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.

9 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 273Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai189Delhi145Bangalore102Indore95Jaipur51Surat48Cochin45Chennai44Kolkata39Hyderabad35Ahmedabad32Lucknow22Karnataka21Visakhapatnam20Pune17Cuttack16Amritsar15Rajkot13Jabalpur12Chandigarh9Allahabad9Panaji5Guwahati4Agra3Jodhpur3Nagpur3Raipur3Varanasi2Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 142(1)19Section 271(1)(b)14Section 271(1)(c)12Section 14812Penalty9Section 133A8Section 271A8Section 143(2)4Section 274

SMT. AMITA RAJVEDI,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, ALLAHABAD

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 65/ALLD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad25 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

273B of the Income Tax Act, as the assessee has proved that there was a reasonable cause for failure to comply with the notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act. The decisions relied upon by the learned DR would not help the case of the Revenue in the specific facts of the present case. Accordingly, the penalty levied

4
Survey u/s 133A4
Exemption3
Addition to Income2

SMT. AMITA RAJVEDI,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, ALLAHABAD

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 66/ALLD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad25 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

273B of the Income Tax Act, as the assessee has proved that there was a reasonable cause for failure to comply with the notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act. The decisions relied upon by the learned DR would not help the case of the Revenue in the specific facts of the present case. Accordingly, the penalty levied

SMT. AMITA RAJVEDI,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, ALLAHABAD

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 67/ALLD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad25 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

273B of the Income Tax Act, as the assessee has proved that there was a reasonable cause for failure to comply with the notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act. The decisions relied upon by the learned DR would not help the case of the Revenue in the specific facts of the present case. Accordingly, the penalty levied

SMT. AMITA RAJVEDI,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, ALLAHABAD

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 64/ALLD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad25 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

273B of the Income Tax Act, as the assessee has proved that there was a reasonable cause for failure to comply with the notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act. The decisions relied upon by the learned DR would not help the case of the Revenue in the specific facts of the present case. Accordingly, the penalty levied

BAL BHARTI NURSERY SCHOOL,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 62/ALLD/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad06 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.62/Alld/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.63/Alld/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.64/Alld/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Bal Bharti Nursery School बिधम/ Ito (Exemption 13, Kamla Nehru Road, Allahabad) Vs. Civil Lines, Allahabad, Central Revenue Uttar Pradesh-211001. Building, M. G. Marg, Income Tax Office, Allahabad-211001. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatb6395D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Ashish Bansal Revenue By: Shri Amlendu Nath Mishra (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/09/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 30.03.2023 For Ay. 2008-09, Ay. 2010-11 & Ay. 2011-12 Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. Since Both Parties Agree That The Penalty Levied By The Ao/Ld. Cit(A) Are Similar/Identical In All The Captioned Assessment Years, The Decision Of Any One Appeal Would Determine The Fate Of Others. Therefore, Appeal Of Ay. 2008-09 Is Taken As The Lead Case, (However, A.Y. 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Bal Bharti Nursery School The Contents/Details Of Impugned Notices For All The Captioned Years Will Be Discussed Separately Infra).

For Appellant: Shri Ashish BansalFor Respondent: Shri Amlendu Nath Mishra (Sr. DR)
Section 10Section 12ASection 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of the Act are stated in one sentence without the use of either of the conjunctions i.e. ‘and/or’; and thus have jumbled both the faults by stating “have concealed the particulars of your income furnished inaccurate particulars of such income”. Such an infirmity in the penalty notice, according to Ld AR, fails to convey to assessee

BAL BHARTI NURSERY SCHOOL,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO(EXEMPTION), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 63/ALLD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad06 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.62/Alld/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.63/Alld/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.64/Alld/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Bal Bharti Nursery School बिधम/ Ito (Exemption 13, Kamla Nehru Road, Allahabad) Vs. Civil Lines, Allahabad, Central Revenue Uttar Pradesh-211001. Building, M. G. Marg, Income Tax Office, Allahabad-211001. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatb6395D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Ashish Bansal Revenue By: Shri Amlendu Nath Mishra (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/09/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 30.03.2023 For Ay. 2008-09, Ay. 2010-11 & Ay. 2011-12 Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. Since Both Parties Agree That The Penalty Levied By The Ao/Ld. Cit(A) Are Similar/Identical In All The Captioned Assessment Years, The Decision Of Any One Appeal Would Determine The Fate Of Others. Therefore, Appeal Of Ay. 2008-09 Is Taken As The Lead Case, (However, A.Y. 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Bal Bharti Nursery School The Contents/Details Of Impugned Notices For All The Captioned Years Will Be Discussed Separately Infra).

