(14)(iii)Section 250

later on, also levied penalties of Rs.40,41,788/- under section 271(1) (c) of the Act and Rs.20,000/- under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. Aggrieved with the above mentioned assessment order and penalty orders, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed

JITENDRABHAI DEVAJIBHAI BODAR,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal is dismissed as not admitted”

ITA 549/RJT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Digant Kiyada, Ld. AR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND DR. DINESH MOHAN

BARAIYA GALAJI KALAJI,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 2180/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

referred to as “CIT(A)”), refusing to condone the delay of 17 months in filing the appeal as against the penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2015-16. I.T.A No. 2179 & 2180/Ahd/2025 ... assessee. However the assessee failed to respond to the show cause notice thereby the assessing officer levied penalty of Rs.10,000/- under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved against the penalty order, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 17 months

BARAIYA GALAJI KALAJI,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 2179/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Accountant Member | ITA No: 2179 & 2180/Ahd/2025 | | Assessment Year: 2015-16 | | Baraiya Galaji Kalaji 93 Arjun Vas, Nana Chiloda, B.O. Ahmedabad Gandhinagar-382330 Gujarat, India PAN: BEMPB9663R (Appellant) | Vs | The ITO, Ward-1, Gandhinagar Gandhingar (Respondent) | Assessee Represented: Shri Chintan Thakkar, A.R. Revenue Represented: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 03-03-2026 Date of pronouncement : 09-

Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

referred to as “CIT(A)”), refusing to condone the delay of 17 months in filing the appeal as against the penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2015-16. I.T.A No. 2179 & 2180/Ahd/2025 ... assessee. However the assessee failed to respond to the show cause notice thereby the assessing officer levied penalty of Rs.10,000/- under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved against the penalty order, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 17 months

LAKHMICHAND VASWANI,INDORE vs. ITO WARD 1(4), INDORE, INDORE

In the result ITA No:-653/Ind/2025 and “Impugned order”

ITA 653/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

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

Section 147Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 69

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, इंदौर"ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

MAMTA UPPADHYAY,SEHORE vs. ITO SEHORE, SEHORE

In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

ITA 630/IND/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimamta Uppadhyay, Ito Sehore बनाम/ 1 Np Uppadhyay Nehru Vs. Colony Station Road 466001 Madhya Pradesh India, Sehore (Pan:Acjpu1481E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms Saniya Farhaz Memon, Ca Revenue By Sh. Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)

about the of initiation of assessment proceedings since registered mail id did not belong to appellant and thus initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(b) is bad in law and should be annulled. Ground 2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case the penalty order

SUNILKUMAR BHAGCHAND TALREJA,SABARKANTHA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, HIMATNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2108/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 2107 & 2108/Ahd/2025 Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Ms. Astha Maniar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Veerbadram Vislavath, Sr. D.R
Section 115WSection 142Section 142(1)Section 143Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 69C

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH Before Dr. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member

SUNILKUMAR BHAGCHAND TALREJA,SABARKANTHA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, HIMATNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2107/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 2107 & 2108/Ahd/2025 Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Ms. Astha Maniar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Veerbadram Vislavath, Sr. D.R
Section 115WSection 142Section 142(1)Section 143Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 69C

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH Before Dr. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member

BASAVESHWER DEVALAY ENGLISH MEDIUM HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL ,BIJAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS , BIJAPUR

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

ITA 2047/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. N. Hemalatha, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 148ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 271FSection 273B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL

BASAVESHWER DEVALAY ENGLISH MEDIUM HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL BASAVANABAGEWADI,BIJAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, BIJAPUR

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

ITA 1409/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2026AY 2016-17
Section 10Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 148ASection 271(1)(b)Section 271F

1) during assessment proceedings. Due to heavy admission work, the assessee failed to respond to these notices, leading to a penalty under section 271(1)(b). The assessee contended that the non-compliance was not wilful. The AO confirmed the penalty, which was upheld by the CIT(A).", "held ... assessment by accepting the assessee's return, indicating no income escapement. The Tribunal also referred to the discretionary nature of penalty under section 271(1)(b) and relied on coordinate bench decisions where penalties were deleted under similar circumstances.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": ["271(1)(b)", "10(23C)(iiiab

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ WARSI,PIPARIYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2, ITARSI, ITARSI

In the result, the Impugned order is set aside as and by way\nof a remand back to the file of the Ld

ITA 383/IND/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2013-2014
Section 139(9)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 271(1)(b)Section 274Section 69A

{ "clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nINDORE BENCH, INDORE\nBEFORE SHRI B.M

JAGGO,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(3)(1), MATHURA

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 555/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2015-16 Jaggo Vs. Income Tax Officer S/O Sh. Indar H. No. 6, Azampur Ward 1(3)(1), Mathura Mathura, Mathura Pan : Ayopj8958J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Anurag Sinha, Adv. Department By Sh. Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order Per : S. Rifaur Rahman: The Assessee Has Preferred This Appeal Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 17.11.2025 U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” For Short) For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Aggrieved With The Above Order, Assessee Is In This Appeal, Raising Following Grounds : “1. Because In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Learned Cit (Appeals) Has Erred In Not Deleting The Penalty Of Rs. 10,000/- Imposed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(B) Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, The Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee Calling For Information/Explanation Along With The Documents During The Assessment Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Act. The Above Notice Was Issued Through Registered E-Mail Id & Fixed For Compliance On 26.02.2021, After Laps Of Considerable Time, The Assessing Officer Issued The Another Notice U/S 274 To The Assessee R.W.S 271(1)B) Of The Act Why Penalty U/S 271 Of The Act Should Not Be Initiated & Levied. In Compliance, The Assessee Not Submitted Any Reply. Accordingly, Assessing Officer Levied The Penalty Of Rs. 10,000/-.

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

case, learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in not deleting the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are, the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee calling

Showing 1–20 of 1,252 · Page 1 of 63

...