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.

76 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 50clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,860Mumbai1,627Ahmedabad493Jaipur377Bangalore331Kolkata254Pune225Hyderabad214Indore211Chennai201Chandigarh153Karnataka138Raipur134Surat103Rajkot99Amritsar76Visakhapatnam60Nagpur59Allahabad50Lucknow44Cochin37Cuttack36Calcutta35Agra29Dehradun23Guwahati18Kerala14Jodhpur12Varanasi11Panaji11Jabalpur11Patna10SC8Telangana5Ranchi5Rajasthan4Punjab & Haryana1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Addition to Income69Section 14765Section 271(1)(c)58Section 143(3)49Section 14848Section 153A34Penalty30Section 69A25Section 250(6)

SHRI GULZAR SINGH , GURBACHAN SINGH,BATHINDA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 338/ASR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1) (c) could not imposed and confirming of penalty U/s 271(1)(c) on disallowance of shop expenses and cash discount is unjustified and liable to be deleted. 7. The Ld. Addl. CIT (DR) stands by the impugned orders. However, he has admitted the fact that the disallowance of shop expenses was on estimate basis@ 50

Showing 1–20 of 76 · Page 1 of 4

24
Section 1021
Survey u/s 133A18
Disallowance17

SHRI GULZAR SINGH. GURBACHAN SINGH,BATHINDA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BATHINDA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 337/ASR/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Sept 2022AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1) (c) could not imposed and confirming of penalty U/s 271(1)(c) on disallowance of shop expenses and cash discount is unjustified and liable to be deleted. 7. The Ld. Addl. CIT (DR) stands by the impugned orders. However, he has admitted the fact that the disallowance of shop expenses was on estimate basis@ 50

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

50,000/- 15 11.2010 Cash deposited, Raipur 5,00,000/- 29.11.2010 Cash deposited, Raipur 5,00,000/- 32,12.2010 Cash withdrawal, Self, 5,00,000/- Asr In other words, the sale proceeds were deposited at Raipur and that cash was Withdrawn at Amritsar Hence, the submission of the appellant that the Yes Bank was used for transferring cash from Amritsar

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

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 of the ITA No.46/Asr/2017

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

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 of the ITA No.46/Asr/2017

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

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 of the ITA No.46/Asr/2017

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

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 of the ITA No.46/Asr/2017

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

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 of the ITA No.46/Asr/2017

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

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 of the ITA No.46/Asr/2017

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

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 of the ITA No.46/Asr/2017

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

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 of the ITA No.46/Asr/2017

SH. SARWAN SINGH PHILLAUR,JALANDHAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 531/ASR/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Feb 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 562/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. R.K.Sarna, ARFor Respondent: Shri Bhawani Shankar, DR
Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act at Rs. 1,17,75,000/- (Rs. 1,50,75,000 - Rs. 33,00,000 ) . 3. constituting 95 persons and Ex.MLA of Punjab Legislative Assembly was formed which was the owner of 21.2 acres of land in Village Kansal, Distt. Mohali on 25.2.2007. The society named as Punjabi Co-operative Housing

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR vs. SH. SARWAN SINGH PHILLAUR, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 562/ASR/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Feb 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 562/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. R.K.Sarna, ARFor Respondent: Shri Bhawani Shankar, DR
Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act at Rs. 1,17,75,000/- (Rs. 1,50,75,000 - Rs. 33,00,000 ) . 3. constituting 95 persons and Ex.MLA of Punjab Legislative Assembly was formed which was the owner of 21.2 acres of land in Village Kansal, Distt. Mohali on 25.2.2007. The society named as Punjabi Co-operative Housing

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

50,000 18,75,000 18,75,000 Total 1,40,65000 70,32,500 70,32,500 Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors 17. The theory of working of peak credit based on noting’s of the debits and credits entries of both sides written in the pages of the alleged diary no SGF XIV, to compute

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

50,000 18,75,000 18,75,000 Total 1,40,65000 70,32,500 70,32,500 Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors 17. The theory of working of peak credit based on noting’s of the debits and credits entries of both sides written in the pages of the alleged diary no SGF XIV, to compute

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

50,000 18,75,000 18,75,000 Total 1,40,65000 70,32,500 70,32,500 Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors 17. The theory of working of peak credit based on noting’s of the debits and credits entries of both sides written in the pages of the alleged diary no SGF XIV, to compute

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

50,000 18,75,000 18,75,000 Total 1,40,65000 70,32,500 70,32,500 Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors 17. The theory of working of peak credit based on noting’s of the debits and credits entries of both sides written in the pages of the alleged diary no SGF XIV, to compute

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

50,000 18,75,000 18,75,000 Total 1,40,65000 70,32,500 70,32,500 Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors 17. The theory of working of peak credit based on noting’s of the debits and credits entries of both sides written in the pages of the alleged diary no SGF XIV, to compute

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

50,000 18,75,000 18,75,000 Total 1,40,65000 70,32,500 70,32,500 Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors 17. The theory of working of peak credit based on noting’s of the debits and credits entries of both sides written in the pages of the alleged diary no SGF XIV, to compute

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

50,000 18,75,000 18,75,000 Total 1,40,65000 70,32,500 70,32,500 Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors 17. The theory of working of peak credit based on noting’s of the debits and credits entries of both sides written in the pages of the alleged diary no SGF XIV, to compute