← 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)

Neeta Shah, Mumbai vs. Comm of Income Tax (A), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1193/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Haresh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 246ASection 271(1)(b)Section 273B

impugned order dated 28.03.2022, passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai (in short ‘CIT(A)’) in relation to proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) by levying penalty of Rs.10,000/-. 2. Facts in brief emanating from ... members were infected with Covid and, therefore, even if part compliance was made, it was not a case for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 5. Once the assessee has given such a reason and during that time the entire country was going through

Navin Agrwal, Thane vs. Circle 35(2) /AO Nafc, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2412/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2412/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Navin Agarwal बिधम/ Circle-35(2)/Ao Nfac Villa No.18, Palava Golf Delhi-110001. Vs. Links, Kalyan Shil Road Dombivali (E), Thane- 421204. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aekpa7396F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mahesh Saboo Revenue By: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 16.12.2021 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 Against The Penalty Confirmed U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao Levying Penalty U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Act To The Tune Of Rs.10,000/-. 3. The Brief Facts Are That The Assessee Had Filed Return Of Income On 17.03.2017 Declaring Total Income At Rs.98,76,030/-. Later, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment Under Cass & The Ao Issued Statutory Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act. According To The Ao, During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act Dated 29.11.2018 Was Issued & Duly

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh SabooFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. AR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM

Hardik Shah, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) -50, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1212/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mahita Nair
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 246ASection 271(1)(b)Section 273B

even date, 28.03.2022, passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai (in short ‘CIT(A)’) in relation to proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) by levying penalty of Rs.10,000/-. 2. Facts in brief emanating from the appellate ... members were infected with Covid and, therefore, even if part compliance was made, it was not a case for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 5. Once the assessee has given such a reason and during that time the entire country was going through

Hardik Shah, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) -50, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1211/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mahita Nair
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 246ASection 271(1)(b)Section 273B

even date, 28.03.2022, passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai (in short ‘CIT(A)’) in relation to proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) by levying penalty of Rs.10,000/-. 2. Facts in brief emanating from the appellate ... members were infected with Covid and, therefore, even if part compliance was made, it was not a case for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 5. Once the assessee has given such a reason and during that time the entire country was going through

Hardik Shah, Mumbai vs. Comm of Income Tax (A), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1210/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mahita Nair
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 246ASection 271(1)(b)Section 273B

even date, 28.03.2022, passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai (in short ‘CIT(A)’) in relation to proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) by levying penalty of Rs.10,000/-. 2. Facts in brief emanating from the appellate ... members were infected with Covid and, therefore, even if part compliance was made, it was not a case for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 5. Once the assessee has given such a reason and during that time the entire country was going through

Hardik Shah, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1209/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mahita Nair
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 246ASection 271(1)(b)Section 273B

even date, 28.03.2022, passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai (in short ‘CIT(A)’) in relation to proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) by levying penalty of Rs.10,000/-. 2. Facts in brief emanating from the appellate ... members were infected with Covid and, therefore, even if part compliance was made, it was not a case for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 5. Once the assessee has given such a reason and during that time the entire country was going through

Hardik Shah, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1208/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mahita Nair
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 246ASection 271(1)(b)Section 273B

even date, 28.03.2022, passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai (in short ‘CIT(A)’) in relation to proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) by levying penalty of Rs.10,000/-. 2. Facts in brief emanating from the appellate ... members were infected with Covid and, therefore, even if part compliance was made, it was not a case for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 5. Once the assessee has given such a reason and during that time the entire country was going through

Naresh Mehta, Mumbai vs. Comm of Income Tax (A) -50, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1205/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mahita Nair
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 246ASection 271(1)(b)Section 273B

even date, 28.03.2022, passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai (in short ‘CIT(A)’) in relation to proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) by levying penalty of Rs.10,000/-. 2. Facts in brief emanating from the appellate ... members were infected with Covid and, therefore, even if part compliance was made, it was not a case for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 5. Once the assessee has given such a reason and during that time the entire country was going through

Naresh Mehta, Mumbai vs. Comm of Income Tax(A) -50, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1204/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mahita Nair
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 246ASection 271(1)(b)Section 273B

even date, 28.03.2022, passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai (in short ‘CIT(A)’) in relation to proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) by levying penalty of Rs.10,000/-. 2. Facts in brief emanating from the appellate ... members were infected with Covid and, therefore, even if part compliance was made, it was not a case for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 5. Once the assessee has given such a reason and during that time the entire country was going through

Naresh Mehta, Mumbai vs. Comm of Income Tax (A), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1203/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mahita Nair
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 246ASection 271(1)(b)Section 273B

even date, 28.03.2022, passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai (in short ‘CIT(A)’) in relation to proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) by levying penalty of Rs.10,000/-. 2. Facts in brief emanating from the appellate ... members were infected with Covid and, therefore, even if part compliance was made, it was not a case for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 5. Once the assessee has given such a reason and during that time the entire country was going through

