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.

120 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 56clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai497Delhi470Jaipur156Ahmedabad120Bangalore119Hyderabad111Chennai68Kolkata64Chandigarh60Pune58Raipur53Indore48Rajkot47Amritsar40Surat39Nagpur29Allahabad26Lucknow22Visakhapatnam21Patna12Agra10Guwahati10Cuttack8Varanasi7Ranchi7Cochin5Dehradun4Jodhpur3Panaji3Jabalpur3

Key Topics

Addition to Income78Section 14753Section 14A52Section 143(3)49Section 271(1)(c)48Section 14848Penalty48Disallowance37Section 37

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 252/AHD/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

For Appellant: Ms Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act would be set aside. 9.5.7 In the case of CIT v. SAS Pharmaceuticals 11 taxmann.com 207 (Delhi), the Delhi High Court held that for imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c), concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particular of income by assessee has to be in income-tax return filed

Showing 1–20 of 120 · Page 1 of 6

29
Section 25022
Section 13221
Reopening of Assessment18

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 251/AHD/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

For Appellant: Ms Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act would be set aside. 9.5.7 In the case of CIT v. SAS Pharmaceuticals 11 taxmann.com 207 (Delhi), the Delhi High Court held that for imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c), concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particular of income by assessee has to be in income-tax return filed

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), , AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 253/AHD/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

For Appellant: Ms Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act would be set aside. 9.5.7 In the case of CIT v. SAS Pharmaceuticals 11 taxmann.com 207 (Delhi), the Delhi High Court held that for imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c), concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particular of income by assessee has to be in income-tax return filed

DCIT CIRCLE GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR vs. SHRI UMIYA CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD LINCH, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1933/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 273BSection 3Section 56

56 of banking Regulation Act, 1949, the primary co-operative bank cannot be a primary agricultural credit society. As such co-operative bank must be engaged in the business I.T.A 1932 & 1933/Ahd/2025 A.Y: 2016-17 4 DCIT Vs. Shri Umiya Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. of banking as defined by section-5(b) of the banking regulation act, 1949 which means

DCIT, CIRCLE GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR vs. SHRI UMIYA CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD LINCH, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1932/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 273BSection 3Section 56

56 of banking Regulation Act, 1949, the primary co-operative bank cannot be a primary agricultural credit society. As such co-operative bank must be engaged in the business I.T.A 1932 & 1933/Ahd/2025 A.Y: 2016-17 4 DCIT Vs. Shri Umiya Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. of banking as defined by section-5(b) of the banking regulation act, 1949 which means

SHRI AJAY MAYOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1607/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

56(2)(vii) of the Act as income from other sources since it was received without consideration. The CIT(Appeals) also referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mak Data Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2013) 38 taxmann.com 448 (SC) and K.P. Madhusudhanan vs. CIT (2001) 251 ITR 99 (SC) to hold that voluntary disclosure or explanation

YOGESH JASHUBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4) NOW WARD- 1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 159/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.158/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.159/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 Yogesh Jashubhai Patel, The Income Tax Officer Harivallabh Society बनाम/ Ward-3(4) V/S. Naroda Now Ward-1(2)(1) Opp. Devi Cinema Ahmedabad – 380 051 Ahmedabad – 382 345 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Audpp 9058 L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 06/01/2023 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-2012. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No.158/Ahd/2023:

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.DR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

56,248/- declared by the assessee. Accordingly, an addition of Rs. 4,63,534/- was made to the total income on account of understatement of LTCG. The AO assessed the income at Rs. 6,19,780/-. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order

YOGESH JASHUBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4) NOW WARD- 1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 158/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.158/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.159/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 Yogesh Jashubhai Patel, The Income Tax Officer Harivallabh Society बनाम/ Ward-3(4) V/S. Naroda Now Ward-1(2)(1) Opp. Devi Cinema Ahmedabad – 380 051 Ahmedabad – 382 345 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Audpp 9058 L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 06/01/2023 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-2012. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No.158/Ahd/2023:

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.DR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

56,248/- declared by the assessee. Accordingly, an addition of Rs. 4,63,534/- was made to the total income on account of understatement of LTCG. The AO assessed the income at Rs. 6,19,780/-. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order

NARAYANBHAI SHIVABHAI PATEL,MEHSANA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1357/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(6)Section 270A(6)(a)Section 270A(6)(b)Section 56(2)(x)

u/s 270A(6) of the Act. Further that the assessee did not contest Narayanbhai Shivabhai Patel vs. ITO Page 4 of 7 the valuation of the stamp duty adopted by the authorities. Therefore, the provisions of Section 56(2)(x) of the Act was squarely applicable and the addition of Rs.30,50,000/- as made by the Assessing Officer

CHHAYA VIKAS SHAH LEGAL HEIR & WIFE OF LATE VIKAS SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all three appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 584/AHD/2023[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2024AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarsl. आयकर अपील सं/ "नधा"रण वष"/ Appeal(S) By : No(S)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.DR
Section 132(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

