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.

11 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 92(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi938Mumbai819Ahmedabad239Jaipur214Bangalore193Karnataka125Kolkata112Raipur99Chennai95Pune93Indore75Chandigarh58Hyderabad55Visakhapatnam38Surat35Calcutta34Amritsar34Rajkot33Nagpur29Guwahati28Lucknow25Allahabad23Cochin20Agra11Jabalpur9Patna5Cuttack5Panaji4Jodhpur3Dehradun3Varanasi3Rajasthan3Punjab & Haryana2SC2Telangana2Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)13Section 153D12Section 153A12Addition to Income10Section 142(1)6Unexplained Investment6Limitation/Time-bar6Section 684Penalty

SH. GIRRAJ KISHORE AGARWAL, HUF,AGRA vs. DY.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, AGRA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2/AGR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr. D.R
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

92 DTK 111(2013) has laid down detailed legal principles for levying of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). It is Said down that imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) is a civil liability and the burden of proof that there is no guilty mind is on the assessee. It is specifically stated that when the explanation offered

M/S VERMA SERVICE STATION,FIROZABAD vs. D.C.I.T., RANGE-5, FIROZABAD

4
Section 2503
Section 2713
Section 44A2

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 349/AGR/2018[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Agra12 Sept 2019AY 2009-2010

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

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

penalty sustained is wholly illegal. 3. Because Ld. CIT(A) having failed to adjudicate the ground of appellant claiming lack of sufficient opportunity by the Assessing Officer before passing of order u/s 271(1)(c), the order of Ld. CIT(A) suffers from fatal error in law. 4. Because the order is against the law & facts. 5. Because the appellant

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA vs. D.S. INDIA JEWELMART P LTD, MATHURA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and those of Revenue are

ITA 276/AGR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

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

Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153D

3. On the other hand, the ld. DR had submitted that the legal grounds raised by the assessee is not born out on record and the ld.DR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the matter of Ultratech Cement Ltd. (ITA No. 1060 of 2014). Further, it was submitted that the order passed u/s. 153D

LT. SHRI MRADUL GARG,MATHURA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and those of Revenue are

ITA 260/AGR/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

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

Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153D

3. On the other hand, the ld. DR had submitted that the legal grounds raised by the assessee is not born out on record and the ld.DR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the matter of Ultratech Cement Ltd. (ITA No. 1060 of 2014). Further, it was submitted that the order passed u/s. 153D

SAURABH AGARWAL,MATHURA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and those of Revenue are

ITA 263/AGR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

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

Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153D

3. On the other hand, the ld. DR had submitted that the legal grounds raised by the assessee is not born out on record and the ld.DR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the matter of Ultratech Cement Ltd. (ITA No. 1060 of 2014). Further, it was submitted that the order passed u/s. 153D

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA vs. LT. SHRI MRADUL GARG, MATHURA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and those of Revenue are

ITA 272/AGR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

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

Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153D

3. On the other hand, the ld. DR had submitted that the legal grounds raised by the assessee is not born out on record and the ld.DR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the matter of Ultratech Cement Ltd. (ITA No. 1060 of 2014). Further, it was submitted that the order passed u/s. 153D

ASHOK KUMAR AGARWAL,MATHURA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and those of Revenue are

ITA 269/AGR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

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

Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153D

3. On the other hand, the ld. DR had submitted that the legal grounds raised by the assessee is not born out on record and the ld.DR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the matter of Ultratech Cement Ltd. (ITA No. 1060 of 2014). Further, it was submitted that the order passed u/s. 153D

D.S. INDIA JEWELMART P LTD,MATHURA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and those of Revenue are

ITA 268/AGR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

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

Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153D

3. On the other hand, the ld. DR had submitted that the legal grounds raised by the assessee is not born out on record and the ld.DR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the matter of Ultratech Cement Ltd. (ITA No. 1060 of 2014). Further, it was submitted that the order passed u/s. 153D

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

92,280/- = 24,003287/- for the reasons best known to him, penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of 'the Act' are initiated to be dealt with separately. Accordingly, penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Act' is issued and annexed here with.” 3

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)

3. Brief facts of the case: In this case, the Assessing Officer has levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.42,09,426/- in respect of cash deposit in bank account amounting to Rs.1,21,92,400/- and credits to the tune of Rs.1,91,908/- in the said bank account. The penalty order was passed

HARSH SALUJA,MATHURA vs. ITO 3(2), MATHURA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 165/AGR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra01 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 251(2)Section 44ASection 68

92,049/- which is 10.58% of the total turnover and other income shown from commission I.T.A No. 165/Agra/2016 4 etc is Rs.l,72,509/- and thus total taxable income after deduction under chapter VI A comes to Rs.3,57,770/-. 3. As per AIR information the assessee also maintain saving account in the UBI vide Bank