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.

111 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 3clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi5,463Mumbai4,765Ahmedabad1,283Kolkata1,132Jaipur948Bangalore856Pune852Chennai672Indore618Surat536Hyderabad484Chandigarh408Rajkot261Amritsar239Raipur237Cochin180Lucknow174Visakhapatnam172Karnataka161Nagpur143Cuttack139Agra111Allahabad97Patna95Ranchi90Dehradun83Guwahati80Jabalpur66Jodhpur51Panaji44Calcutta39Varanasi21Kerala18SC13Telangana9Rajasthan4Punjab & Haryana2Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)119Addition to Income74Section 14771Penalty70Section 14850Section 27135Section 153A32Section 143(3)30Section 271(1)(b)

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

3 ITAT, Agra Bench. On this ground also the penalty confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) is wrong and bad in law. 5. Because the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer is after applying Explanation 1 to section 271(l)(c). Ld. CIT(A) has legally erred in confirming the penalty ignoring the fact that the Assessing Officer has not specifically

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 111 · Page 1 of 6

28
Section 6824
Disallowance21
Cash Deposit19
ITA 378/AGR/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Agra09 Mar 2018AY 2008-09
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 44A

3 Income Tax Act, which form the basis for the levy of penalty. It is a question of law which goes to the root of the matter hence, admitted and adjudicated at first. 4. The issue of validity of notice under Section 274,for the penalty levied u/s 271

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

3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has contended that the penalty order dated 25.02.2011, as sustained by the ld. CIT(A), is void ab initio, as the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act, on 11.08.2010 is not in confirmity with the law. 4. As per the ld. DR, however, the notice is entirely

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

3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has contended that the penalty order dated 25.02.2011, as sustained by the ld. CIT(A), is void ab initio, as the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act, on 11.08.2010 was not in conformity with the law. His arguments in this regard shall be presently discussed

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)

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

BLM HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED ,FARRUKHABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE 4(2)(1), FARRUKHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 20/AGR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra05 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri Swaran Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Shrivastava, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 271(1)(c). Therefore it is held that penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs.11,32,386/- qua revised MAT Credit be hereby deleted ." 5. Respectfully following the same, we hold that the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the inadvertent claim of MAT credit is hereby deleted. Accordingly

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

3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that the ld. AR placed on record the show cause notice issued for penalty u/s 274 read with section 271

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

3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that the ld. AR placed on record the show cause notice issued for penalty u/s 274 read with section 271

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

3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that the ld. AR placed on record the show cause notice issued for penalty u/s 274 read with section 271

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

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 U/s 153A & 153C. 11. That the penalty is otherwise excessive, arbitrary, and deserves to be deleted

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

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 U/s 153A & 153C. 11. That the penalty is otherwise excessive, arbitrary, and deserves to be deleted

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

NALANDA BUILDERS &DVELOPERS I P LTD,AGRA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 142/AGR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

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

Section 1Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 2Section 271Section 271ASection 68

penalty has been imposed on undisclosed amount which represents the undisclosed income on which addition has been made in the assessment u/s 153A/143(3). Here, it is relevant to reproduce sub section 1(b) of section 271

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

MR. PRAMOD KUMAR KHANDELWAL,AGRA vs. DY.C.I.T.-1, AGRA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed in the terms indicated

ITA 201/AGR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra12 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 145Section 271(1)Section 44A

penalty proceedings U/S 271(1) (c) of I.T. Act, 1961. 7. That the appellate order dated 17tri March, 2016 passed by the learned CIT (A) -I, Agra is against the law and facts of the assessee's case. The appellant also seeks permission to modify and/or adduce any other ground/grounds of appeal as the circumstances of the case might require

MR. PRAMOD KUMAR KHANDELWAL,AGRA vs. DY.C.I.T.-1, AGRA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed in the terms indicated

ITA 200/AGR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra12 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 145Section 271(1)Section 44A

penalty proceedings U/S 271(1) (c) of I.T. Act, 1961. 7. That the appellate order dated 17tri March, 2016 passed by the learned CIT (A) -I, Agra is against the law and facts of the assessee's case. The appellant also seeks permission to modify and/or adduce any other ground/grounds of appeal as the circumstances of the case might require

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

SHIVA PRESERVATION PRIVATE LIMITED,ETAWAH vs. ITO, WARD 2(2)(5), ETAWAH

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 318/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Shiva Preservation Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, Kaist, Jawantnagar, Etawah, Ward-2(2)(5), Uttar Pradesh -206245 Etawah (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaecs3418D Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Malhotra, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement /11/2025

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Malhotra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 274Section 68

u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) dated 31.12.2016 by the Assessing Officer, Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(5), Etawah (hereinafter referred to as „ld. AO‟). 2. At the outset, I find that there is a delay in filing of appeal by the Assessee before this Tribunal by 975 days. Considering

A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR vs. M/S VANDANA JAIN & RAMA BANSAL, MORENA

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

ITA 169/AGR/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Aug 2019AY 2005-06

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

Section 10(38)Section 153A

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)© of the I.T. Act, 1961 are initiated for filing inaccurate particulars of income.” 10. The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 10.02.2014 has allowed the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 124/Agr/2014 and have deleted the addition in respect of ground no.1, the paragraphs

A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR vs. M/S SUNIL KUMAR MITTAL & MAMTA MITTAL, MORENA

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

ITA 128/AGR/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Aug 2019AY 2005-06

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

Section 10(38)Section 153A

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)© of the I.T. Act, 1961 are initiated for filing inaccurate particulars of income.” 10. The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 10.02.2014 has allowed the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 124/Agr/2014 and have deleted the addition in respect of ground no.1, the paragraphs