← 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)

Ishwar Singh Kaushik, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 67(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3790/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Before Shri Mahavir Singh Before Before Shri Mahavir Singh Shri Mahavir Singh, , , , Vice Shri Mahavir Singh Vice & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, Accountant Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra Accountantmember Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Senior DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 274Section 68

hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. The penalty under dispute was levied by the Assessing Officer of NFAC under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act vide his order dated 2nd February, 2022. The only issue in this appeal by the assessee is as regards to the order ... learned CIT(A) confirming the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act amounting to Rs. 30,000/- on account of alleged failure of the assessee to furnish reply/evidences and non-attendance to the notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 18th July

Aditi Express Cargo India Private Limited, Nagpur vs. DCIT ACIT Circle -3, Nagpur

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 560/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: S/Shri Nitin Gulati a/w Pankaj KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

parties mentioned in the SCN and subsequently they have passed order u/s 147. 7. Penalties Imposed Without Just Cause: Penalty proceedings initiated under Sections 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c), and 271F are unjustified, as the failure to file the return was due to operational shutdown

Aditi Express Cargo India Private Limited, Nagpur vs. DCIT ACIT Circle -3, Nagpur

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 559/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: S/Shri Nitin Gulati a/w Pankaj KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

parties mentioned in the SCN and subsequently they have passed order u/s 147. 7. Penalties Imposed Without Just Cause: Penalty proceedings initiated under Sections 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c), and 271F are unjustified, as the failure to file the return was due to operational shutdown

Aditi Express Cargo India Private Limited, Nagpur vs. DCIT ACIT Circle -3, Nagpur

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 558/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: S/Shri Nitin Gulati a/w Pankaj KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

parties mentioned in the SCN and subsequently they have passed order u/s 147. 7. Penalties Imposed Without Just Cause: Penalty proceedings initiated under Sections 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c), and 271F are unjustified, as the failure to file the return was due to operational shutdown

Aditi Express Cargo India Private Limited, Nagpur vs. DCIT ACIT Circle -3, Nagpur

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 517/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: S/Shri Nitin Gulati a/w Pankaj KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

parties mentioned in the SCN and subsequently they have passed order u/s 147. 7. Penalties Imposed Without Just Cause: Penalty proceedings initiated under Sections 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c), and 271F are unjustified, as the failure to file the return was due to operational shutdown

Aditi Express Cargo India Private Limited Through Its Erstwhile Director Prashant Natwarlal Lakhani, Nagpur vs. DCIT ACIT Circle-3, Nagpur

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 501/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: S/Shri Nitin Gulati a/w Pankaj KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

parties mentioned in the SCN and subsequently they have passed order u/s 147. 7. Penalties Imposed Without Just Cause: Penalty proceedings initiated under Sections 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c), and 271F are unjustified, as the failure to file the return was due to operational shutdown

Aditi Express Cargo India Private Limited Through Its Erstwhile Director Prashant Natwarlal Lakhani, Nagpur vs. DCIT ACIT Circle-3, Nagpur

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 500/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: S/Shri Nitin Gulati a/w Pankaj KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

parties mentioned in the SCN and subsequently they have passed order u/s 147. 7. Penalties Imposed Without Just Cause: Penalty proceedings initiated under Sections 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c), and 271F are unjustified, as the failure to file the return was due to operational shutdown

Aditi Express Cargo India Private Limited Through Its Erstwhile Director Prashant Natwarlal Lakhani, Nagpur vs. Dcitacit Circle-3, Nagpur

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 498/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: S/Shri Nitin Gulati a/w Pankaj KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

parties mentioned in the SCN and subsequently they have passed order u/s 147. 7. Penalties Imposed Without Just Cause: Penalty proceedings initiated under Sections 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c), and 271F are unjustified, as the failure to file the return was due to operational shutdown

M/S Alliance Builders & Contractors Ltd., Kanpur vs. Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 126/LKW/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Alliance Builders & Asst.Commissioner Of V. Contractors Ltd Income Tax, Central Circle-2 C/O 24/4, The Mall, Kanpur. Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Allen Ganj, Kanpur. Pan:Aaeca8217A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28 11 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl
Section 115JSection 142Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 40aSection 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH

Nivrutti Vishnu Patil, Nallasopara vs. Assessing Officer Pne-W-(72)(91), Thane

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 4337/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am Nivrutti Vishnu Patil, Assessing Officer Pne-W- J/204, Rajhrutu Chs Ltd., (72)(91), Park Avenue, S.T. Depot Road, Ward 4(1), Thane Chakradhar Nagar, Near Dmart, Vs. Nallasopara West, Palghar, Maharashtra 401203

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Venilal KanikiaFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pande, Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 273B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VP AND SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut vs. Kamlesh, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 378/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Delhi03 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)Section 44ASection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘C’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT, AND SHRI NAVEEN