For Appellant: Shri Ashish BansalFor Respondent: Shri Amlendu Nath Mishra (Sr. DR)
Section 10Section 12ASection 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of the Act are stated in one sentence without the use of either of the conjunctions i.e. ‘and/or’; and thus have jumbled both the faults by stating “have concealed the particulars of your income furnished inaccurate particulars of such income”. Such an infirmity in the penalty notice, according to Ld AR, fails to convey to assessee

BAL BHARTI NURSERY SCHOOL,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO(EXEMPTION), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 64/ALLD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad06 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.62/Alld/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.63/Alld/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.64/Alld/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Bal Bharti Nursery School बिधम/ Ito (Exemption 13, Kamla Nehru Road, Allahabad) Vs. Civil Lines, Allahabad, Central Revenue Uttar Pradesh-211001. Building, M. G. Marg, Income Tax Office, Allahabad-211001. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatb6395D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Ashish Bansal Revenue By: Shri Amlendu Nath Mishra (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/09/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 30.03.2023 For Ay. 2008-09, Ay. 2010-11 & Ay. 2011-12 Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. Since Both Parties Agree That The Penalty Levied By The Ao/Ld. Cit(A) Are Similar/Identical In All The Captioned Assessment Years, The Decision Of Any One Appeal Would Determine The Fate Of Others. Therefore, Appeal Of Ay. 2008-09 Is Taken As The Lead Case, (However, A.Y. 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Bal Bharti Nursery School The Contents/Details Of Impugned Notices For All The Captioned Years Will Be Discussed Separately Infra).

For Appellant: Shri Ashish BansalFor Respondent: Shri Amlendu Nath Mishra (Sr. DR)
Section 10Section 12ASection 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of the Act are stated in one sentence without the use of either of the conjunctions i.e. ‘and/or’; and thus have jumbled both the faults by stating “have concealed the particulars of your income furnished inaccurate particulars of such income”. Such an infirmity in the penalty notice, according to Ld AR, fails to convey to assessee

AJIT TRIPATHI,ALLAHABAD vs. CIT (A), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 39/ALLD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad16 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2017-18 Ajit Tripathi, V. Income Tax Officer, Village Pandor, Jasra, Ward-1(1), Allahabad Allahabad, U.P. Pan:Aknpt9902B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri. S.K. Yogeshwar, Adv Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 14 02 2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16 02 2023 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. S.K. Yogeshwar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 271Section 271ASection 44A

271 A at Rs. 25,000/- ii. That on estimate basis income was estimated Rs. 4,59,800/- as against Rs. 31,177/- shown. iii. That the authority below was not justified in imposing penalty u/s 271A to a petty dairy income. iv. That however assessed tax has also been paid.” 3. The assessee is an individual

GYAN MATA RADHA SATYAM KRIYAYOG ASHRAM RESEARCH INSTITUTE, JHUSI, ALLAHABAD,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), ALLAHABAD, ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 95/ALLD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad25 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Years: 2011-12 Gyan Mata Radha Satyam Vs. Income Tax Officer, Kriyayog Ashram Research Ward 1(2), Institute, Jhusi, Allahabad Allahabad Tan/Pan:Airpr 1165L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Praveen Godbole, Ca Respondent By: Shri A.K. Singh, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 24.02.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.02.2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Godbole, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Singh, CIT (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 68

Section 273B of the Act when the assessee has finally complied with the notice issued by the Assessing Officer the penalty is not imposable as the explanation filed by the 4 Gyan Mata Radha Satyam Kriyayog Ashram Research assessee was finally found to be correct and accepted in the quantum appeal. Consequently the penalty levied u/s. 271