Naresh Mehta, Mumbai vs. Comm of Income Tax (A), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1202/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mahita Nair
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 246ASection 271(1)(b)Section 273B

even date, 28.03.2022, passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai (in short ‘CIT(A)’) in relation to proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) by levying penalty of Rs.10,000/-. 2. Facts in brief emanating from the appellate ... members were infected with Covid and, therefore, even if part compliance was made, it was not a case for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 5. Once the assessee has given such a reason and during that time the entire country was going through

Naresh Mehta, Mumbai vs. Comm of Income Tax (A), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1201/MUM/2022[28/03/2022]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mahita Nair
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 246ASection 271(1)(b)Section 273B

even date, 28.03.2022, passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai (in short ‘CIT(A)’) in relation to proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) by levying penalty of Rs.10,000/-. 2. Facts in brief emanating from the appellate ... members were infected with Covid and, therefore, even if part compliance was made, it was not a case for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 5. Once the assessee has given such a reason and during that time the entire country was going through

Naresh Mehta, Mumbai vs. Comm of Income Tax (Appeals) -50, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1200/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mahita Nair
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 246ASection 271(1)(b)Section 273B

even date, 28.03.2022, passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai (in short ‘CIT(A)’) in relation to proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) by levying penalty of Rs.10,000/-. 2. Facts in brief emanating from the appellate ... members were infected with Covid and, therefore, even if part compliance was made, it was not a case for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 5. Once the assessee has given such a reason and during that time the entire country was going through

Neeta Shah, Mumbai vs. Comm of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1198/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mahita Nair
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 246ASection 271(1)(b)Section 273B

even date, 28.03.2022, passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai (in short ‘CIT(A)’) in relation to proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) by levying penalty of Rs.10,000/-. 2. Facts in brief emanating from the appellate ... members were infected with Covid and, therefore, even if part compliance was made, it was not a case for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 5. Once the assessee has given such a reason and during that time the entire country was going through

Neeta Shah, Mumbai vs. Comm of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1197/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mahita Nair
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 246ASection 271(1)(b)Section 273B

even date, 28.03.2022, passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai (in short ‘CIT(A)’) in relation to proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) by levying penalty of Rs.10,000/-. 2. Facts in brief emanating from the appellate ... members were infected with Covid and, therefore, even if part compliance was made, it was not a case for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 5. Once the assessee has given such a reason and during that time the entire country was going through

Neeta Shah, Mumbai vs. Comm of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1196/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mahita Nair
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 246ASection 271(1)(b)Section 273B

even date, 28.03.2022, passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai (in short ‘CIT(A)’) in relation to proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) by levying penalty of Rs.10,000/-. 2. Facts in brief emanating from the appellate ... members were infected with Covid and, therefore, even if part compliance was made, it was not a case for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 5. Once the assessee has given such a reason and during that time the entire country was going through

Neeta Shah, Mumbai vs. Comm of Income Tax (A)-50, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1195/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mahita Nair
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 246ASection 271(1)(b)Section 273B

even date, 28.03.2022, passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai (in short ‘CIT(A)’) in relation to proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) by levying penalty of Rs.10,000/-. 2. Facts in brief emanating from the appellate ... members were infected with Covid and, therefore, even if part compliance was made, it was not a case for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 5. Once the assessee has given such a reason and during that time the entire country was going through

Neeta Shah, Mumbai vs. Comm of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1194/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mahita Nair
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 246ASection 271(1)(b)Section 273B

even date, 28.03.2022, passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai (in short ‘CIT(A)’) in relation to proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) by levying penalty of Rs.10,000/-. 2. Facts in brief emanating from the appellate ... members were infected with Covid and, therefore, even if part compliance was made, it was not a case for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 5. Once the assessee has given such a reason and during that time the entire country was going through

Neeta Shah, Mumbai vs. Comm of Income Tax (A), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1192/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mahita Nair
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 246ASection 271(1)(b)Section 273B

even date, 28.03.2022, passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai (in short ‘CIT(A)’) in relation to proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) by levying penalty of Rs.10,000/-. 2. Facts in brief emanating from the appellate ... members were infected with Covid and, therefore, even if part compliance was made, it was not a case for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 5. Once the assessee has given such a reason and during that time the entire country was going through

Pallavi Mehta, Mumbai vs. Comm of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1191/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mahita Nair
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 246ASection 271(1)(b)Section 273B

even date, 28.03.2022, passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai (in short ‘CIT(A)’) in relation to proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) by levying penalty of Rs.10,000/-. 2. Facts in brief emanating from the appellate ... members were infected with Covid and, therefore, even if part compliance was made, it was not a case for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 5. Once the assessee has given such a reason and during that time the entire country was going through