BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI 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.

51 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 11(1)(d)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,925Delhi2,613Ahmedabad783Bangalore721Jaipur682Kolkata636Chennai492Indore464Pune381Hyderabad338Surat337Raipur162Karnataka147Lucknow137Visakhapatnam131Rajkot125Cochin125Chandigarh122Cuttack120Nagpur103Allahabad68Amritsar64Ranchi60Agra51Calcutta35Guwahati31Dehradun30Panaji28Jabalpur22Jodhpur21Patna19Kerala14SC13Varanasi11Telangana6Rajasthan4

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)53Addition to Income43Penalty30Section 153A26Section 10(38)20Section 14816Section 27116Section 143(1)16Cash Deposit16

SMT. SARLA DEVI,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD 1(1), ALIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 70/AGR/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69Section 69C

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, 1961 and I therefore, I.T.A No. 70/Agra/2017 7 hold him – sic her – liable for penalty u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act accordingly’. In the impugned order, the levy of penalty has been confirmed by holding (impugned order, page 18) as follows: “On the basis of all the above case laws, which include

MS/ BHOLE BABA MILK FOOD INDUSTRIES,AGRA vs. THE A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-4(1), AGRA

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

Showing 1–20 of 51 · Page 1 of 3

Section 14714
Section 27414
Disallowance11
ITA 378/AGR/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Agra09 Mar 2018AY 2008-09
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 44A

u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 - A.Y. 2008 -09 – Reg:- Whereas in the course of the proceedings before me for the assessment year 2008-09 it appears to me that you;- ** have concealed the particulars of your income or have furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. You are hereby requested to appear before

SH. SACHIN ARORA,MATHURA vs. I.T.O.-3(4), MATHURA

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

ITA 118/AGR/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 - A.Y. 2008 -09 – Reg:- Whereas in the course of the proceedings before me for the assessment year 2008-09 it appears to me that you;- ** have concealed the particulars of your income or have furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. You are hereby requested to appear before

ZILA SAHKARI BANK LTD,JHANSI vs. DCIT -2(3)(1), JHANSI

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

ITA 193/AGR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra07 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 44A

u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 - A.Y. 2008 -09 – Reg:- Whereas in the course of the proceedings before me for the assessment year 2008-09 it appears to me that you;- ** have concealed the particulars of your income or have furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. You are hereby requested to appear before

SH. GIRRAJ KISHORE AGARWAL, HUF,AGRA vs. DY.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, AGRA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2/AGR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr. D.R
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c). It is Said down that imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) is a civil liability and the burden of proof that there is no guilty mind is on the assessee. It is specifically stated that when the explanation offered is found to be false or when the assessee fails to provs. that the explanation

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

D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA Nos. 06, 07 & 08/AGR/2023 for AYs 2012-13, 2017- 18 & 2018-19, arises out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as „ld. NFAC‟, in short] dated 22.11.2022 against the order of assessment passed u/s 271(1

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

D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA Nos. 06, 07 & 08/AGR/2023 for AYs 2012-13, 2017- 18 & 2018-19, arises out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as „ld. NFAC‟, in short] dated 22.11.2022 against the order of assessment passed u/s 271(1

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

D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA Nos. 06, 07 & 08/AGR/2023 for AYs 2012-13, 2017- 18 & 2018-19, arises out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as „ld. NFAC‟, in short] dated 22.11.2022 against the order of assessment passed u/s 271(1

DIXIT RICE MILL ,AURAIYA vs. DCIT, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed for statistical

ITA 373/AGR/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra10 Jan 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 143(1)Section 246Section 246ASection 36

u/s 143(1) being bad in law is liable to be quashed. 4. Because in any view of the matter, no opportunity was provided to the assessee, by the CPC, before making such disallowance and therefore the disallowance being made is against the principle of natural justice and bad in law and hence liable to be deleted. 5. Because

SMT. ASHA RANI GUPTA,AGRA vs. DY. C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, AGRA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 223/AGR/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Gargh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, as its equivalent, ‘concealment of income’, and ‘suggestio falsi’, literally, ‘suggesting or stating a falsehood’, which manifests itself as ‘furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof’, are two distinctly separate charges; that leveling of either of these charges has to be explicitly brought to the notice/knowledge of the assessee, sans which, the assessee, under

M/S NARESH KATARE, CONTRACTOR,GWALIOR vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-3, GWALIOR

