BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

31 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 10(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,639Mumbai1,370Jaipur453Ahmedabad426Chennai290Hyderabad283Bangalore259Indore253Surat242Kolkata232Pune226Raipur179Chandigarh167Rajkot151Amritsar102Nagpur87Visakhapatnam69Cochin64Allahabad62Lucknow59Guwahati51Patna45Ranchi45Cuttack44Agra31Dehradun30Jodhpur26Jabalpur22Panaji20Varanasi11

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)53Section 14737Penalty26Addition to Income25Section 14820Section 14417Section 25014Section 143(3)13Section 27410

M/S RAMESHTH CONSTRUCTION ,JHANSI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(3)(1) , JHANSI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 90/AGR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra12 Feb 2025AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

3) of the Act at total income Rs 4751370/- on 31-\n12-2012. The case of assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act and\nnotice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 31-10-2014 and properly\nserved to the assessee. The A.O has completed the assessment on 28-\n04-2015 after making the addition

TAHIR KHAN,JHANSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 468/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra

Showing 1–20 of 31 · Page 1 of 2

Natural Justice9
Section 153C8
Cash Deposit7
15 Jan 2026
AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292BSection 56(2)(vii)

3. BECAUSE, Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that non-striking of the irrelevant limb in the notice under section 274 reflects non- application of mind by the AO, rendering the entire penalty proceedings void as held in various judicial pronouncements. 4. BECAUSE, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in holding that section 292B cured the defect

MR .AKSHAT DONERIA ,NOIDA vs. ITO 4(1) , AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 141/AGR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra25 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Sahgel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 273BSection 274

penalty of Rs. 10,000/- u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act. 3. The brief facts of the case are that during the assessment proceedings on the notices issued under section

YASH KUMAR GOYAL,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT 2(1), GWALIOR, GWALIOR

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

ITA 519/AGR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 50C

10. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC Dt: 17/09/2025 & corresponding penalty order U/s 271(1)(c) dated 14/06/2019 & relevant quantum order U/s 153C / 143(3) dated 28/12/2018 are without jurisdiction. The penalty order as well as the quantum order are passed by the assessing officer who does not hold the valid charge to assessee the cases selected

YASH KUMAR GOYAL,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT 2(1), GWALIOR, GWALIOR

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

ITA 518/AGR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 50C

10. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC Dt: 17/09/2025 & corresponding penalty order U/s 271(1)(c) dated 14/06/2019 & relevant quantum order U/s 153C / 143(3) dated 28/12/2018 are without jurisdiction. The penalty order as well as the quantum order are passed by the assessing officer who does not hold the valid charge to assessee the cases selected

VECTUS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8/AGR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra06 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed. Since the relief is granted based on Ground No. 4 itself, there is no need to separately adjudicate the other grounds raised by the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 7/Ag/2023 – Asst Year

VECTUS INDUSTRIES LTD.,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6/AGR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra06 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed. Since the relief is granted based on Ground No. 4 itself, there is no need to separately adjudicate the other grounds raised by the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 7/Ag/2023 – Asst Year

VECTUS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1) , GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7/AGR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra06 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed. Since the relief is granted based on Ground No. 4 itself, there is no need to separately adjudicate the other grounds raised by the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 7/Ag/2023 – Asst Year

CHANDRAPAL SINGH,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER SHIVPURI, SHIPURI

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

ITA 115/AGR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra21 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 69

10. Learned Sr. DR fairly submitted that the matter can go back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication. 11. I have considered rival contentions and perused the material on record. I have observed that the assessee filed its return of income on 31.03.2017 ,declaring total income of Rs.5,11,380/-. Addition of Rs.32

CHANDRAPAL SINGH,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFICER SHIVPURI, SHIVPURI

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

ITA 114/AGR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra21 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 69

10. Learned Sr. DR fairly submitted that the matter can go back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication. 11. I have considered rival contentions and perused the material on record. I have observed that the assessee filed its return of income on 31.03.2017 ,declaring total income of Rs.5,11,380/-. Addition of Rs.32

CHANDRAPAL SINGH,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER SHIVPURI, GWALIOR

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

ITA 113/AGR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra21 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 69

10. Learned Sr. DR fairly submitted that the matter can go back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication. 11. I have considered rival contentions and perused the material on record. I have observed that the assessee filed its return of income on 31.03.2017 ,declaring total income of Rs.5,11,380/-. Addition of Rs.32

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

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

PREM LATA VERMA ,ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(1)(1), ALIGARH, ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 441/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 10(1)Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and by charging the interest u/s 234B of the Act. Ground No. 6: That the appellant reserves the right to add, modify, alter, amend or delete any of the grounds.” ADDITIONAL GROUND: "7. That the assessment order concluded 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act is bad in the eyes

SARIF,JALESAR ETAH vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(1) , ETAH

In the result, both the appeals ITA Nos

ITA 464/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

3 | P a g e ITA No.463 & 464/Agr/2025 and closed down his business in the year 2019. Assessee did not employ any person for looking after his affairs. This caused the delay in filing this appeal. Delay condonation application is supported with assessee’s uncontroverted affidavit. The cause for the delay seems to be sufficient and the delay

SARIF,JALESAR, ETAH vs. ASSESSIN OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(1), DINESH NAGAR ETAH

In the result, both the appeals ITA Nos

ITA 463/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

3 | P a g e ITA No.463 & 464/Agr/2025 and closed down his business in the year 2019. Assessee did not employ any person for looking after his affairs. This caused the delay in filing this appeal. Delay condonation application is supported with assessee’s uncontroverted affidavit. The cause for the delay seems to be sufficient and the delay

M/S MODERN AGENCIES,,JHANSI vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(3)(1), JHANSI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 236/AGR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra06 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Shailener Shrivastava, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). 2. Hear both the parties at length. Case file perused. 3. It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have held the assessee to have furnished it’s inaccurate particulars of income to levy section 271

ARUM KUMAR SHARMA,FIROZABAD vs. INOCME TAX OFFICER, FIROZABAD

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

ITA 408/AGR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra07 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri Rajemndra Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shailenddra Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) dated 26.04.2018 by the Assessing Officer, ITO, Ward-2(2)(1), Firozabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). Since these are quantum and penalty appeals for the same assessment year, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. The only effective issue to be decided

POONAM GUPTA,GWALIOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), GWALIOR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 215/AGR/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Apr 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: :Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2006-07

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

3. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the burden casted on the Assessee under Section 68 of the Act with respect to the amount received from the share broker M/s Deepak Securities has not been duly discharged by the Appellant? List the case for final hearing.” 4. Learned counsel for the assessee contended that the appeal

NEETA AGARWAL,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 2(1)(2), AGRA, AGRA

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

ITA 213/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing) Neeta Agarwal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, E-23, New Agra, Agra Ward-2(1)(2), Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaxpa0936E Assessee By : Shri Amit Goyal, Adv Shri Nitin Goyal, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goyal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 234BSection 271(1)Section 68Section 69C

3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 95,20,372 under section 68 of the Act, 1961 whereas in the appellant case section 68 was not applicable. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances

WASIM KHAN,SHIVPURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SHIVPURI

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

ITA 39/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra02 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

3. Brief facts of the case: In this case, the Assessing Officer has levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.42,09,426/- in respect of cash deposit in bank account amounting to Rs.1,21,92,400/- and credits to the tune of Rs.1,91,908/- in the said bank account. The penalty order was passed