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.

102 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 10(5)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,623Mumbai1,340Jaipur452Ahmedabad424Chennai290Hyderabad281Indore253Bangalore251Surat246Kolkata228Pune226Raipur179Chandigarh165Rajkot153Amritsar102Nagpur87Visakhapatnam69Cochin64Allahabad59Lucknow59Guwahati51Patna45Cuttack44Ranchi44Dehradun30Agra29Jodhpur26Jabalpur21Panaji20Varanasi11

Key Topics

Section 147104Section 14884Addition to Income76Section 153C60Section 271(1)(c)56Section 143(3)52Section 25048Penalty44Section 250(6)

SHRI SANTOKH SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2 (1), AMRITSAR

The appeals of the assessees are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 31/ASR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2014-15

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

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 151Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(b)

5) TMI 1100 - ITAT DELHI SMT. REKHA RANI, VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI. Penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) - non appearing on the different dates of hearing before the Assessing Officer in response to notice issued under Section 143(2) - Held that:- The penalty under Section 271(1)(b) could not be imposed

Showing 1–20 of 102 · Page 1 of 6

42
Section 1040
Deduction22
Survey u/s 133A17

SHRI SANTOKH SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 2 (1), AMRITSAR

The appeals of the assessees are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 33/ASR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2015-16

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

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 151Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(b)

5) TMI 1100 - ITAT DELHI SMT. REKHA RANI, VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI. Penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) - non appearing on the different dates of hearing before the Assessing Officer in response to notice issued under Section 143(2) - Held that:- The penalty under Section 271(1)(b) could not be imposed

SHRI SANTOKH SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 2 (1), AMRITSAR

The appeals of the assessees are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 34/ASR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2015-16

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

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 151Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(b)

5) TMI 1100 - ITAT DELHI SMT. REKHA RANI, VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI. Penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) - non appearing on the different dates of hearing before the Assessing Officer in response to notice issued under Section 143(2) - Held that:- The penalty under Section 271(1)(b) could not be imposed

SHRI SANTOKH SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 2 (1), AMRITSAR

The appeals of the assessees are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 32/ASR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2014-15

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

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 151Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(b)

5) TMI 1100 - ITAT DELHI SMT. REKHA RANI, VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI. Penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) - non appearing on the different dates of hearing before the Assessing Officer in response to notice issued under Section 143(2) - Held that:- The penalty under Section 271(1)(b) could not be imposed

SHRI YASH PAUL MALHOTRA,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 379/ASR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

Section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, in the light of the above judgement, it is clear that that voluntary disclosure does not absolve the appellant from penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. Furthermore, with regards to the penalty imposed on disallowance of personal expenses on account of car expenses and depreciation

SHRI AJAYA KUMAR CHADDA ,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 (1), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 146/ASR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar23 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Sh. Navdeep Monga, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Mohit Kumar Nigam, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 271(1 )(c) was not justified. We therefore direct its deletion. Thus the grounds of the assessee are allowed. ” 10. In parity with a view taken by the Co-ordinate Bench, we are inclined to accept the plea of the assessee that the notice issued for the purposes of imposition of penalty, which suffers from the vice of vagueness

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,SHRI MUKATSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 60/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

5. Another addition of Rs. 66,000/- (In case of Arshpreet Singh) and Rs. 64,000/- (in case of Gurmail Singh) regarding the alleged unexplained source of cash deposit in the bank account was also made. On this addition, penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) for concealment of particulars of income was imposed and confirmed by Worthy CIT(A) against which

LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKATSAR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 59/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

5. Another addition of Rs. 66,000/- (In case of Arshpreet Singh) and Rs. 64,000/- (in case of Gurmail Singh) regarding the alleged unexplained source of cash deposit in the bank account was also made. On this addition, penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) for concealment of particulars of income was imposed and confirmed by Worthy CIT(A) against which

LATE. SH. GURMAIL. SINGH. S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKATSAR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 58/ASR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

5. Another addition of Rs. 66,000/- (In case of Arshpreet Singh) and Rs. 64,000/- (in case of Gurmail Singh) regarding the alleged unexplained source of cash deposit in the bank account was also made. On this addition, penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) for concealment of particulars of income was imposed and confirmed by Worthy CIT(A) against which

LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH.S/O. LATE SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 57/ASR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

5. Another addition of Rs. 66,000/- (In case of Arshpreet Singh) and Rs. 64,000/- (in case of Gurmail Singh) regarding the alleged unexplained source of cash deposit in the bank account was also made. On this addition, penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) for concealment of particulars of income was imposed and confirmed by Worthy CIT(A) against which

LATE. SH. GURMAIL. SINGH S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SHRI MUKAT SAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF 9INCOME TAX. CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 56/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

5. Another addition of Rs. 66,000/- (In case of Arshpreet Singh) and Rs. 64,000/- (in case of Gurmail Singh) regarding the alleged unexplained source of cash deposit in the bank account was also made. On this addition, penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) for concealment of particulars of income was imposed and confirmed by Worthy CIT(A) against which

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH. S/O.LATE.SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 64/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

5. Another addition of Rs. 66,000/- (In case of Arshpreet Singh) and Rs. 64,000/- (in case of Gurmail Singh) regarding the alleged unexplained source of cash deposit in the bank account was also made. On this addition, penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) for concealment of particulars of income was imposed and confirmed by Worthy CIT(A) against which

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O. LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 63/ASR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

5. Another addition of Rs. 66,000/- (In case of Arshpreet Singh) and Rs. 64,000/- (in case of Gurmail Singh) regarding the alleged unexplained source of cash deposit in the bank account was also made. On this addition, penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) for concealment of particulars of income was imposed and confirmed by Worthy CIT(A) against which

SH. ARSPREET SINGH . S/O. LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH ,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE .II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 61/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

5. Another addition of Rs. 66,000/- (In case of Arshpreet Singh) and Rs. 64,000/- (in case of Gurmail Singh) regarding the alleged unexplained source of cash deposit in the bank account was also made. On this addition, penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) for concealment of particulars of income was imposed and confirmed by Worthy CIT(A) against which

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O. LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CERCLE- II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 62/ASR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

5. Another addition of Rs. 66,000/- (In case of Arshpreet Singh) and Rs. 64,000/- (in case of Gurmail Singh) regarding the alleged unexplained source of cash deposit in the bank account was also made. On this addition, penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) for concealment of particulars of income was imposed and confirmed by Worthy CIT(A) against which

LATE. SH. GUMAIL SINGH . S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 55/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

5. Another addition of Rs. 66,000/- (In case of Arshpreet Singh) and Rs. 64,000/- (in case of Gurmail Singh) regarding the alleged unexplained source of cash deposit in the bank account was also made. On this addition, penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) for concealment of particulars of income was imposed and confirmed by Worthy CIT(A) against which

SHRI PAWAN KUMAR,JALANDHAR CANTT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the bunch of appeals are allowed

ITA 18/ASR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar23 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Digvijai Kumar Chaudhary, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)

5. That subsequent to the order passed u/s 153C, the notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271(l)(c)/ 270A were issued and the appellant submitted the reply that the penalty initiated u/s 271(l)(c)/270A is bad in law as the assessment order passed u/s 153C is without jurisdiction. The said objection was raised in the pursuit of the fact

SHRI PAWAN KUMAR,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the bunch of appeals are allowed

ITA 17/ASR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar23 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Digvijai Kumar Chaudhary, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)

5. That subsequent to the order passed u/s 153C, the notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271(l)(c)/ 270A were issued and the appellant submitted the reply that the penalty initiated u/s 271(l)(c)/270A is bad in law as the assessment order passed u/s 153C is without jurisdiction. The said objection was raised in the pursuit of the fact

SHRI PAWAN KUMAR ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the bunch of appeals are allowed

ITA 16/ASR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar23 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Digvijai Kumar Chaudhary, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)

5. That subsequent to the order passed u/s 153C, the notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271(l)(c)/ 270A were issued and the appellant submitted the reply that the penalty initiated u/s 271(l)(c)/270A is bad in law as the assessment order passed u/s 153C is without jurisdiction. The said objection was raised in the pursuit of the fact

SHRI PAWAN KUMAR,JALANDHAR CANTT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the bunch of appeals are allowed

ITA 19/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar23 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Digvijai Kumar Chaudhary, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)

5. That subsequent to the order passed u/s 153C, the notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271(l)(c)/ 270A were issued and the appellant submitted the reply that the penalty initiated u/s 271(l)(c)/270A is bad in law as the assessment order passed u/s 153C is without jurisdiction. The said objection was raised in the pursuit of the fact