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.

43 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 8clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,792Mumbai1,483Ahmedabad465Jaipur456Chennai315Hyderabad297Surat279Bangalore275Indore274Kolkata261Pune257Raipur181Chandigarh175Rajkot161Amritsar116Nagpur93Visakhapatnam79Cochin78Lucknow71Patna65Allahabad63Guwahati56Ranchi46Agra43Cuttack41Dehradun38Jodhpur29Jabalpur27Panaji20Varanasi12

Key Topics

Section 14753Section 271(1)(c)50Penalty32Addition to Income31Section 14827Section 50C20Section 14416Section 25015Section 143(3)15

M/S KUNJ POWER PROJECTS PVT.LTD,MATHURA vs. ADDL.CIT(TDS) , KANPUR, KANPUR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 152/AGR/2022[2024-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Apr 2025AY 2024-15
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250(6)Section 271CSection 271C(1)(a)Section 276C

8 as under :\n\"The appellant Kunj Power Projects Pvt. Ltd. was liable to deduct\ntax at source and to deposit the amount of tax so deducted to the credit\nof Central Government as per provisions of chapter XVII of Income Tax\nAct, 1961. In the instant case the appellant deducted tax at source\namounting

TAHIR KHAN,JHANSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Showing 1–20 of 43 · Page 1 of 3

Cash Deposit14
Section 56(2)(vii)13
Natural Justice11
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)

8. We have gone through the penalty notice dated 24.11.2016 issued u/s. 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Act, as placed

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 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 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

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) are invalid and unsustainable in law as the Assessing Officer failed to specify in the notice under Section 274 whether the penalty was for "concealment of income" or "furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income," thereby violating principles laid down in various judicial precedents of hon'ble court. 5. That the penalty is not leviable as the alleged

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) are invalid and unsustainable in law as the Assessing Officer failed to specify in the notice under Section 274 whether the penalty was for "concealment of income" or "furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income," thereby violating principles laid down in various judicial precedents of hon'ble court. 5. That the penalty is not leviable as the alleged

K P ENTERPRISES,ETAWAH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , FIROZABAD

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

ITA 341/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Malhotra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) the Act. In the penalty order, the AO observed that the assessee firm was in the business of civil contracts and working for Government department during the period relevant to the AY 2014-15 and it filed its return of income on 26.11.2014 for the year under consideration declaring total income at Rs.41,98,630/-. Subsequently

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

8. According to Form No. 35 available on record, assessee filed first appeal on 27.02.2024 against the assessment order dated 22.05.2023 beyond the period of limitation along with the prayer to condone the delay caused in filing the first appeal on the ground that the assessment order dated 22.05.2023 came to the knowledge of the assessee only when he received

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

8. According to Form No. 35 available on record, assessee filed first appeal on 27.02.2024 against the assessment order dated 22.05.2023 beyond the period of limitation along with the prayer to condone the delay caused in filing the first appeal on the ground that the assessment order dated 22.05.2023 came to the knowledge of the assessee only when he received

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

8. Aggrieved, the assessee filed first appeal with ld. CIT(A), and the ld. CIT(Appeals) issued as many as five notices to the assessee in the course of appellate proceedings. Except on one occasion, there was no response by the assessee. On 25.02.2021 when the assessee responded to ld. CIT(A) notice, the assessee sought adjournment. Ld. CIT(Appeals

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

8. Aggrieved, the assessee filed first appeal with ld. CIT(A), and the ld. CIT(Appeals) issued as many as five notices to the assessee in the course of appellate proceedings. Except on one occasion, there was no response by the assessee. On 25.02.2021 when the assessee responded to ld. CIT(A) notice, the assessee sought adjournment. Ld. CIT(Appeals

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

8. Aggrieved, the assessee filed first appeal with ld. CIT(A), and the ld. CIT(Appeals) issued as many as five notices to the assessee in the course of appellate proceedings. Except on one occasion, there was no response by the assessee. On 25.02.2021 when the assessee responded to ld. CIT(A) notice, the assessee sought adjournment. Ld. CIT(Appeals

