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.

48 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 36clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,580Mumbai1,551Ahmedabad476Jaipur401Bangalore330Pune207Indore200Kolkata180Chennai171Hyderabad152Chandigarh138Karnataka126Raipur118Rajkot89Surat54Visakhapatnam49Allahabad48Amritsar48Lucknow46Nagpur44Calcutta35Cuttack35Cochin34Agra22Guwahati21Dehradun19Panaji18Kerala15Jabalpur10Jodhpur10Ranchi9SC9Patna8Telangana4Varanasi4Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 14768Addition to Income46Section 14842Section 271(1)(c)31Section 80I28Section 25025Section 69A23Section 143(3)22Section 250(6)

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)

36 are as under: “1. That on the facts & circumstances of the case, Learned CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has grossly erred in law in I.T.A. No. 379/Asr/2024 2 Assessment Year: 2016-17 confirming penalty of Rs. 17,68,888/- imposed u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act. Penalty confirmed is illegal & bad in law. 2. That on the facts & circumstances

Showing 1–20 of 48 · Page 1 of 3

17
Disallowance17
Deduction16
Penalty13

SHRI SUKHDEV SINGH PROP KARNAIL SINGH SUKHDEV SINGH,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(4), AMRITSAR

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

ITA 107/ASR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Ghansham Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 44

u/s 271(1)(c) is not justified. 6 Sukhdev Singh v. ITO 6. Having heard the ld. additional CIT DR, perusal of record and impugned order, we find that undisputedly, assessee’s income has been estimated considering the deposits made in the bank account under section 44 A.D. of the Income Tax Act. In our view, penalty under section 271

SH. ARSPREET SINGH . S/O. LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH ,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE .II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 61/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

Section 271(l)(c) have remained unfulfilled in the present case. Therefore, penalty was not justified and the stand of Ld. CIT(A) was quite fair & logical and hence, the same do not require any interference on our part. ” 7.2.5 The fact that the assessee was carrying on business and the surrender is in respect of his business notings

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,SHRI MUKATSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 60/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

Section 271(l)(c) have remained unfulfilled in the present case. Therefore, penalty was not justified and the stand of Ld. CIT(A) was quite fair & logical and hence, the same do not require any interference on our part. ” 7.2.5 The fact that the assessee was carrying on business and the surrender is in respect of his business notings

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH. S/O.LATE.SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 64/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

Section 271(l)(c) have remained unfulfilled in the present case. Therefore, penalty was not justified and the stand of Ld. CIT(A) was quite fair & logical and hence, the same do not require any interference on our part. ” 7.2.5 The fact that the assessee was carrying on business and the surrender is in respect of his business notings

LATE. SH. GURMAIL. SINGH S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SHRI MUKAT SAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF 9INCOME TAX. CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 56/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

Section 271(l)(c) have remained unfulfilled in the present case. Therefore, penalty was not justified and the stand of Ld. CIT(A) was quite fair & logical and hence, the same do not require any interference on our part. ” 7.2.5 The fact that the assessee was carrying on business and the surrender is in respect of his business notings

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O. LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CERCLE- II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 62/ASR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

Section 271(l)(c) have remained unfulfilled in the present case. Therefore, penalty was not justified and the stand of Ld. CIT(A) was quite fair & logical and hence, the same do not require any interference on our part. ” 7.2.5 The fact that the assessee was carrying on business and the surrender is in respect of his business notings

LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH.S/O. LATE SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 57/ASR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

Section 271(l)(c) have remained unfulfilled in the present case. Therefore, penalty was not justified and the stand of Ld. CIT(A) was quite fair & logical and hence, the same do not require any interference on our part. ” 7.2.5 The fact that the assessee was carrying on business and the surrender is in respect of his business notings

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O. LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 63/ASR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

Section 271(l)(c) have remained unfulfilled in the present case. Therefore, penalty was not justified and the stand of Ld. CIT(A) was quite fair & logical and hence, the same do not require any interference on our part. ” 7.2.5 The fact that the assessee was carrying on business and the surrender is in respect of his business notings

LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKATSAR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 59/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

Section 271(l)(c) have remained unfulfilled in the present case. Therefore, penalty was not justified and the stand of Ld. CIT(A) was quite fair & logical and hence, the same do not require any interference on our part. ” 7.2.5 The fact that the assessee was carrying on business and the surrender is in respect of his business notings

