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.

13 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 199clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi270Mumbai140Karnataka120Ahmedabad66Bangalore50Jaipur49Raipur36Calcutta34Kolkata27Allahabad23Chennai22Pune21Lucknow20Amritsar13Hyderabad13Rajkot13Chandigarh12Indore9Surat6Agra3Cochin3Telangana2Patna2Jabalpur1Ranchi1Guwahati1Varanasi1Visakhapatnam1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 153A32Section 143(3)11Addition to Income11Section 1328Section 133A8Section 1398Section 2748Section 271(1)(c)8Penalty

SH SUMIT MAHAJAN,JAMMU vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands allowed

ITA 43/ASR/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Dec 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Sainiita No.46 /Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Joginder Singh (Ld. CA)For Respondent: Smt. Prabhjot Kaur (Ld. CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act has not specified as to which limb of the penalty proposed is to be levied.” The assessee in support of raising additional ground also submitted that the legal ground can be taken at any stage in view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of NTPC

8
Search & Seizure8
Survey u/s 133A8
Section 116

SH SUMIT MAHAJAN,JAMMU vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands allowed

ITA 45/ASR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Dec 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Sainiita No.46 /Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Joginder Singh (Ld. CA)For Respondent: Smt. Prabhjot Kaur (Ld. CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act has not specified as to which limb of the penalty proposed is to be levied.” The assessee in support of raising additional ground also submitted that the legal ground can be taken at any stage in view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of NTPC

SH. KASTURI LAL MAHAJAN,JAMMU vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands allowed

ITA 46/ASR/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Sainiita No.46 /Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Joginder Singh (Ld. CA)For Respondent: Smt. Prabhjot Kaur (Ld. CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act has not specified as to which limb of the penalty proposed is to be levied.” The assessee in support of raising additional ground also submitted that the legal ground can be taken at any stage in view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of NTPC

SH. KASTURI LAL MAHAJAN,JAMMU vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands allowed

ITA 190/ASR/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Dec 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Sainiita No.46 /Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Joginder Singh (Ld. CA)For Respondent: Smt. Prabhjot Kaur (Ld. CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act has not specified as to which limb of the penalty proposed is to be levied.” The assessee in support of raising additional ground also submitted that the legal ground can be taken at any stage in view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of NTPC

SH AMIT MAHAJAN,JAMMU vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands allowed

ITA 40/ASR/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Dec 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Sainiita No.46 /Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Joginder Singh (Ld. CA)For Respondent: Smt. Prabhjot Kaur (Ld. CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act has not specified as to which limb of the penalty proposed is to be levied.” The assessee in support of raising additional ground also submitted that the legal ground can be taken at any stage in view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of NTPC

SH AMIT MAHAJAN,JAMMU vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands allowed

ITA 41/ASR/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Sainiita No.46 /Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Joginder Singh (Ld. CA)For Respondent: Smt. Prabhjot Kaur (Ld. CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act has not specified as to which limb of the penalty proposed is to be levied.” The assessee in support of raising additional ground also submitted that the legal ground can be taken at any stage in view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of NTPC

SH AMIT MAHAJAN,JAMMU vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands allowed

ITA 42/ASR/2017[2087-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Dec 2019AY 2087-09

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Sainiita No.46 /Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Joginder Singh (Ld. CA)For Respondent: Smt. Prabhjot Kaur (Ld. CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act has not specified as to which limb of the penalty proposed is to be levied.” The assessee in support of raising additional ground also submitted that the legal ground can be taken at any stage in view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of NTPC

SH SUMIT MAHAJAN,JAMMU vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands allowed

ITA 44/ASR/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Sainiita No.46 /Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Joginder Singh (Ld. CA)For Respondent: Smt. Prabhjot Kaur (Ld. CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act has not specified as to which limb of the penalty proposed is to be levied.” The assessee in support of raising additional ground also submitted that the legal ground can be taken at any stage in view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of NTPC

COMMUNITY POLICING SUVIDHA CENTRE ( WEST ), NOW KNOWN AS SUB DIVISION SAANJH (COMMUNITY POLICING) SOCIETY,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) WARD , JALANDHAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 14/ASR/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

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

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 234BSection 250

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income of Rs. 57,080/-are being initiated separately.” 5.1 The ld. counsel for the assessee further argued that the entire assessment was made on basis of the order of Sukhmani Society for Citizens Services , Mansa, (2012) 27 taxman.com 199 (Amritsar

SUB DIVISION SAANJH COMMUNITY POL ICING SOCIETY,KAPURTHALA vs. INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) WARD, JALANDHAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 13/ASR/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

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

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 234BSection 250

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income of Rs. 57,080/-are being initiated separately.” 5.1 The ld. counsel for the assessee further argued that the entire assessment was made on basis of the order of Sukhmani Society for Citizens Services , Mansa, (2012) 27 taxman.com 199 (Amritsar

M/S. JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,JAMMU ( J&K) vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 498/ASR/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Mar 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 498/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Jammu Development Authority, Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Tax, Circle-I, Complex, Jammu, J & K Jammu (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadfj7335A Ita No. 494/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs Jammu Development Authority, Tax, Circle-I, Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Jammu Complex, Jammu, J & K (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp1720E Assessee By : Shri. R. K. Gupta, Ca & Shri. Vasu Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri. M. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :21.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 06.05.2013, Jammu.

For Appellant: Shri. R. K. Gupta, CA &For Respondent: Shri. M. P. Singh, CIT DR

199 ITR 351 also, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has very wide powers while considering an appeal which may be filed by the assessee. He may confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment or remand the case to the Assessing officer. This is because, unlike an ordinary appeal, the basic purpose

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. JAMMU DEVELPMENT AUTHORITY,, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 494/ASR/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Mar 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 498/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Jammu Development Authority, Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Tax, Circle-I, Complex, Jammu, J & K Jammu (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadfj7335A Ita No. 494/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs Jammu Development Authority, Tax, Circle-I, Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Jammu Complex, Jammu, J & K (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp1720E Assessee By : Shri. R. K. Gupta, Ca & Shri. Vasu Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri. M. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :21.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 06.05.2013, Jammu.

For Appellant: Shri. R. K. Gupta, CA &For Respondent: Shri. M. P. Singh, CIT DR

199 ITR 351 also, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has very wide powers while considering an appeal which may be filed by the assessee. He may confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment or remand the case to the Assessing officer. This is because, unlike an ordinary appeal, the basic purpose

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CIRCLE-3, FEROZEPUR vs. MEASAGE OM SONS MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, FARIDKOT

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 407/ASR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

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

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 37(1)Section 56(2)(viib)

199 DTR 345 “ The Assessee has adopted DCF method to value its shares and Revenue is unable to demonstrate the methodology adopted by the assessee is not correct; AO has simply rejected the valuation of the assessee on the ground that the performance did not match projections and failed to provide any alternate fait value of shares; Tribunal was therefore