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.

74 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 40clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,702Mumbai1,535Ahmedabad445Jaipur378Bangalore340Hyderabad211Kolkata200Pune178Chennai173Indore167Raipur127Surat127Karnataka127Chandigarh101Rajkot89Amritsar74Visakhapatnam47Allahabad43Lucknow42Cochin41Calcutta36Nagpur33Cuttack19Dehradun18Patna16Ranchi16Agra14Kerala14Jabalpur12Panaji11Guwahati8SC6Jodhpur6Telangana4Varanasi4Rajasthan2Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 14777Addition to Income61Section 153C60Section 271(1)(c)49Section 153A44Section 14842Penalty39Section 143(3)38Section 250(6)

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)

271(1)(b) of the Act for noncompliance of notices. 4. At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the appellant submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 10,95,406/- in each appeal on account of excess NP @ 5% on estimating turn over comprising of cash deposited

SHRI SANTOKH SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2 (1), AMRITSAR

Showing 1–20 of 74 · Page 1 of 4

28
Section 271A27
Survey u/s 133A22
Disallowance19

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)

271(1)(b) of the Act for noncompliance of notices. 4. At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the appellant submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 10,95,406/- in each appeal on account of excess NP @ 5% on estimating turn over comprising of cash deposited

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)

271(1)(b) of the Act for noncompliance of notices. 4. At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the appellant submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 10,95,406/- in each appeal on account of excess NP @ 5% on estimating turn over comprising of cash deposited

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)

271(1)(b) of the Act for noncompliance of notices. 4. At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the appellant submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 10,95,406/- in each appeal on account of excess NP @ 5% on estimating turn over comprising of cash deposited

M/S KASHMIR STEEL ROLLING MILLS,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 548/ASR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 548/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Bansal (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

u/s. 271(1)(c), i.e., on which the jurisdiction to initiate it is assumed. There is no manner contemplated by law for expressing the same; not even the requirement for recording the same, so that it may not even be reduced in writing. Indeed, writing so, without being otherwise manifest or discernible, would be of little consequence in law. That

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

40,000/- 27.09.2010 Chq withdrawal, Self, Asr 8,50,000/- 5 Sukhdev Singh v. ITO 28.09.2010 Cash deposited, Raipur 4,99,500/- 28.09.2010 Chq withdrawal, Self, Asr 5,00,000/- 07.10.2010 Cash deposited, Raipur 1,50,000/- 12.10.2010 Chq withdrawal, Self, Asr 1,50,000/- 16.10.2010 Cash deposited, Raipur 50,000/- 15 11.2010 Cash deposited, Raipur

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

40,870/ on dated 16.12.2011. Consequently, the Assessing Officer recorded the satisfaction in the assessment Order and had issued the notice dated 16.12.2011 u/s 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act for concealment of income to the tune of Rs.17,00,000/- and ultimately vide penalty order dated 21.03.2014, levied the penalty 5,79,000/- on the addition of Rs.17

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

40,870/ on dated 16.12.2011. Consequently, the Assessing Officer recorded the satisfaction in the assessment Order and had issued the notice dated 16.12.2011 u/s 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act for concealment of income to the tune of Rs.17,00,000/- and ultimately vide penalty order dated 21.03.2014, levied the penalty 5,79,000/- on the addition of Rs.17

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

40,870/ on dated 16.12.2011. Consequently, the Assessing Officer recorded the satisfaction in the assessment Order and had issued the notice dated 16.12.2011 u/s 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act for concealment of income to the tune of Rs.17,00,000/- and ultimately vide penalty order dated 21.03.2014, levied the penalty 5,79,000/- on the addition of Rs.17

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

40,870/ on dated 16.12.2011. Consequently, the Assessing Officer recorded the satisfaction in the assessment Order and had issued the notice dated 16.12.2011 u/s 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act for concealment of income to the tune of Rs.17,00,000/- and ultimately vide penalty order dated 21.03.2014, levied the penalty 5,79,000/- on the addition of Rs.17

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

40,870/ on dated 16.12.2011. Consequently, the Assessing Officer recorded the satisfaction in the assessment Order and had issued the notice dated 16.12.2011 u/s 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act for concealment of income to the tune of Rs.17,00,000/- and ultimately vide penalty order dated 21.03.2014, levied the penalty 5,79,000/- on the addition of Rs.17

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

40,870/ on dated 16.12.2011. Consequently, the Assessing Officer recorded the satisfaction in the assessment Order and had issued the notice dated 16.12.2011 u/s 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act for concealment of income to the tune of Rs.17,00,000/- and ultimately vide penalty order dated 21.03.2014, levied the penalty 5,79,000/- on the addition of Rs.17

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

40,870/ on dated 16.12.2011. Consequently, the Assessing Officer recorded the satisfaction in the assessment Order and had issued the notice dated 16.12.2011 u/s 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act for concealment of income to the tune of Rs.17,00,000/- and ultimately vide penalty order dated 21.03.2014, levied the penalty 5,79,000/- on the addition of Rs.17

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

40,870/ on dated 16.12.2011. Consequently, the Assessing Officer recorded the satisfaction in the assessment Order and had issued the notice dated 16.12.2011 u/s 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act for concealment of income to the tune of Rs.17,00,000/- and ultimately vide penalty order dated 21.03.2014, levied the penalty 5,79,000/- on the addition of Rs.17

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

40,65000/- (Rs.70,32,500/- each) from the diary in all the years, the appellants have already disclosed income of Rs. 3 crores in aggregate in their ITRs for AY 2014-15 and paid taxes based on the alleged incriminating documents/diaries during the survey. Thus, in our view, the income computed on the basis of peak credit is covered

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

40,65000/- (Rs.70,32,500/- each) from the diary in all the years, the appellants have already disclosed income of Rs. 3 crores in aggregate in their ITRs for AY 2014-15 and paid taxes based on the alleged incriminating documents/diaries during the survey. Thus, in our view, the income computed on the basis of peak credit is covered

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

40,65000/- (Rs.70,32,500/- each) from the diary in all the years, the appellants have already disclosed income of Rs. 3 crores in aggregate in their ITRs for AY 2014-15 and paid taxes based on the alleged incriminating documents/diaries during the survey. Thus, in our view, the income computed on the basis of peak credit is covered

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

40,65000/- (Rs.70,32,500/- each) from the diary in all the years, the appellants have already disclosed income of Rs. 3 crores in aggregate in their ITRs for AY 2014-15 and paid taxes based on the alleged incriminating documents/diaries during the survey. Thus, in our view, the income computed on the basis of peak credit is covered

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

40,65000/- (Rs.70,32,500/- each) from the diary in all the years, the appellants have already disclosed income of Rs. 3 crores in aggregate in their ITRs for AY 2014-15 and paid taxes based on the alleged incriminating documents/diaries during the survey. Thus, in our view, the income computed on the basis of peak credit is covered

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

40,65000/- (Rs.70,32,500/- each) from the diary in all the years, the appellants have already disclosed income of Rs. 3 crores in aggregate in their ITRs for AY 2014-15 and paid taxes based on the alleged incriminating documents/diaries during the survey. Thus, in our view, the income computed on the basis of peak credit is covered