LATE. SH. GURMAIL. SINGH. S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKATSAR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 58/ASR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

Section 271(l)(c) have remained unfulfilled in the present case. Therefore, penalty was not justified and the stand of Ld. CIT(A) was quite fair & logical and hence, the same do not require any interference on our part. ” 7.2.5 The fact that the assessee was carrying on business and the surrender is in respect of his business notings

LATE. SH. GUMAIL SINGH . S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 55/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

Section 271(l)(c) have remained unfulfilled in the present case. Therefore, penalty was not justified and the stand of Ld. CIT(A) was quite fair & logical and hence, the same do not require any interference on our part. ” 7.2.5 The fact that the assessee was carrying on business and the surrender is in respect of his business notings

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

36(i)(iii) of the I.T.Act was deleted by him. Insofar, the addition of Rs. 34,242/- made on account of bank interest was concerned, the same was confirmed by the CIT(A). In sum and substance, the CIT(A) sustained the addition of Rs. 9,18,900/- (out of unexplained cash credits of Rs. 18,16,500/-), as well

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 levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 7. Section 271 (1) (c) was not challenged /no appeal was filed. The Id. CIT(A) in his order has clearly given his findings on this as under:- ".....However, the appellant has not filed any appeal on account of addition of Rs. 18,82,009/- u/s 36

THE HOSHIARPUR CENTRAL COPREATIVE -BANK,HOSHIARPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE HOSHIARPUR, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, ground no. 1 of the assessee has not pressed, ground no-3 is

ITA 625/ASR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

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

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40a

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are being initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. (Addition made Rs.64,29,240/-)” I.T.A. No. 625/Asr/2019 5 6.1. We have observed that there was two effective issues in this appeal. The first issue concern itself with allowability of deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act. Under the second

THE BARAMULLA CENTRAL COPERATIVE BANK LTD,KASHMIR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 359/ASR/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar19 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Choudhry & Sh. O. P. Meena

For Appellant: Sh. Padam Bahl (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36

36(i)(va) of the Act. These additions were confirmed by the CIT as well as ITAT penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were also initiated. After getting the order of the ITAT, the case was fixed for hearing on 22.05.2014 but the assessee failed to make any compliance therefore the AO imposed penalty of Rs.40,03,762/- u/s 271

SHIVA MINT INDUSTRIES,,JAMMU vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 650/ASR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar05 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.649 & 650(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year:2007-08 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Somil Agarwal, (Ld. Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Bhawani Shankar (Ld. DR)
Section 253Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

36,250/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act by rejecting the submissions of the assessee in summary manner and thus the penalty order is illegal, invalid, bad in law and is liable to be set aside. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (A) has completely failed to understand that the assessee has neither concealed

M/S SHIVA MINT INDUSTRIES,,JAMMU vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 649/ASR/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar05 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.649 & 650(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year:2007-08 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Somil Agarwal, (Ld. Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Bhawani Shankar (Ld. DR)
Section 253Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

36,250/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act by rejecting the submissions of the assessee in summary manner and thus the penalty order is illegal, invalid, bad in law and is liable to be set aside. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (A) has completely failed to understand that the assessee has neither concealed

SHREE SHIRDI SAI SHAKTI PEETH TRUST vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTIONS,), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 39/ASR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. N.S.Saini & Sh. N.K.Choudhry

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ld. CA)For Respondent: Sh. Bhawani Shankar (Ld. DR)
Section 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 05-03-2015 without striking off the irrelevant words, apparently goes to prove that the Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings by issuing the notice u/s 274/271(1)(c) of the Act without specifying whether the assessee has concealed ''particulars of income" or assessee has furnished "inaccurate particulars of income

SH. RUCHI SHARMA,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 135/ASR/2017[200910]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar08 Mar 2019

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 135/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Pankaj Gandotra (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

36(1)(iii) of the Act vide assessment u/s. 143(3) dated 15.12.2009. The same stood confirmed in appeal vide order us/. 250(6) dated 12.8.2013. The assessee did not carry the matter further. Penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, initiated on the conclusion of the assessment, were accordingly proceeded with. And penalty levied