← All Phrases

“Section 271(1)(b)”

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

The decision most relied on for Section 271(1)(b) is Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa (83 ITR 26), cited in 502 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 271(1)(b)

Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa
83 ITR 26 · 1972 · Supreme Court
502
citing judgments

An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation results from quasi-criminal proceedings. Penalty is not ordinarily imposed unless the party acted deliberately in defiance of law, was guilty of contumacious or dishonest conduct, or acted in conscious disregard of their obligation.

CIT v. Hero Cycles (P.) Ltd.
228 ITR 463 · 1997 · Supreme Court
262
citing judgments

A point not examined on facts or in law cannot be treated as a mistake apparent on record for rectification purposes.

CIT v. K.G. Rukminiamma
331 ITR 211 · 2011 · High Court
104
citing judgments

For capital gains exemption under Sections 54 and 54F of the Income Tax Act (prior to the 2015 amendment), the expression "a residential house" includes multiple residential units and should not be construed in the singular, by applying Section 13 of the General Clauses Act.

Velu Palandar v. DCIT
83 ITR 683 · 1972 · High Court
94
citing judgments

The opportunity of hearing provided to an assessee must be real, effective, and realistic, not merely notional, and tax authorities are incumbent to decide cases on their merits after affording due opportunity.

Duggal & Co. v. CIT
220 ITR 456 · 1996 · High Court
84
citing judgments

An assessment order becomes erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue under Section 263 if the Assessing Officer fails to conduct a proper inquiry or investigation, even if the return appears prima facie correct. The Income-tax Officer has a duty to investigate and cannot remain passive.

Maria Fernandes Cheryl v. ITO
187 ITD 738 · 2021 · ITAT
58
citing judgments

The third proviso to Section 50C(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which provides a tolerance band of 10% between the sale consideration and the stamp duty value, is retrospective. This curative and declaratory amendment applies from the date of the insertion of Section 50C.

Addl. CIT v. J.K. D'Costa
133 ITR 7 · 1982 · High Court
57
citing judgments

Debatable issues cannot be rectified under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, as rectification is limited to mistakes apparent from the record.

Akhil Bhartiya Prathamik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust v. ADIT
5 DTR 429 · High Court
50
citing judgments

To levy a penalty under section 271(1)(b), the Assessing Officer (AO) must record satisfaction in the assessment order. Mere initiation of penalty proceedings without such recorded satisfaction does not confer jurisdiction on the AO to levy the penalty.

Judgments citing Section 271(1)(b)

Ravi Kakkar, Mohali vs. Income Tax Officer, Mohali

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 496/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Us, At The Outset, Both The Parties Submitted That The Issues Raised In Both The Appeals Were Identical. In View Of The Aforesaid

For Appellant: Smt. Kamakshi Mahajan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ved Parkash Kalia, JCIT, Sr. Dr
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,59,29,130/-. 6.1 The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for non-compliance with the statutory notices. A show-cause notice was issued on 18.12.2019, followed by subsequent notices ... assessee failed to respond to these notices, and the AO levied a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 7. Against the order of the Ld. AO the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal

Ravi Kakkar, Mohali vs. Income Tax Officer National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 495/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Us, At The Outset, Both The Parties Submitted That The Issues Raised In Both The Appeals Were Identical. In View Of The Aforesaid

For Appellant: Smt. Kamakshi Mahajan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ved Parkash Kalia, JCIT, Sr. Dr
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,59,29,130/-. 6.1 The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for non-compliance with the statutory notices. A show-cause notice was issued on 18.12.2019, followed by subsequent notices ... assessee failed to respond to these notices, and the AO levied a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 7. Against the order of the Ld. AO the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal

Nilanjana Arvinder Singh, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-

ITA 6140/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H(SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Nihal Industries Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1488/AHD/2024[A.Y. 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1488/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 Nihal Industries Private The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Limited Ward-3(1)(1) V/S. 1961, Above Royal Cycle Ahmedabad Inside Panchkuwa Panchkuwa Ahmedabad – 380 001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aadcn 7129 D (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Arjav D. Vidani, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11 /03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12 /03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 21.06.2024, Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.30,000/- Levied By The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”] Under Section 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. Nihal Industries Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Arjav D. Vidani, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

dated 21.06.2024, confirming the penalty of Rs.30,000/- levied by the Assessing Officer [hereinafter referred to as “AO”] under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. Nihal Industries Pvt.Ltd. vs. ITO Asst. Year ... assessment under Section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 04.05.2023, making an addition of Rs.2,44,53,602/-. Subsequently, penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act were initiated, and the AO imposed a penalty of Rs.30,000/- for non-compliance with the statutory notices

