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.

6 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 27clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai757Delhi733Jaipur233Ahmedabad201Hyderabad165Bangalore155Chennai153Raipur125Kolkata123Pune101Chandigarh88Indore87Rajkot58Surat51Amritsar48Allahabad46Visakhapatnam29Lucknow28Nagpur21Panaji13Dehradun11Patna11Cuttack9Guwahati9Ranchi7Agra6Jabalpur6Cochin6Jodhpur4Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)8Penalty6Section 1485Section 685Section 271(1)4Section 10(38)4Section 2743Section 1593Natural Justice3

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 274 read with section 271(1)(c ) of the Act dated 30.12.2018 wherein it is very clear that the ld. AO had not specifically mentioned the offence committed by the assessee by striking off the irrelevant portion i.e. whether the assessee had concealed his particulars of income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Now the short question that

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

Section 2502
Unexplained Cash Credit2
Addition to Income2

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 274 read with section 271(1)(c ) of the Act dated 30.12.2018 wherein it is very clear that the ld. AO had not specifically mentioned the offence committed by the assessee by striking off the irrelevant portion i.e. whether the assessee had concealed his particulars of income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Now the short question that

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 274 read with section 271(1)(c ) of the Act dated 30.12.2018 wherein it is very clear that the ld. AO had not specifically mentioned the offence committed by the assessee by striking off the irrelevant portion i.e. whether the assessee had concealed his particulars of income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Now the short question that

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

LATE MOHMAD SHAHID TH. L/H. SHAHINA SHAHID,ALIGARH vs. ITO.WARD-1(2), , ALIGARH

Appeal stand dismissed in above terms

ITA 15/AGR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.15/Agr/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.16/Agr/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14; Smc Bench) Late Mohmad Shahid Ito, Ward-1(2) बनाम/ (Through L/H Shahina Shahid) Aligarh 2, Court Of Wards Compound, Aligarh Vs. Up – 202 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aenps-9627-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Deepak Singh (Advocate)-Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Singh (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 159Section 2(29)Section 271(1)(c)

27- 12-2021 / 22-12-2021 confirming Ld. AO’s assessment order dated 26-12-2016 as well as penalty u/s 271(1)(c) order dated 07-06-2017. 2. It emerges during the course of hearing that the appellant Smt. Shahina Shahid has claimed herself to be the legal representative of the deceased Late Shri Mohmad Shahid

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

section 234B and 234C of Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. 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 action of the learned AO regarding initiation of provision of penalty u/s 271(1) of I.T.Act, 1961 in the appellant case. 8. That