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.

34 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 35(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,732Mumbai1,418Ahmedabad432Jaipur381Bangalore330Kolkata219Indore200Chennai195Pune172Hyderabad158Chandigarh142Raipur139Karnataka130Surat112Rajkot75Amritsar50Lucknow48Visakhapatnam48Nagpur39Calcutta35Agra34Cuttack31Patna30Allahabad30Cochin21Guwahati17Dehradun14Kerala14Jodhpur12Ranchi11Panaji10SC9Jabalpur9Varanasi5Telangana4Rajasthan2

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)48Addition to Income27Section 27123Section 153A22Section 10(38)20Penalty18Section 27417Section 14714Section 153D12

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(l)(c). Ld. CIT(A) has legally erred in confirming the penalty ignoring the fact that the Assessing Officer has not specifically mentioned whether Explanation 1 (A) is applicable or Explanation 1(B). Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed by simply referring to Explanation 1. 6. Because even otherwise neither Explanation 1(A) is applicable

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 34 · Page 1 of 2

Section 142(1)10
Condonation of Delay9
Limitation/Time-bar9
ITA 378/AGR/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Agra09 Mar 2018AY 2008-09
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 44A

2. Facts, for convenience, are being taken from ITA No. 118/Agra/2015, the assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2008-09 against the CIT(A)’s order confirming penalty of Rs.98,000/- imposed on the assessee u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. AIR information was received in respect of the assessee, as per which, cash deposits amounting to Rs.6541003

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

2. Facts, for convenience, are being taken from ITA No. 118/Agra/2015, the assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2008-09 against the CIT(A)’s order confirming penalty of Rs.98,000/- imposed on the assessee u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. AIR information was received in respect of the assessee, as per which, cash deposits amounting to Rs.65

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

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-12). In “Dilip N. Shroff Vs. JCIT”, 291 ITR 519 (SC). Section

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

35 taxmann.com 250/218 Taxman 423/359 ITR 565 and observed that the notice issued by the AO would be bad in law if it did not specify which limb of section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated under i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Karnataka High Court

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

35 taxmann.com 250/218 Taxman 423/359 ITR 565 and observed that the notice issued by the AO would be bad in law if it did not specify which limb of section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated under i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Karnataka High Court

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

35 taxmann.com 250/218 Taxman 423/359 ITR 565 and observed that the notice issued by the AO would be bad in law if it did not specify which limb of section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated under i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Karnataka High Court

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

2 | P a g e ITA No.518 & 519/Agr/2025 9. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC Dt: 17/09/2025 & the penalty order dated 14/06/2019 is bad in law as it was passed without affording adequate opportunity of being heard, and without considering the detailed explanation and documentary evidence filed by the appellant. 10. That the order

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

2 | P a g e ITA No.518 & 519/Agr/2025 9. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC Dt: 17/09/2025 & the penalty order dated 14/06/2019 is bad in law as it was passed without affording adequate opportunity of being heard, and without considering the detailed explanation and documentary evidence filed by the appellant. 10. That the order

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

2. The ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 15.02.2017 had confirmed the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer. While confirming the penalty orders, the ld. CIT(A) in paragraph No. 4.1 had recorded his findings to the following effect : 4.1 I have carefully gone through the penalty order in the above cases. It is seen that

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

2. Apropos Ground No.3, the assessee objected the imposition of penalty as being wrong and illegal on the ground that the initiation of penalty was for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income whereas the penalty has been imposed for concealment of income. 3. The assessee e-filed on 30.09.2008, declaring total income at Rs.36,10,920/- and the same was processed

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, 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 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 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,, 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

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)

2. The Certificate so granted under section 10 (23C)(vi) exempts the assessee from Tax and since being granted with retrospective effect or with effect from the date of filing application on 29.01.2009 (A.Y.-2009-10) no penalty under section 271(l)(c) can be sustained that too for concealment of Income as initiated in the Assessment Order

SARIF,JALESAR ETAH vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(1) , ETAH

In the result, both the appeals ITA Nos

ITA 464/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

2 | P a g e ITA No.463 & 464/Agr/2025 which the assessee filed return of income, declaring the same income as declared in original return. Statutory notice u/s. 142(1) and show cause notice u/s. 144 of the Act were issued. Being not satisfied with the replies of assessee, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.1,38,99,338/- u/s

SARIF,JALESAR, ETAH vs. ASSESSIN OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(1), DINESH NAGAR ETAH

In the result, both the appeals ITA Nos

ITA 463/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

2 | P a g e ITA No.463 & 464/Agr/2025 which the assessee filed return of income, declaring the same income as declared in original return. Statutory notice u/s. 142(1) and show cause notice u/s. 144 of the Act were issued. Being not satisfied with the replies of assessee, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.1,38,99,338/- u/s

RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA,MAINPURI vs. ITO-2(5), MAINPURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed with the observation as above

ITA 289/AGR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra14 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292B

35 taxmann.com 250. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds: I.T.A No.289/Agra/2018 2 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) “1. Tha the penalty imposed and sustained by the C.I.T. (A) at Rs. 354013/- is illegal and arbitrary. 2. That the penalty imposed and sustained at Rs. 354013/- by the C.I.T. (A) on the basis of illegal notice issued u/s 271