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.

10 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 90clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,114Mumbai968Ahmedabad254Jaipur215Bangalore196Kolkata133Hyderabad128Chennai123Karnataka123Raipur114Indore105Pune93Chandigarh64Lucknow55Surat49Amritsar47Allahabad44Cochin41Calcutta34Visakhapatnam30Nagpur22Rajkot18Cuttack14Kerala14Patna13Agra10Dehradun9Guwahati9Jodhpur7Panaji6Ranchi6Jabalpur5Rajasthan3SC3Telangana2Varanasi1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 10(38)20Section 271(1)(c)10Addition to Income9Section 143(3)6Exemption6Section 153A5Section 695Disallowance5Penalty4

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

90,25,449/- Thereafter assessment of AY 2008-09 was framed on 02/12/2010 and AY 2009-10 on 19/09/2011 reducing brought forward MAT credit by Rs. 6,31,893/- and Rs. 4,25,299/- respectively. 9.2. In the light of the above facts the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) on excess brought forward MAT credit

Section 1543
Deduction3
Section 271(1)2

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

SH. VISHNU KANT,,AGRA vs. ITO.-2(1)(5),, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 123/AGR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra05 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 44Section 44A

penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Act' is issued and annexed here with.” 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that once the Assessing Officer has accepted the total sales made by the assessee as well as the total purchases made, as is clear from paragraph No. 2 to 4 of the assessment

SHYAM SINGH YADAV,GWALIOR vs. ITO 2(2), GWL, GWALIOR

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

ITA 340/AGR/2024[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Agra05 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Shyam Singh Yadav, Vs. Ito, Opp. Doordarshan Kendra, Ward-2(2), Thatipur Gaon, Morar, Gwalior, Mp Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abhpy8702B Assessee By : Shri S. C. Jain, Adv Revenue By: Shri Shalenndra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/02/2025

For Appellant: Shri S. C. Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shalenndra Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 24Section 69A

u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) dated 04.12.2019 by the Assessing Officer, ITO, Ward-3(2), Gwalior (hereinafter referred to as „ld. AO‟). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] erred in passing an ex parte

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

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 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

SMT. GARIMA MEHTA,GWALIOR vs. I.T.O., WARD-1(2), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 343/AGR/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra11 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 10ASection 69

90%, was, therefore, confirmed. 13. It has been contended on behalf of the assessee that the order under appeal is erroneous inasmuch as the activities in both the businesses are entirely different; that in her domestic business, the assessee was trading in software, whereas the export business was of providing software development and IT enabled services; I.T.A No. 343/Agra/2013