Technodot Engineers Pvt. Ltd, Gandhinagar vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 93/AHD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokari.T(Ss).A. Nos.147&148/Ahd/2019 (A.Ys.: 2005-06 & 2006-07) Smt. Neelu Sanjay Gupta, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of L/H. Of Late Shri Sanjay Gupta Income Tax, B-202, Dhananjay Tower, Central Circle-2(2), Anand Nagar Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380015 [Pan No.Adypg0351K] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) I.T(Ss).A. Nos.21 To 23/Ahd/2020 & 15/Ahd/2022 & Ita No. 93/Ahd/2020) (A.Ys.: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2006-07 & 2010-11 To 2011-12) M/S. Technodot Engineers Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of C/O. Cambay Hotel & Resorts, Income Tax, Plot No. 22, 23, 24 Gidc, Central Circle-2(2), Sector-25, Gandhinagar-382010 Ahmedabad [Pan No.Aabct5392A] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & Shri ParimalFor Respondent: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT-DR & Shri Rignesh K
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

providing the requested documents, despite repeated attempts by the Department to obtain them. On October 30, 2012, a show-cause notice under Section 271(1)(b) was issued, for consistent non- appearance citing the assessee's non-compliance with the notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1). The assessee ... responses, submitted on November 20, 2012, were deemed insufficient, and a penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was levied on November 27, 2012. The assessee's appeal against the penalty was dismissed by the CIT (A) on May 9, 2013, for failure to comply fully with the notices. The assessee

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-13, New Delhi., Jhandewalan vs. Wismore Equity Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3494/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 153C(1)Section 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL

Ashutosh Das, Durgapur vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 1, Durgapur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1954/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. Nos. 1942 & 1954/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Ashutosh Das,……………………………….….……Appellant C/O. Jain Vinod K & Associates, 41A, A.J.C. Bose Road, Suite No. 613, 6Th Floor, Kolkata-700017 [Pan:Adfpd9215N] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,...Respondent Circle-1, Durgapur, Aayakar Bhawan, City Centre, Durgapur-734101 Appearances By: Shri Vinod Kr. Jain, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: October 24, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: November 18, 2024 O R D E R

Section 147Section 2(47)Section 250

Year 2015-16. 9. The grievance of the assessee is that ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in upholding the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act. We find that ld. Assessing Officer has issued a notice under section 142(1), but the assessee neither ... upon by the ld. Assessing Officer. There is no plausible explanation given by the assessee for his non- compliance. Therefore, penalty imposed under section 271(1)(b) is hereby confirmed. 13. In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 14. To sum up, the appeal of the assessee

Ashutosh Das, Durgapur vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 1, Durgapur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1942/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. Nos. 1942 & 1954/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Ashutosh Das,……………………………….….……Appellant C/O. Jain Vinod K & Associates, 41A, A.J.C. Bose Road, Suite No. 613, 6Th Floor, Kolkata-700017 [Pan:Adfpd9215N] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,...Respondent Circle-1, Durgapur, Aayakar Bhawan, City Centre, Durgapur-734101 Appearances By: Shri Vinod Kr. Jain, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: October 24, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: November 18, 2024 O R D E R

Section 147Section 2(47)Section 250

Year 2015-16. 9. The grievance of the assessee is that ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in upholding the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act. We find that ld. Assessing Officer has issued a notice under section 142(1), but the assessee neither ... upon by the ld. Assessing Officer. There is no plausible explanation given by the assessee for his non- compliance. Therefore, penalty imposed under section 271(1)(b) is hereby confirmed. 13. In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 14. To sum up, the appeal of the assessee

Jayasakthi Knit Wear, Tirupur vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Tirupur

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

ITA 1755/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam
Section 271(1)(b)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

Kolahai Infotech Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Assessment Unit, New Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2815/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usa.Yr. : 2016-17 Kolahai Infotech Private Vs. Assessment Unit, Limited, Income Tax 1St 129, Floor, Transport Department, Delhi Centre, Punjabi Bagh, Civic Centre, Mkinto New Delhi – 110 034 Road, New Delhi – 2 (Pan: Aadck3127C) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Sh. Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AU and NFAC have erred in levying a penalty of Rs.30.000/- under section 271(1)(b) whereas the Assessment for the same year has been completed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. Hence, the impugned penalty is liable ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AU and NFAC have erred in levying a penalty of Rs.30,000/- under section 271(1)(b) of the Act and have not appreciated the fact that the assessment was not completed under section 144 of the Act. Hence

Bodepudi Hari Babu, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward - 8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 878/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.878/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Bodepudi Hari Babu Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 8(1) Pan:Aafhb0082E Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri K.N. Suresh Baby, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 05/11/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Shri K.N. Suresh Baby, DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

ITA No 878 of 2024 Bodepudi Hari Babu आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE

Satinder Pal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 34(5), Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 3295/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usa.Yr. : 2015-16 Shri Satinder Pal, Vs. Ito, Ward 34(5), House No. 1728, Block-K, New Delhi Jahangir Puri, Civic Centre, New Delhi-2 Delhi – 110 033 (Pan: Catpp4704P) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Sudarsun Roy, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Shashi Kajle, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI YOGESH

Sachin Nagraj Chhajed, Pune vs. ITO, Pune

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

ITA 1765/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sachin P. KumarFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 194CSection 250

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA