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.

30 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 274clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi502Mumbai428Jaipur165Surat125Chennai101Bangalore97Ahmedabad81Hyderabad80Kolkata75Indore71Pune67Allahabad44Ranchi42Rajkot41Chandigarh40Raipur34Amritsar30Cochin23Visakhapatnam20Nagpur17Patna16Guwahati14Agra14Dehradun12Lucknow11Cuttack11Jodhpur7Jabalpur4Panaji2Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 153C60Section 271(1)(c)40Section 271(1)(b)35Section 153A30Penalty29Section 27126Section 13224Section 27423Section 250(6)15

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)

274 r.w.s 271(1)(b) whereby the appellant was asked as to why the penalty in default of notice u/s 142(1) should not be levied and consequently, penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of an amount of Rs. 30000/- was levied vide order passed by the AO on 19.09.2022 against three defaults in 18 I.T.A. Nos. 31 to 34/Asr/2023 Santokh

Showing 1–20 of 30 · Page 1 of 2

Addition to Income13
Condonation of Delay7
Search & Seizure6

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)

274 r.w.s 271(1)(b) whereby the appellant was asked as to why the penalty in default of notice u/s 142(1) should not be levied and consequently, penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of an amount of Rs. 30000/- was levied vide order passed by the AO on 19.09.2022 against three defaults in 18 I.T.A. Nos. 31 to 34/Asr/2023 Santokh

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)

274 r.w.s 271(1)(b) whereby the appellant was asked as to why the penalty in default of notice u/s 142(1) should not be levied and consequently, penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of an amount of Rs. 30000/- was levied vide order passed by the AO on 19.09.2022 against three defaults in 18 I.T.A. Nos. 31 to 34/Asr/2023 Santokh

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)

274 r.w.s 271(1)(b) whereby the appellant was asked as to why the penalty in default of notice u/s 142(1) should not be levied and consequently, penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of an amount of Rs. 30000/- was levied vide order passed by the AO on 19.09.2022 against three defaults in 18 I.T.A. Nos. 31 to 34/Asr/2023 Santokh

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

penalty notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act on 10.08.2017. Admittedly, the said notice was defective one, as both the limbs of section

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)

271 read with 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

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 20/ASR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar23 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

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)

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 that the appellant was subjected to search and seizure operation

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)

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 that the appellant was subjected to search and seizure operation

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)

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 that the appellant was subjected to search and seizure operation

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)

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 that the appellant was subjected to search and seizure operation

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)

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 that the appellant was subjected to search and seizure operation

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 21/ASR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar23 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

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)

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 that the appellant was subjected to search and seizure operation

SHRI RACHHPAL SINGH SON OF SHRI TARLOK SINGH,FEROZEPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3 (1), FEROZEPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 166/ASR/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. Jawsinder Singh, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ravinder Mittal, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2008-09 wherein he did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty

JAMMU & KASHMIR STATE AGRO INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-II, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 249/ASR/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar20 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.249/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

274 of the Act and while imposing the penalty as well, was indecisive and unclear under which limb, the penalty proceedings have to be initiated and under which limb the assessee had to reply in order to defend its case and under which limb the penalty warranted and supposed to be levied, therefore we are of the view that under

SHRI RAVINDER SACHDEVA,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5 (4), AMRITSAR

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

ITA 202/ASR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

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

Section 142Section 147Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)

section 271(l)(b). The AO, if at all, wanted to levy the penalty he should have waited for the decision of appeal by the worthy CIT(A). This was grave injustice which has been done to the assessee. As such the penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) may kindly be deleted. I.T.A. No. 202/Asr/2023

SHRI ONKAR SINGH ,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 232/ASR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Sh. Y. K. Sud, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ravinder Mittal, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2008-09 wherein he did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty

INDIAN TOOL TECHNOLOGY CENTRE,JALANDHAR vs. ITO, WARD 1(1) , JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 262/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, C.A
Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 56

u/s 274 read with section 271 of the Act. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Id. Assessing Officer in imposing penalty

SH.SURESH KUMAR SHARMA.S/O SH. RAKHA RAM,KOTKAPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3 (3), FAIDKOT

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed

ITA 110/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 24Section 250Section 271Section 44ASection 80C

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) read with Section 274 of the Act. In the ground, the assessee mentioned that due to the medical

SH. SURESH KUMAR SHARMA S/O. SH. RAKHA RAM,KOTKAPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(3), FARIDKOT

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed

ITA 111/ASR/2019[2011-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2023AY 2011-11

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

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 24Section 250Section 271Section 44ASection 80C

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) read with Section 274 of the Act. In the ground, the assessee mentioned that due to the medical

JAGTAR SINGH BRAR PROP. JAGTAR SINGH SADHU SINGH,BAGAPURANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, MOGA, MOGA

In the result, the penalty imposed u/s 271(1) (c) amounting to Rs

ITA 70/ASR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Abhinav Vijh, C.A
Section 133(6)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

section 44AE (7) the Act 61, the entire business being part of audited accounts u/s 44AB of the Act 61. 24. As such we are of the opinion there is no concealment of truck income u/s 44AE of the Act 61 25. In the result, the penalty imposed u/s 271(1) (c) amounting to Rs. 4.18 lakhs , is deleted