In the result, appeals of the assessee is allowed

ITA 53/AGR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra09 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Washim Arshad, Sr. DR
Section 145(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) can not be ruled out. III. 124 ITR 376 (Madras HC) Rathnam& co. vs. IAC. IV. 236 ITR 977 (SC) the apex court in the case of CIT vs B.A. Balasubramanian & Brothers Co. decision of hon’ble Madras High Court affirmed, cited 124 ITR 376. V. 118 Taxman 324 (SC) and 251 ITR 99 (SC) Maka

M/S MISS HILL EDUCATION SOCIETY,GWALIOR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 90/AGR/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Agra27 Sept 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

Section 10Section 10(23)(c)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A No. 90/Agra/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2003-04) M/s Miss Hill Education Society Vs..ACIT-Circle-1, Laxmi Bai Colony Padav Lashkar Gwalior. Gwalior. PAN No.AAATM8693D (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee by Shri Ajay Wadjikar, AR. Revenue by Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr.DR. Date of Hearing 31.08.2017 Date of Pronouncement 27.09.2017 ORDER This is assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year

MANAS SEWA SAMITI,ALIGARH vs. ADDL. C.I.T. RANGE-I, ALIGARH

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 361/AGR/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Agra23 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 1Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A Nos. 361 & 362/Agra/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 & 2009-10) Manas Sewa Samiti, Vs..Addl. CIT, Range-1, 63, Vishnupuri, Aligarh. Aligarh. PANNo.AABTM4363M (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee by Shri Anurag Sinha, AR. Revenue by Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing 11.09.2017 Date of Pronouncement 23.11.2017 ORDER PER, BENCH

BANCO CONSTRUCTION,BANSAL KOTHI, NEHRU COLONY THATIPUR vs. ACIT, FACELESS

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 64/AGR/2026[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra02 Apr 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhbanco Construction, Vs. Acit, Bansal Kothi, Nehru Faceless, Gwalior Colony, Thatipur, Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabfb7336D Assessee By : Shri Anurag Singh, Adv Revenue By: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18/03/2026

For Appellant: Shri Anurag singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 194ASection 271(1)(b)

D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA No. 64/AGR/2026 for AY 2014-15, arises out of the order of the ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)’, in short] dated 26.12.2025 against the order of assessment passed u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA vs. LT. SHRI MRADUL GARG, MATHURA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and those of Revenue are

ITA 272/AGR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153D

11. We have considered the above submissions and have gone through the decisions relied upon by the parties in view of orders of the authorities below and material available on record. The relevant facts are that during the course of search and seizure action on 29.7.2003 at the business and residential premises of Mr. Shriram Soni, certain documents belonging

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA vs. D.S. INDIA JEWELMART P LTD, MATHURA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and those of Revenue are

ITA 276/AGR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153D

11. We have considered the above submissions and have gone through the decisions relied upon by the parties in view of orders of the authorities below and material available on record. The relevant facts are that during the course of search and seizure action on 29.7.2003 at the business and residential premises of Mr. Shriram Soni, certain documents belonging

ASHOK KUMAR AGARWAL,MATHURA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and those of Revenue are

ITA 269/AGR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153D

11. We have considered the above submissions and have gone through the decisions relied upon by the parties in view of orders of the authorities below and material available on record. The relevant facts are that during the course of search and seizure action on 29.7.2003 at the business and residential premises of Mr. Shriram Soni, certain documents belonging

D.S. INDIA JEWELMART P LTD,MATHURA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and those of Revenue are

ITA 268/AGR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153D

11. We have considered the above submissions and have gone through the decisions relied upon by the parties in view of orders of the authorities below and material available on record. The relevant facts are that during the course of search and seizure action on 29.7.2003 at the business and residential premises of Mr. Shriram Soni, certain documents belonging

SAURABH AGARWAL,MATHURA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and those of Revenue are

ITA 263/AGR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153D

11. We have considered the above submissions and have gone through the decisions relied upon by the parties in view of orders of the authorities below and material available on record. The relevant facts are that during the course of search and seizure action on 29.7.2003 at the business and residential premises of Mr. Shriram Soni, certain documents belonging

LT. SHRI MRADUL GARG,MATHURA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and those of Revenue are

ITA 260/AGR/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153D

11. We have considered the above submissions and have gone through the decisions relied upon by the parties in view of orders of the authorities below and material available on record. The relevant facts are that during the course of search and seizure action on 29.7.2003 at the business and residential premises of Mr. Shriram Soni, certain documents belonging