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.

20 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 200(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi696Mumbai519Chennai156Ahmedabad140Jaipur138Bangalore137Karnataka125Pune89Kolkata83Hyderabad63Raipur62Indore53Surat50Chandigarh45Allahabad44Calcutta34Cochin28Cuttack24Lucknow23Amritsar20Nagpur18Dehradun17Visakhapatnam16Rajkot14Agra10Panaji8Guwahati7Patna6Jabalpur5Jodhpur4Telangana3Varanasi3Ranchi2SC1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 153A32Section 271(1)(c)25Section 1020Addition to Income19Section 143(3)17Section 14816Penalty13Section 4012Section 132

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

200/- 3. 17/10/2016 -Do- 9,50,000/- 4. 17/10/2016 -Do- 2,63,400/- 5. 17/10/2016 -Do- 1,83,810/- 6. 17/10/2016 -Do- 9,80,980/- 7. 17/10/2016 -Do- 39,580/- 8. 17/10/2016 -Do- 34,000/- 9. 17/10/2016 -Do- 25,29,160/- 10. 17/10/2016 -Do- 1,85,400/- ITA Nos.46/Asr/2017 & 190/Asr/2015, Kasturi Lal Mahajan & Ors. Vs. DCIT 2. The brief facts

9
Section 1478
Search & Seizure8
Survey u/s 133A8

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

200/- 3. 17/10/2016 -Do- 9,50,000/- 4. 17/10/2016 -Do- 2,63,400/- 5. 17/10/2016 -Do- 1,83,810/- 6. 17/10/2016 -Do- 9,80,980/- 7. 17/10/2016 -Do- 39,580/- 8. 17/10/2016 -Do- 34,000/- 9. 17/10/2016 -Do- 25,29,160/- 10. 17/10/2016 -Do- 1,85,400/- ITA Nos.46/Asr/2017 & 190/Asr/2015, Kasturi Lal Mahajan & Ors. Vs. DCIT 2. The brief facts

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

200/- 3. 17/10/2016 -Do- 9,50,000/- 4. 17/10/2016 -Do- 2,63,400/- 5. 17/10/2016 -Do- 1,83,810/- 6. 17/10/2016 -Do- 9,80,980/- 7. 17/10/2016 -Do- 39,580/- 8. 17/10/2016 -Do- 34,000/- 9. 17/10/2016 -Do- 25,29,160/- 10. 17/10/2016 -Do- 1,85,400/- ITA Nos.46/Asr/2017 & 190/Asr/2015, Kasturi Lal Mahajan & Ors. Vs. DCIT 2. The brief facts

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

200/- 3. 17/10/2016 -Do- 9,50,000/- 4. 17/10/2016 -Do- 2,63,400/- 5. 17/10/2016 -Do- 1,83,810/- 6. 17/10/2016 -Do- 9,80,980/- 7. 17/10/2016 -Do- 39,580/- 8. 17/10/2016 -Do- 34,000/- 9. 17/10/2016 -Do- 25,29,160/- 10. 17/10/2016 -Do- 1,85,400/- ITA Nos.46/Asr/2017 & 190/Asr/2015, Kasturi Lal Mahajan & Ors. Vs. DCIT 2. The brief facts

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

200/- 3. 17/10/2016 -Do- 9,50,000/- 4. 17/10/2016 -Do- 2,63,400/- 5. 17/10/2016 -Do- 1,83,810/- 6. 17/10/2016 -Do- 9,80,980/- 7. 17/10/2016 -Do- 39,580/- 8. 17/10/2016 -Do- 34,000/- 9. 17/10/2016 -Do- 25,29,160/- 10. 17/10/2016 -Do- 1,85,400/- ITA Nos.46/Asr/2017 & 190/Asr/2015, Kasturi Lal Mahajan & Ors. Vs. DCIT 2. The brief facts

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

200/- 3. 17/10/2016 -Do- 9,50,000/- 4. 17/10/2016 -Do- 2,63,400/- 5. 17/10/2016 -Do- 1,83,810/- 6. 17/10/2016 -Do- 9,80,980/- 7. 17/10/2016 -Do- 39,580/- 8. 17/10/2016 -Do- 34,000/- 9. 17/10/2016 -Do- 25,29,160/- 10. 17/10/2016 -Do- 1,85,400/- ITA Nos.46/Asr/2017 & 190/Asr/2015, Kasturi Lal Mahajan & Ors. Vs. DCIT 2. The brief facts

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

200/- 3. 17/10/2016 -Do- 9,50,000/- 4. 17/10/2016 -Do- 2,63,400/- 5. 17/10/2016 -Do- 1,83,810/- 6. 17/10/2016 -Do- 9,80,980/- 7. 17/10/2016 -Do- 39,580/- 8. 17/10/2016 -Do- 34,000/- 9. 17/10/2016 -Do- 25,29,160/- 10. 17/10/2016 -Do- 1,85,400/- ITA Nos.46/Asr/2017 & 190/Asr/2015, Kasturi Lal Mahajan & Ors. Vs. DCIT 2. The brief facts

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

200/- 3. 17/10/2016 -Do- 9,50,000/- 4. 17/10/2016 -Do- 2,63,400/- 5. 17/10/2016 -Do- 1,83,810/- 6. 17/10/2016 -Do- 9,80,980/- 7. 17/10/2016 -Do- 39,580/- 8. 17/10/2016 -Do- 34,000/- 9. 17/10/2016 -Do- 25,29,160/- 10. 17/10/2016 -Do- 1,85,400/- ITA Nos.46/Asr/2017 & 190/Asr/2015, Kasturi Lal Mahajan & Ors. Vs. DCIT 2. The brief facts

SHRI SHAMINDER SINGH ,MUKTSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- II ( 2 ) , MUKTSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA 427/Asr/2019 is allowed

ITA 427/ASR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

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

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80D

200% sought to be evaded amount to Rs.55,420/-. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) considering the assessee’s submission and reduced the penalty @ 100% which is worked out amount to Rs.27,710/-. 3. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us. 4. During the appellate proceeding before

SH. SHAM LAL,CHANDIGARH vs. D.C.I.T, CENTRAL CIRCLE , AMRITSAR

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

ITA 267/ASR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 132Section 245C(1)Section 245DSection 245HSection 250Section 271Section 271A

271 AAA and as such the penalty levied by the DCIT at Rs.3545120/- should have been deleted. 7. That the authorities below did not appreciate that there was unfavourable and tight financial position in the market and there was no malafide intention on the part of the assessee for delaying the payment. There was reasonable and sufficient cause

M/S SURINDER SAT AGRO FOODS ,JALALABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

In the result, the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 214/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajiv Wadhera, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(c)Section 282

section 282 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and law in confirming the validity of the proceedings initiated by the AO u/s 147/148 because no proper satisfaction as prescribed u/s 151 was recorded by the Pr. CIT that the case of the assessee was fit for issue of notice u/s 148. 3

MEASAGE. SURINDER SAT AGRO FOODS,JALALABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

In the result, the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 303/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajiv Wadhera, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(c)Section 282

section 282 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and law in confirming the validity of the proceedings initiated by the AO u/s 147/148 because no proper satisfaction as prescribed u/s 151 was recorded by the Pr. CIT that the case of the assessee was fit for issue of notice u/s 148. 3

MEASEG. SURINDER SAT AGRO FOODS ,JALALABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

In the result, the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 304/ASR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajiv Wadhera, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(c)Section 282

section 282 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and law in confirming the validity of the proceedings initiated by the AO u/s 147/148 because no proper satisfaction as prescribed u/s 151 was recorded by the Pr. CIT that the case of the assessee was fit for issue of notice u/s 148. 3

GURU NANAK DEV HEALTH & EDUCATION SOCIETY,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD (EXEMPTION), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 608/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 10Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y. 2012-13. Considering the all three appeals are being adjudicated together. Therefore, we are taking ITA No. 173/Asr/2017 is a lead case. The assessee has taken the following grounds: - “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, learned CIT-A erred in upholding the null

GURU NANAK DEV HEALTH & EDUCATION SOCIETY,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) WARD, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 610/ASR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

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

Section 10Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y. 2012-13. Considering the all three appeals are being adjudicated together. Therefore, we are taking ITA No. 173/Asr/2017 is a lead case. The assessee has taken the following grounds: - “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, learned CIT-A erred in upholding the null

GURU NANAK DEV HEALTH & EDUCATION SOCIETY,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) WARD, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 609/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

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

Section 10Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y. 2012-13. Considering the all three appeals are being adjudicated together. Therefore, we are taking ITA No. 173/Asr/2017 is a lead case. The assessee has taken the following grounds: - “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, learned CIT-A erred in upholding the null

GURU NANAK DEV HEALTH & EDUCATION SOCIETY,LUDHIANA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTIONS,), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 173/ASR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

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

Section 10Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y. 2012-13. Considering the all three appeals are being adjudicated together. Therefore, we are taking ITA No. 173/Asr/2017 is a lead case. The assessee has taken the following grounds: - “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, learned CIT-A erred in upholding the null

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)

200 ft wide road and (ii) Construction of ROB in lieu of level crossing on NH-64, Bhatinda, Punjab, supported by copies of billed amount, ledger copy print out, bank statements containing reflection of payments received, amounting to Rs.6.69 crores (pertaining to Asst year 2016-17) and Rs. 23.09 crores ( pertaining to Asst year 2017-18 ) along with the copy

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)

200 ft wide road and (ii) Construction of ROB in lieu of level crossing on NH-64, Bhatinda, Punjab, supported by copies of billed amount, ledger copy print out, bank statements containing reflection of payments received, amounting to Rs.6.69 crores (pertaining to Asst year 2016-17) and Rs. 23.09 crores ( pertaining to Asst year 2017-18 ) along with the copy

KAMAL RAHIL,JALANDHAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 168/ASR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Trilochan Singh PS Khalsa, Sr DR
Section 131

200/- deposited in Standard Chartered Bank and ICICI Bank respectively. The assessee vide his reply dated 27.10.2011 explained with supporting documents that he is an agent and during the period under reference, he was providing services for getting students admission in foreign institutions for which lum sum payments in cash were received from them which was recorded in the books