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.

7 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 150(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi435Mumbai334Jaipur146Karnataka99Ahmedabad94Bangalore83Hyderabad65Pune65Indore61Allahabad55Chennai50Kolkata41Raipur35Calcutta35Chandigarh30Lucknow26Cuttack18Nagpur15Rajkot14Cochin14Ranchi13Visakhapatnam10Surat10Guwahati9Patna9Amritsar7Dehradun4SC3Agra3Rajasthan2Jodhpur1Telangana1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 12715Section 271(1)(c)11Section 2718Section 246A6Section 1436Penalty4Section 1323Section 115V3Section 200A3

SHRI PARDEEP KUMAR,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(3), AMRITSAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 734/ASR/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar05 Feb 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri L.P Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Milkhi Ram on behalf of Sh. Padam Bahl C.AFor Respondent: Shri Charan Dass, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) dated 25.01.2016 passed by the Assessing officer with the approval of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range III, dated 08.03.2016 is illegal. 2. That no proper satisfaction was recorded by the learned Assessing Officer in the Assessment order or in the notice U/s 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 of the Income

Addition to Income3
Disallowance3
Search & Seizure3

M/S. SURYA AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED,ABOHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 348/ASR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Krinwant Sahayaftfrcf ^T./Ita No. 348/Asr/2023 / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Surya Automobiles Pvt The Dcit, <Shh Circle Ii, Ltd., Near Dav Campus, Bhatinda Hanumangarh Road, Abohar ^|41<^H./Pan No: Aafcs271 In Ul^^Ff/Respondent Appellant

For Appellant: Shri P.N. Arora, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Neelam Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 44

penalty proceedings are independent of assessment proceedings and no pl u/s Section 271 (1) (c) can be imposed only because no appeal has been filed against addition / disallowance. The reliance is placed on following judgements: CIT vs, Ralblr Singh (2008 3014ITR 125 (P&H) I. CIT vs.Kamla Chemicals Industries (2005) 277ITR 150

D.CI.T , CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, JALANDHAR vs. SH. SUBASH GANDHI , JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 410/ASR/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri N.K. Choudhry

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Negi
Section 115VSection 127Section 132Section 143Section 144Section 144BSection 200ASection 206CSection 246A

150; (ba) an order of assessment or reassessment under section 153A [except an order passed in pursuance of directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel or an order referred to in sub-section (12) of section 144BA; (bb) an order of assessment or reassessment under sub-section (3) of section 92CD; (c) an order made under section 154 or section

D.CI.T , CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, JALANDHAR vs. SH. SUBASH GANDHI , JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 408/ASR/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Feb 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri N.K. Choudhry

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Negi
Section 115VSection 127Section 132Section 143Section 144Section 144BSection 200ASection 206CSection 246A

150; (ba) an order of assessment or reassessment under section 153A [except an order passed in pursuance of directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel or an order referred to in sub-section (12) of section 144BA; (bb) an order of assessment or reassessment under sub-section (3) of section 92CD; (c) an order made under section 154 or section

D.CI.T , CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, JALANDHAR vs. SH. SUBASH GANDHI , JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 412/ASR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri N.K. Choudhry

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Negi
Section 115VSection 127Section 132Section 143Section 144Section 144BSection 200ASection 206CSection 246A

150; (ba) an order of assessment or reassessment under section 153A [except an order passed in pursuance of directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel or an order referred to in sub-section (12) of section 144BA; (bb) an order of assessment or reassessment under sub-section (3) of section 92CD; (c) an order made under section 154 or section

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA vs. SH. DALJIT SINGH, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

ITA 461/ASR/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Feb 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N.S.Saini & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.461(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year:2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. Bhawani Shankar (Ld. DR)For Respondent: None
Section 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income have also been initiated. Thereafter, a penalty of Rs.26,88,743/- @ 100% tax sought to be evaded, was levied by the Assessing Officer and on challenge before the Ld. CIT(E), the Ld. CIT(A) while following the judgments of the jurisdictional High Court deleted the penalty, relevant

SH. AMRINDER SINGH DHIMAN,NAKODAR vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE PHAGWARA, PHAGWARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 584/ASR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Trilochan Singh PS Khalsa, Sr DR
Section 40

150/- made out of foreign currency were furnished. Similarly, expenses of Rs. 1,98,498/-, claimed to have been incurred on 4 Amrinder Singh Dhiman v. Addl. CIT boarding and lodging, were all credit card expenses. It was seen at the time of assessment that the expenses incurred in foreign currency, in cash, by the proprietor, were highly disproportionate