56,596/- by CIT(A) on amount Rs. 2.1. During the penal proceedings, the AO noted that the search resulted in seizure of incriminating material from assessee’s car. The AO also noted that the assessee despite seizure of such incriminating documents did not file return of income u/s 153A of the Act, in time, and only after several notices

THE ITO, (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. THE GUJARAT INSTITUTE OF HOUSING & ESTATE DEVELOPERS,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is allowed

ITA 1022/AHD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Waghe Prasad Rao, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate
Section 11Section 12ASection 25Section 271(1)(c)

56 taxmann.com 281 (Gujarat) vide order dated 05.11.2015. Thirdly, the Counsel for the assesseee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has correctly observed that once the very basis of initiation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been altered by the Tribunal, there is no scope of levy of penalty in the instant facts. 10. We have

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA vs. RADHIKA JEWELLERS, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1263/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

56,560/- which includes the above admitted income. Regular assessment was completed on 28-01-2016 assessing the income at Rs.2,50,87,820/- after making total addition of Rs.1,31,263/-. Thereafter Penalty proceedings were also initiated on the additional unaccounted income which was admitted during the course of survey action. The assessee filed its reply that there

ELECTRONIC INSTRUMANTATION & CONTROL PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), (PREVIOUSLY CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1964/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1964/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Electronic Instrumentation & The Ito बनाम/ Control Private Limited Ward-2(1)(1) V/S. 56, Panchratna Ind. Estate [Previously Circle-2(1)(1)] Changodhar Industrial Area Ahmedabad – 380 015 Sarkhej Bavla Road Changodar, Ahmedabad – 382 213 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaace 4798 G (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pamil H. Shah Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Pamil H. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80I

56, Panchratna Ind. Estate [Previously Circle-2(1)(1)] Changodhar Industrial Area Ahmedabad – 380 015 Sarkhej Bavla Road Changodar, Ahmedabad – 382 213 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AAACE 4798 G (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Pamil H. Shah Revenue by : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 29/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 31/01/2025

MUKESH MOHANLAL VAGHELA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Department is allowed for assessment year 2020-21

ITA 1247/AHD/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Mukesh M. Vaghela
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

u/s. 69Con account of Unexplained expenditure based on entries in the ledger "Mukeshbhai Ratanjyot" in the diaries seized from the premises of Shri Prakash Sanghvi. The learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO in invoking s. 115BBE in respect of the said addition. 5. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not holding that

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. MUKESH MOHANLAL VAGHELA, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Department is allowed for assessment year 2020-21

ITA 1233/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Mukesh M. Vaghela
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

u/s. 69Con account of Unexplained expenditure based on entries in the ledger "Mukeshbhai Ratanjyot" in the diaries seized from the premises of Shri Prakash Sanghvi. The learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO in invoking s. 115BBE in respect of the said addition. 5. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not holding that

MUKESH MOHANLAL VAGHELA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1(1) , AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Department is allowed for assessment year 2020-21

ITA 1246/AHD/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jan 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Mukesh M. Vaghela
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

u/s. 69Con account of Unexplained expenditure based on entries in the ledger "Mukeshbhai Ratanjyot" in the diaries seized from the premises of Shri Prakash Sanghvi. The learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO in invoking s. 115BBE in respect of the said addition. 5. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not holding that

MUKESH MOHANLAL VAGHELA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Department is allowed for assessment year 2020-21

ITA 1244/AHD/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jan 2026AY 2013-2014

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Mukesh M. Vaghela
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

u/s. 69Con account of Unexplained expenditure based on entries in the ledger "Mukeshbhai Ratanjyot" in the diaries seized from the premises of Shri Prakash Sanghvi. The learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO in invoking s. 115BBE in respect of the said addition. 5. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not holding that

MUKESH MOHANLAL VAGHELA,MAHARASHTRA vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Department is allowed for assessment year 2020-21

ITA 1248/AHD/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Mukesh M. Vaghela
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

u/s. 69Con account of Unexplained expenditure based on entries in the ledger "Mukeshbhai Ratanjyot" in the diaries seized from the premises of Shri Prakash Sanghvi. The learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO in invoking s. 115BBE in respect of the said addition. 5. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not holding that

MUKESH MOHANLAL VAGHELA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Department is allowed for assessment year 2020-21

ITA 1251/AHD/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jan 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Mukesh M. Vaghela
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

u/s. 69Con account of Unexplained expenditure based on entries in the ledger "Mukeshbhai Ratanjyot" in the diaries seized from the premises of Shri Prakash Sanghvi. The learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO in invoking s. 115BBE in respect of the said addition. 5. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not holding that

MUKESH MOHANLAL VAGHELA,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Department is allowed for assessment year 2020-21

ITA 1245/AHD/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jan 2026AY 2014-2015

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Mukesh M. Vaghela
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

u/s. 69Con account of Unexplained expenditure based on entries in the ledger "Mukeshbhai Ratanjyot" in the diaries seized from the premises of Shri Prakash Sanghvi. The learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO in invoking s. 115BBE in respect of the said addition. 5. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not holding that