JAGGO,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(3)(1), MATHURA

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 555/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2015-16 Jaggo Vs. Income Tax Officer S/O Sh. Indar H. No. 6, Azampur Ward 1(3)(1), Mathura Mathura, Mathura Pan : Ayopj8958J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Anurag Sinha, Adv. Department By Sh. Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order Per : S. Rifaur Rahman: The Assessee Has Preferred This Appeal Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 17.11.2025 U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” For Short) For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Aggrieved With The Above Order, Assessee Is In This Appeal, Raising Following Grounds : “1. Because In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Learned Cit (Appeals) Has Erred In Not Deleting The Penalty Of Rs. 10,000/- Imposed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(B) Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, The Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee Calling For Information/Explanation Along With The Documents During The Assessment Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Act. The Above Notice Was Issued Through Registered E-Mail Id & Fixed For Compliance On 26.02.2021, After Laps Of Considerable Time, The Assessing Officer Issued The Another Notice U/S 274 To The Assessee R.W.S 271(1)B) Of The Act Why Penalty U/S 271 Of The Act Should Not Be Initiated & Levied. In Compliance, The Assessee Not Submitted Any Reply. Accordingly, Assessing Officer Levied The Penalty Of Rs. 10,000/-.

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are, the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee calling for information/explanation along with the documents during the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act. The above notice was issued through registered e-mail id and fixed for compliance

WASIM KHAN,SHIVPURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SHIVPURI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 39/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra02 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) without affording the appellant an adequate opportunity to present its case, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Also during the appeal proceedings only one Notice of 7 days' time limit was served on 06-11-2024 on Mail id of the assessee and no physical copy of the Notice was served

BHAGVAN DAS L/H SHRI GAURI SHANKER,FIROZABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(2)1, FIROZABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 260/AGR/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013

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

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 54B

penalty order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is consequential to the assessment order, both these appeals are being disposed of by the consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. The facts of ITA No. 260/Agr/2025 only are being narrated as under : 3. At the very outset, it is noted that both these appeals were filed

BHAGVAN DAS L/H SHRI GAURI SHANKER,FIROZABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(2)(1), FIROZABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 259/AGR/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013

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

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 54B

penalty order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is consequential to the assessment order, both these appeals are being disposed of by the consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. The facts of ITA No. 260/Agr/2025 only are being narrated as under : 3. At the very outset, it is noted that both these appeals were filed

MR.SHAILENDRA KUMAR ,AGRA vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(2), AGRA

In the result, both the appeals ITA No

ITA 229/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

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

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of the Act is consequential to the assessment order, both these appeals are being disposed of by the consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. The facts of ITA No. 228/Agr/2025 only are being narrated as under. ITA No. 228/Agr/2025: 3. Briefly stating, the facts are that the assessee e-filed his return of income

MR.SHAILENDRA KUMAR,AGRA vs. ITO,WARD 1(1)(2), AGRA

In the result, both the appeals ITA No

ITA 228/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

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

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of the Act is consequential to the assessment order, both these appeals are being disposed of by the consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. The facts of ITA No. 228/Agr/2025 only are being narrated as under. ITA No. 228/Agr/2025: 3. Briefly stating, the facts are that the assessee e-filed his return of income

NEERAJ KUMAR,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1)(3), AGRA, AGRA

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

ITA 538/AGR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshneeraj Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 18/24, Ghadi Hussaini Ward-2(1)(3), Prakash Nagar, Agra Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ajwpn8393C Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Garg, Adv Shri Pradumn Garg, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2026

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 44ASection 69A

penalty under section 271(1)(b). Neeraj Kumar 2. Because the learned CIT(A) orders dated 25/08/2025 and 24/09/2025 under section 154 failed to rectify clear mistakes, ignored jurisdictional defects, and were passed without proper application of mind. 3. Because the notice issued under section 148 was never validly served on the appellant, as the address used by the Department