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.

21 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Bogus Purchasesclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai542Delhi189Jaipur69Ahmedabad65Bangalore45Surat38Rajkot32Chennai31Chandigarh29Kolkata28Hyderabad28Raipur27Pune22Indore21Amritsar21Allahabad20Patna12Lucknow9Jodhpur9Nagpur8Agra3Guwahati2Cuttack2Jabalpur1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)30Addition to Income21Section 80I20Section 153D18Section 143(3)15Section 25013Disallowance13Section 27112Section 32

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI MADAN LAL, SHAHKOT

In the result, the appeals of the revenue bearing ITA Nos

ITA 25/ASR/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 153DSection 250(6)Section 27Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

bogus purchases was set aside, it could not be said that there was any concealment of facts or furnishing of I.T.A. Nos.23 to 28/Asr/2022 7 Assessment Years: 2008-09 to 2013-14 inaccurate particulars by the assessee that warranted the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 7. We heard the rival submission, considered the documents

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI MADAN LAL, SHAHKOT

Showing 1–20 of 21 · Page 1 of 2

10
Section 43(1)10
Deduction10
Depreciation10

In the result, the appeals of the revenue bearing ITA Nos

ITA 26/ASR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 153DSection 250(6)Section 27Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

bogus purchases was set aside, it could not be said that there was any concealment of facts or furnishing of I.T.A. Nos.23 to 28/Asr/2022 7 Assessment Years: 2008-09 to 2013-14 inaccurate particulars by the assessee that warranted the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 7. We heard the rival submission, considered the documents

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI MADAN LAL, SHAHKOT

In the result, the appeals of the revenue bearing ITA Nos

ITA 27/ASR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 153DSection 250(6)Section 27Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

bogus purchases was set aside, it could not be said that there was any concealment of facts or furnishing of I.T.A. Nos.23 to 28/Asr/2022 7 Assessment Years: 2008-09 to 2013-14 inaccurate particulars by the assessee that warranted the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 7. We heard the rival submission, considered the documents

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI MADAN LAL, SHAHKOT

In the result, the appeals of the revenue bearing ITA Nos

ITA 28/ASR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 153DSection 250(6)Section 27Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

bogus purchases was set aside, it could not be said that there was any concealment of facts or furnishing of I.T.A. Nos.23 to 28/Asr/2022 7 Assessment Years: 2008-09 to 2013-14 inaccurate particulars by the assessee that warranted the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 7. We heard the rival submission, considered the documents

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI MADAN LAL, SHAHKOT

In the result, the appeals of the revenue bearing ITA Nos

ITA 23/ASR/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Jul 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 153DSection 250(6)Section 27Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

bogus purchases was set aside, it could not be said that there was any concealment of facts or furnishing of I.T.A. Nos.23 to 28/Asr/2022 7 Assessment Years: 2008-09 to 2013-14 inaccurate particulars by the assessee that warranted the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 7. We heard the rival submission, considered the documents

INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS) -1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI MADAN LAL, SHAHKOT

In the result, the appeals of the revenue bearing ITA Nos

ITA 24/ASR/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 153DSection 250(6)Section 27Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

bogus purchases was set aside, it could not be said that there was any concealment of facts or furnishing of I.T.A. Nos.23 to 28/Asr/2022 7 Assessment Years: 2008-09 to 2013-14 inaccurate particulars by the assessee that warranted the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 7. We heard the rival submission, considered the documents

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA vs. DMR BUILDERS PVT LTD, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

ITA 292/ASR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 292 & 293/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250(6)

bogus sub contracts. 4. In regards to the above points, it is respectfully submitted as under: 4.1 It was requested then also that the agreement (letter of intent copy) currently is not available with the assessee company. At that time also, request was placed with DRA to provide copy of LOI covering the required information of margins and terms

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA vs. DMR BUILDERS PVT LTD, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

ITA 293/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 292 & 293/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250(6)

bogus sub contracts. 4. In regards to the above points, it is respectfully submitted as under: 4.1 It was requested then also that the agreement (letter of intent copy) currently is not available with the assessee company. At that time also, request was placed with DRA to provide copy of LOI covering the required information of margins and terms

