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.

25 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 158clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi754Mumbai657Ahmedabad179Jaipur141Karnataka104Pune94Chennai78Bangalore65Indore61Kolkata61Surat54Raipur47Chandigarh37Hyderabad36Lucknow30Amritsar29Agra25Allahabad24Cochin21Cuttack18Ranchi13Nagpur13Rajkot10Dehradun8Jodhpur7Patna6Jabalpur4Panaji4Visakhapatnam3Rajasthan2Guwahati2SC1Calcutta1Telangana1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)26Section 10(38)20Addition to Income19Section 153A17Section 27415Section 153D12Penalty10Section 2718Section 271(1)7

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 25 · Page 1 of 2

Section 142(1)6
Unexplained Investment6
Limitation/Time-bar6
ITA 378/AGR/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Agra09 Mar 2018AY 2008-09
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 44A

158 38. (SC). “8. ……….. It was only on the point of mens rea that the judgment in ‘Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint CIT’ was upset. In Union of India v. ‘Dharmendra Textile Processors’ after quoting from section 271 extensively and also considering section 271(1) (c), the Court came to the conclusion that since section 271(1) (c) indicated

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

158 (SC), the 39. Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified as follows: “…..It was only on the point of mens rea that the judgment in ‘Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint CIT’ was upset. In Union of India v. ‘Dharmendra Textile Processors’ after quoting from section 271 extensively and also considering section 271(1) (c), the Court came to the conclusion

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

158 38. (SC). “8. ……….. It was only on the point of mens rea that the judgment in ‘Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint CIT’ was upset. In Union of India v. ‘Dharmendra Textile Processors’ after quoting from section 271 extensively and also considering section 271(1) (c), the Court came to the conclusion that since section 271(1) (c) indicated

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 Agra15 Jan 2026AY 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)

158/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, ignoring the settled position of law that penalty proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature and cannot be sustained merely on the basis of additions or disallowances made in the assessment order. 6. BECAUSE, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the major addition of Rs.97,31,000/- made under

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 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

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

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(l)(c) where the addition was also sustained by the Hon'ble ITAT by applying the net profit rate of 3%. The penalty so imposed was cancelled by the CIT (Appeals) and the order of CIT (Appeals) cancelling the penalty was sustained by ITAT, Agra Bench. In Assessment Year 2009-10, in the present year, the penalty

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)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 2. The ld. Counsel states as at the bar that ground no. 3 is not pressed. Rejected as not pressed. 3. Regarding ground nos. 1 and 2, the facts are that the AO rejected the assessee’s claim of exemption u/s 10(23C) of the Act, at the time of filing of return

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

158 taxmann.com 485(Bom.). Thus, the learned counsels for the assessee prayed for condonation of delay in filing this appeal belatedly with ITAT, Agra Bench, Agra. 5. Learned Sr. DR, on the other hand, left the matter to the discretion of theBench ,so far as condonation of delay is concerned. 6. After hearing both the parties

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

158 taxmann.com 485(Bom.). Thus, the learned counsels for the assessee prayed for condonation of delay in filing this appeal belatedly with ITAT, Agra Bench, Agra. 5. Learned Sr. DR, on the other hand, left the matter to the discretion of theBench ,so far as condonation of delay is concerned. 6. After hearing both the parties

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

158 taxmann.com 485(Bom.). Thus, the learned counsels for the assessee prayed for condonation of delay in filing this appeal belatedly with ITAT, Agra Bench, Agra. 5. Learned Sr. DR, on the other hand, left the matter to the discretion of theBench ,so far as condonation of delay is concerned. 6. After hearing both the parties

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

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

penalty was held as procedurally defective. The provisions laid down u/s. 153D of the Act under consideration in the present case before us, are different as here the prior approval of Joint Commissioner is not required merely for direction for payment of the due amount of tax but overall approval of the assessment framed by the I.T.O. Thus, the cited

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

penalty was held as procedurally defective. The provisions laid down u/s. 153D of the Act under consideration in the present case before us, are different as here the prior approval of Joint Commissioner is not required merely for direction for payment of the due amount of tax but overall approval of the assessment framed by the I.T.O. Thus, the cited

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

penalty was held as procedurally defective. The provisions laid down u/s. 153D of the Act under consideration in the present case before us, are different as here the prior approval of Joint Commissioner is not required merely for direction for payment of the due amount of tax but overall approval of the assessment framed by the I.T.O. Thus, the cited

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

penalty was held as procedurally defective. The provisions laid down u/s. 153D of the Act under consideration in the present case before us, are different as here the prior approval of Joint Commissioner is not required merely for direction for payment of the due amount of tax but overall approval of the assessment framed by the I.T.O. Thus, the cited

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

penalty was held as procedurally defective. The provisions laid down u/s. 153D of the Act under consideration in the present case before us, are different as here the prior approval of Joint Commissioner is not required merely for direction for payment of the due amount of tax but overall approval of the assessment framed by the I.T.O. Thus, the cited

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

penalty was held as procedurally defective. The provisions laid down u/s. 153D of the Act under consideration in the present case before us, are different as here the prior approval of Joint Commissioner is not required merely for direction for payment of the due amount of tax but overall approval of the assessment framed by the I.T.O. Thus, the cited