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.

42 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 34clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,556Mumbai1,407Ahmedabad404Jaipur345Bangalore230Indore202Kolkata193Pune170Surat167Hyderabad164Chennai156Raipur135Karnataka126Chandigarh110Rajkot85Amritsar63Lucknow61Allahabad46Cochin45Agra42Visakhapatnam40Nagpur40Calcutta35Cuttack26Panaji21Guwahati20Jodhpur15Kerala15Dehradun14SC9Patna9Varanasi9Jabalpur9Ranchi7Telangana5Rajasthan4

Key Topics

Section 14739Section 14834Addition to Income32Section 271(1)(c)25Penalty24Section 50C22Section 10(38)20Section 69A16Reassessment15

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

34. 359 ITR 565 (Kar). “Notice under section 274 should specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. Sending printed form, where all the grounds mentioned in section 271 are mentioned, would not satisfy requirement of law. 35. It has further been

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

Showing 1–20 of 42 · Page 1 of 3

Section 153A14
Section 56(2)(vii)14
Disallowance14

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

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

34. 5020/2009 (SC). In “CIT vs. SSA Emerrald Meadows”, in ITA No. 380/2015 35. (Kar) has held that:“It is to be kept in mind that section 271(1)(c) is a penal provision and such a provision has to be strictly constructed. I.T.A No. 378/Agra/2014 17 Unless the case falls within the four corners of the said provision, penalty

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

34. “Notice under section 274 should specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. Sending printed form, where all the grounds mentioned in section 271 are mentioned, would not satisfy requirement of law. 35. It has further been held that the assessee

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

34. 5020/2009 (SC). In “CIT vs. SSA Emerrald Meadows”, in ITA No. 380/2015 35. (Kar) has held that: “It is to be kept in mind that section 271(1)(c) is a penal provision and such a provision has to be strictly constructed. Unless the case falls within the four corners of the said provision, penalty cannot be imposed.” (Para

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

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

A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR vs. M/S RAKESH SHIVHARE & NISHA MITTAL, MORENA

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

ITA 117/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 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 SHYAM SUNDER & MANISH TAORI, MORENA

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

ITA 124/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,, AGRA vs. M/S SAKSHI TAIRI & CHHAYA BATTAD, MORENA

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

ITA 170/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

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

section 56 of the Income Tax Act, hence AO is correct in law in treating it as "Income from other sources." This ground of the assessee is therefore dismissed. 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued before us at length with the support of detailed paper book and synopsis which are placed on record. He submitted that the judgement relied

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

section 56 of the Income Tax Act, hence AO is correct in law in treating it as "Income from other sources." This ground of the assessee is therefore dismissed. 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued before us at length with the support of detailed paper book and synopsis which are placed on record. He submitted that the judgement relied

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 388/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri Anurag Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

34,280/-. The information flagged by the ld DDIT/ ADIT(Investigation), Jhansi as per risk profiling on Insight Portal on 10.03.2021 stated that source of cash/ credit entries in the bank account of the assessee are not explained to the extent of Rs. 28,20,500/-. Accordingly, the ld Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) after recording reasons initiated proceedings u/s

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 391/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh**

For Appellant: Shri Anurag Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

34,280/-. The information flagged by the ld DDIT/ ADIT(Investigation), Jhansi as per risk profiling on Insight Portal on 10.03.2021 stated that source of cash/ credit entries in the bank account of the assessee are not explained to the extent of Rs. 28,20,500/-. Accordingly, the ld Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) after recording reasons initiated proceedings u/s

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 390/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh**

For Appellant: Shri Anurag Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

34,280/-. The information flagged by the ld DDIT/ ADIT(Investigation), Jhansi as per risk profiling on Insight Portal on 10.03.2021 stated that source of cash/ credit entries in the bank account of the assessee are not explained to the extent of Rs. 28,20,500/-. Accordingly, the ld Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) after recording reasons initiated proceedings u/s

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 389/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh**

For Appellant: Shri Anurag Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

34,280/-. The information flagged by the ld DDIT/ ADIT(Investigation), Jhansi as per risk profiling on Insight Portal on 10.03.2021 stated that source of cash/ credit entries in the bank account of the assessee are not explained to the extent of Rs. 28,20,500/-. Accordingly, the ld Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) after recording reasons initiated proceedings u/s

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 367/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri Anurag Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

34,280/-. The information flagged by the ld DDIT/ ADIT(Investigation), Jhansi as per risk profiling on Insight Portal on 10.03.2021 stated that source of cash/ credit entries in the bank account of the assessee are not explained to the extent of Rs. 28,20,500/-. Accordingly, the ld Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) after recording reasons initiated proceedings u/s

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 368/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri Anurag Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

34,280/-. The information flagged by the ld DDIT/ ADIT(Investigation), Jhansi as per risk profiling on Insight Portal on 10.03.2021 stated that source of cash/ credit entries in the bank account of the assessee are not explained to the extent of Rs. 28,20,500/-. Accordingly, the ld Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) after recording reasons initiated proceedings u/s

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 369/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh**

For Appellant: Shri Anurag Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

34,280/-. The information flagged by the ld DDIT/ ADIT(Investigation), Jhansi as per risk profiling on Insight Portal on 10.03.2021 stated that source of cash/ credit entries in the bank account of the assessee are not explained to the extent of Rs. 28,20,500/-. Accordingly, the ld Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) after recording reasons initiated proceedings u/s

LAKSHYA ICE & COLD STORAGE P LTD,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD 1(5), ALIGARH

In the result, by the assessee is allowed

ITA 124/AGR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenam/S Lakshya Ice & Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. Vs.. Income Tax Officer, Goyal Bhawan, Opp. Maheshwari Inter Ward 1(5), Aligarh College, Sasni Gate, Bye Pass Road, Aligarh (Pan: Aabcl5656R) (Respondent) (Appellant)

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep K. Sahgal, Adv. & Sh. Utsav Sahgal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

penalty proceedings U/S 271(1)(c) of the Act. That the appellate order dated 30th October, 2017 is arbitrary, capricious and 9. against natural justice and thus deserves to be quashed/annulled. The appellant seeks permission to modify and/or prefer any other ground of appeal as the circumstances of the case might require or justify.” 2. Apropos, ground nos.1