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. FIL INDUSTRIES LTD, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 470/ASR/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” 14. The ld. counsel for the assessee further argued and relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) the relevant paragraph 15 of the CIT(A) order is extracted as below: “15 ISSUE 8: DISALLOWANCEOFDEPRECIATIONOFRS.18,92,163/- ANDRS. 3,10,253/- U/S

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FIL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 293/ASR/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” 14. The ld. counsel for the assessee further argued and relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) the relevant paragraph 15 of the CIT(A) order is extracted as below: “15 ISSUE 8: DISALLOWANCEOFDEPRECIATIONOFRS.18,92,163/- ANDRS. 3,10,253/- U/S

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FIL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 294/ASR/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” 14. The ld. counsel for the assessee further argued and relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) the relevant paragraph 15 of the CIT(A) order is extracted as below: “15 ISSUE 8: DISALLOWANCEOFDEPRECIATIONOFRS.18,92,163/- ANDRS. 3,10,253/- U/S

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. FIL INDUSTRIES LTD, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 471/ASR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” 14. The ld. counsel for the assessee further argued and relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) the relevant paragraph 15 of the CIT(A) order is extracted as below: “15 ISSUE 8: DISALLOWANCEOFDEPRECIATIONOFRS.18,92,163/- ANDRS. 3,10,253/- U/S

M/S FIL INDUSTRIES LTD,SRINAGAR vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 417/ASR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” 14. The ld. counsel for the assessee further argued and relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) the relevant paragraph 15 of the CIT(A) order is extracted as below: “15 ISSUE 8: DISALLOWANCEOFDEPRECIATIONOFRS.18,92,163/- ANDRS. 3,10,253/- U/S

M/S FIL INDUSTRIES LTD,SRINAGAR vs. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 255/ASR/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” 14. The ld. counsel for the assessee further argued and relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) the relevant paragraph 15 of the CIT(A) order is extracted as below: “15 ISSUE 8: DISALLOWANCEOFDEPRECIATIONOFRS.18,92,163/- ANDRS. 3,10,253/- U/S

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FILL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 289/ASR/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2002-03

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” 14. The ld. counsel for the assessee further argued and relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) the relevant paragraph 15 of the CIT(A) order is extracted as below: “15 ISSUE 8: DISALLOWANCEOFDEPRECIATIONOFRS.18,92,163/- ANDRS. 3,10,253/- U/S

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FILL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 290/ASR/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” 14. The ld. counsel for the assessee further argued and relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) the relevant paragraph 15 of the CIT(A) order is extracted as below: “15 ISSUE 8: DISALLOWANCEOFDEPRECIATIONOFRS.18,92,163/- ANDRS. 3,10,253/- U/S

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FILL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 291/ASR/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” 14. The ld. counsel for the assessee further argued and relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) the relevant paragraph 15 of the CIT(A) order is extracted as below: “15 ISSUE 8: DISALLOWANCEOFDEPRECIATIONOFRS.18,92,163/- ANDRS. 3,10,253/- U/S

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FIL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 292/ASR/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” 14. The ld. counsel for the assessee further argued and relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) the relevant paragraph 15 of the CIT(A) order is extracted as below: “15 ISSUE 8: DISALLOWANCEOFDEPRECIATIONOFRS.18,92,163/- ANDRS. 3,10,253/- U/S

THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, JALANDHAR vs. SMT. BANEET KAUR BHASIN,, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessment ITA No

ITA 263/ASR/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 246/Asr/2014 & Ita No. 251/Asr/2018 Assessment Year:2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40A(3)Section 69

271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. When the appeals are called for a hearing, none was present on behalf of the assessee. No adjournment petition was filed on behalf of the assessee. On perusal of record we find that the date was fixed several times but none was present to represent the appeal. Considering the issue, we proceed

SHRIMATI BANEET KAUR BHASIN,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessment ITA No

ITA 251/ASR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 246/Asr/2014 & Ita No. 251/Asr/2018 Assessment Year:2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40A(3)Section 69

271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. When the appeals are called for a hearing, none was present on behalf of the assessee. No adjournment petition was filed on behalf of the assessee. On perusal of record we find that the date was fixed several times but none was present to represent the appeal. Considering the issue, we proceed