Chenniappan Venkateswaran, Kangeyam vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 3112/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3110, 3111 & 3112/Chny/2024 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Chenniappan Venkateswaran, Income Tax Officer, Prop. Anna Cell Com, V. Ward -1(4), 255, R.M. Tower Main Road, Tirupur. Kangeyam – 638 701. [Pan: Adhpv-7648-F] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. M. Sathish Kumar, Ca प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr. M. Sathish Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 147Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 273B

already been made from the income earned and hence no need to comply to any of the notices. Therefore, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Act for non-compliance of notices was not warranted as there was a reasonable cause to the assessee

Chenniappan Venkateswaran, Kangeyam vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 3111/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3110, 3111 & 3112/Chny/2024 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Chenniappan Venkateswaran, Income Tax Officer, Prop. Anna Cell Com, V. Ward -1(4), 255, R.M. Tower Main Road, Tirupur. Kangeyam – 638 701. [Pan: Adhpv-7648-F] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. M. Sathish Kumar, Ca प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr. M. Sathish Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 147Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 273B

already been made from the income earned and hence no need to comply to any of the notices. Therefore, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Act for non-compliance of notices was not warranted as there was a reasonable cause to the assessee

Chenniappan Venkateswaran, Kangeyam vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 3110/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3110, 3111 & 3112/Chny/2024 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Chenniappan Venkateswaran, Income Tax Officer, Prop. Anna Cell Com, V. Ward -1(4), 255, R.M. Tower Main Road, Tirupur. Kangeyam – 638 701. [Pan: Adhpv-7648-F] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. M. Sathish Kumar, Ca प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr. M. Sathish Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 147Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 273B

already been made from the income earned and hence no need to comply to any of the notices. Therefore, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Act for non-compliance of notices was not warranted as there was a reasonable cause to the assessee

Emmsons International Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result assessee’s appeals ITA Nos

ITA 689/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Smt. Renu Jauhri

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

assessee the entire proceeding is vitiated and therefore, liable to be quashed. We order accordingly. 5. Relevant to mention that notice under Section 271(1)(b) was also sought to be served upon the assessee at the address lying and situated at “House No. 970, Sector 16-17, Hisar” which

Shailendra Garg, Sriganganagar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 8/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 202Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271BSection 271FSection 40Section 80C

आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,’’B” JAIPUR (Virtual Hearing) Mk0 ,l- lhrky

Shailendra Garg, Sriganganagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 7/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 202Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271BSection 271FSection 40Section 80C

आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,’’B” JAIPUR (Virtual Hearing) Mk0 ,l- lhrky

Shailendra Garg, Sriganganagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -6(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 6/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 202Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271BSection 271FSection 40Section 80C

आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,’’B” JAIPUR (Virtual Hearing) Mk0 ,l- lhrky

Shailendra Garg, Jaipur vs. ACIT/DCIT, Circle 6, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 1564/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 202Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271BSection 271FSection 40Section 80C

आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,’’B” JAIPUR (Virtual Hearing) Mk0 ,l- lhrky

Shailendra Garg, Sriganganagar vs. ACIT/DCIT Circle 6, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 1563/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 202Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271BSection 271FSection 40Section 80C

आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,’’B” JAIPUR (Virtual Hearing) Mk0 ,l- lhrky

Shailendra Garg, Sriganganagar vs. ACIT/DCIT, Circle 6, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 1562/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 202Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271BSection 271FSection 40Section 80C

आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,’’B” JAIPUR (Virtual Hearing) Mk0 ,l- lhrky

Shailendra Garg, Sriganganagar vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 1561/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 202Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271BSection 271FSection 40Section 80C

आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,’’B” JAIPUR (Virtual Hearing) Mk0 ,l- lhrky

Shailendra Garg, Sirganganagar vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 1560/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 202Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271BSection 271FSection 40Section 80C

आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,’’B” JAIPUR (Virtual Hearing) Mk0 ,l- lhrky

Shailendra Garg, Sriganganagar vs. ACIT/DCIT Circle 6, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 1559/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 202Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271BSection 271FSection 40Section 80C

आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,’’B” JAIPUR (Virtual Hearing) Mk0 ,l- lhrky

Shailendra Garg, Sriganganagar vs. ACIT/DCIT Circle 6, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 1558/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 202Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271BSection 271FSection 40Section 80C

आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,’’B” JAIPUR (Virtual Hearing) Mk0 ,l- lhrky

Shailendra Garg, Sriganganagar vs. ACIT/DCIT Circle 6, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 1557/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 202Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271BSection 271FSection 40Section 80C

आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,’’B” JAIPUR (Virtual Hearing) Mk0 ,l- lhrky

Shailendra Garg, Sriganganagar vs. ACIT/DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical

ITA 1556/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Mar 2025AY 2015-16
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271BSection 271FSection 40Section 80C

आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR (Virtual Hearing) डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी