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.

14 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 275clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi442Mumbai236Jaipur128Karnataka100Raipur82Chennai79Ahmedabad77Kolkata70Bangalore60Indore57Hyderabad45Pune44Lucknow36Visakhapatnam28Cochin22Chandigarh21Cuttack19Amritsar14Kerala14Nagpur14Ranchi9Patna8Guwahati7Agra6Surat6Rajkot4Jabalpur4Dehradun3Jodhpur2Rajasthan2Telangana2SC1

Key Topics

Section 271A27Section 271(1)(c)20Section 12715Penalty11Addition to Income8Section 2717Section 1326Section 246A6Section 143

M/S. CHAUDHARY ENTERPRISES,,JALANDHAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NAWANSHAHR

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

ITA 460/ASR/2017[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Feb 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

For Appellant: Shri. J.S Bhasin, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. Trilochan Singh PS Khalsa DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275(1)(a)

section 275(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. That when the ld. A.O had not specified the charge and vaguely initiated penalty for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have knocked down the levy of penalty on this very ground

6
Section 80P(1)6
Natural Justice4
Disallowance4

SHRI MATI SANJANA MITTAL ,FEROZEPUR CANTT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, JALANDHAR

In the result,all the three appeals bearing ITANo

ITA 433/ASR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Dec 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271Section 271A

275 read with section 271AAB of the Income- tax Act you are liable for penalty on assessed undisclosed income. You are hereby requested to appear before me at my office Room No. 103 (NA), N.C.R.B., Jaipur at 11.00 A.M. on 25.08.2016 and show cause why an order imposing penalty on you should not be made u/s 271AAB r.w.s

SHRI SUSHIL MITTAL,FEROZEPUR CANTT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, JALANDHAR

In the result,all the three appeals bearing ITANo

ITA 434/ASR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Dec 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271Section 271A

275 read with section 271AAB of the Income- tax Act you are liable for penalty on assessed undisclosed income. You are hereby requested to appear before me at my office Room No. 103 (NA), N.C.R.B., Jaipur at 11.00 A.M. on 25.08.2016 and show cause why an order imposing penalty on you should not be made u/s 271AAB r.w.s

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

In the result,all the three appeals bearing ITANo

ITA 435/ASR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Dec 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271Section 271A

275 read with section 271AAB of the Income- tax Act you are liable for penalty on assessed undisclosed income. You are hereby requested to appear before me at my office Room No. 103 (NA), N.C.R.B., Jaipur at 11.00 A.M. on 25.08.2016 and show cause why an order imposing penalty on you should not be made u/s 271AAB r.w.s

SHRI H.K. GANDOTRA,GURGAON vs. THE INOCME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 594/ASR/2014[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Jun 2019AY 1997-98

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 594/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 1997-98

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 246Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

section itself and, further, in harmony with the main provision, in consonance with which it is to be read, also making reference to s. 275 (1A). The premise of keeping the penalty proceedings in abeyance till the decision in the second appeal in the quantum proceedings is received by the competent authority, very clearly, is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings

SHRI BHARAT PAL SOOD,PHAGWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PHAGWARA

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

ITA 377/ASR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Vijh, CAFor Respondent: Sh Shakil Ahmad, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 36

section 271 of the I.T.Act, which was issued by the Assessing Officer alongwith the assessment order. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that a perusal of the aforesaid “SCN” dated 23.12.2011 did not reveal the default for which the assessee was called upon to explain as to why penalty may not be imposed upon him us 271

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

271, section 271A, section 271AAA, section 271AAB, section 271F, section 271FB, section 272AA or section 272BB; (C) section 272, section 272B or section 273, as they stood immediately before the 1st day of April, 1989, in respect of an assessment for the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, or any earlier assessment years; (ja) an order

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

271, section 271A, section 271AAA, section 271AAB, section 271F, section 271FB, section 272AA or section 272BB; (C) section 272, section 272B or section 273, as they stood immediately before the 1st day of April, 1989, in respect of an assessment for the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, or any earlier assessment years; (ja) an order

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

271, section 271A, section 271AAA, section 271AAB, section 271F, section 271FB, section 272AA or section 272BB; (C) section 272, section 272B or section 273, as they stood immediately before the 1st day of April, 1989, in respect of an assessment for the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, or any earlier assessment years; (ja) an order

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

275,276 & 277-IT/18-19, A.Y. 2015-16, date of order 15.03.2019, the order passed u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, [in brevity the Act] for A.Y.2015-16. I.T.A. No. 427/Asr/2019 2 The impugned order was originated from the order of the ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward-II(2), Muktsar (in brevity the AO), order passed u/s 271

SHRI JASPAL SINGH,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 5(2), AMRITSAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 650/ASR/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Feb 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 650/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2004-05

For Appellant: Sh. Padam Bahl (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 142(1)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 274Section 275(1)(c)

section 275(1)(c), i.e., where the relevant assessment or other order is not the subject matter of either appellate or revision proceedings. The time limit accordingly is before the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed (31.3.2012), or six months from

MESRES ATHOULA CO-OP AGRICULTURE MULTIPURPOSE SERVICE SOCIETY LTD,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JALANDHAR

In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 132/ASR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Satbir Singh, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 80P(1)Section 80P(2)(a)

Penalty Proceedings initiated by the Ld AO u/s 271(l)(c ) are requested to be dropped in light of the fact that impugned ineligibility of such interest u/s 80P(1) is resulting from difference of opinion only. 8. That the appellant reserve the right to advance any other argument at the time of hearing of the appeal. Beside this

M/S ATHOULA CO-OP AGRICLUTURE MULTIPURPOSE SERVICE SOCIETY LTD,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JALANDHAR

In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 133/ASR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Satbir Singh, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 80P(1)Section 80P(2)(a)

Penalty Proceedings initiated by the Ld AO u/s 271(l)(c ) are requested to be dropped in light of the fact that impugned ineligibility of such interest u/s 80P(1) is resulting from difference of opinion only. 8. That the appellant reserve the right to advance any other argument at the time of hearing of the appeal. Beside this

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUKTSAR vs. SH. MANPREET SINGH BADAL, MUKTSAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 616/ASR/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Feb 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 616/Asr./2015 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Income Tax Officer, Vs Shri. Manpreet Singh Badal, Ward-Ii(2), S/O Shri. Gurdas Singh Badal, Muktsar Vill Badal, Distt. Muktsar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afjpb2460B

For Appellant: Shri. Ashwani Kalia, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ratinder Kaur, DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed after confirmation of addition on account of long term capital gains on sale consideration received by members of Punjab Co- operative Housing Building Society Ltd. The additions ITA No. 616/Asr./2015 2 Manpreet Singh Badal involved full amount of sale consideration accrued to the members which included monetary consideration and value