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.

10 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 80Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Jaipur40Delhi37Mumbai15Visakhapatnam11Amritsar10Hyderabad5Indore4Ahmedabad4Kolkata4Lucknow4Raipur3Pune3Nagpur2Bangalore1Allahabad1Agra1Cochin1

Key Topics

Section 27115Section 271(1)(c)13Section 27412Penalty9Section 80C8Section 143(3)7Section 46Section 245Section 1484Deduction

SHRIMATI RAVNEET KAUR GREWAL,MOHALI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the bunch of appeals of the assessee is allowed

ITA 48/ASR/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jul 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. Nos. 48 To 53/Asr/2021 Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 4

80C. The ld. CIT(A) had observed that the AO records satisfaction for imposition of penalty was for concealment of income, however, he omitted to strike off the irrelevant part of the blank printed format notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) and thus without striking off the irrelevant portion in the notice contemplates in vitiating the penalty proceedings

SHRIMATI RAVNEET KAUR GREWAL,MOHALI vs. DEPUTY COMMIOSSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

4
Addition to Income3
Business Income2

In the result, the bunch of appeals of the assessee is allowed

ITA 53/ASR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. Nos. 48 To 53/Asr/2021 Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 4

80C. The ld. CIT(A) had observed that the AO records satisfaction for imposition of penalty was for concealment of income, however, he omitted to strike off the irrelevant part of the blank printed format notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) and thus without striking off the irrelevant portion in the notice contemplates in vitiating the penalty proceedings

SHRIMATI RAVNEET KAUR GREWAL,MOHALI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the bunch of appeals of the assessee is allowed

ITA 49/ASR/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jul 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. Nos. 48 To 53/Asr/2021 Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 4

80C. The ld. CIT(A) had observed that the AO records satisfaction for imposition of penalty was for concealment of income, however, he omitted to strike off the irrelevant part of the blank printed format notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) and thus without striking off the irrelevant portion in the notice contemplates in vitiating the penalty proceedings

SHRIMATI RAVNEET KAUR GREWAL,MOHALI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the bunch of appeals of the assessee is allowed

ITA 50/ASR/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. Nos. 48 To 53/Asr/2021 Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 4

80C. The ld. CIT(A) had observed that the AO records satisfaction for imposition of penalty was for concealment of income, however, he omitted to strike off the irrelevant part of the blank printed format notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) and thus without striking off the irrelevant portion in the notice contemplates in vitiating the penalty proceedings

SHRIMATI RAVNEET KAUR GREWAL,MOHALI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the bunch of appeals of the assessee is allowed

ITA 51/ASR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. Nos. 48 To 53/Asr/2021 Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 4

80C. The ld. CIT(A) had observed that the AO records satisfaction for imposition of penalty was for concealment of income, however, he omitted to strike off the irrelevant part of the blank printed format notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) and thus without striking off the irrelevant portion in the notice contemplates in vitiating the penalty proceedings

SHRIMATI RAVNEET KAUR GREWAL,MOHALI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the bunch of appeals of the assessee is allowed

ITA 52/ASR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. Nos. 48 To 53/Asr/2021 Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 4

80C. The ld. CIT(A) had observed that the AO records satisfaction for imposition of penalty was for concealment of income, however, he omitted to strike off the irrelevant part of the blank printed format notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) and thus without striking off the irrelevant portion in the notice contemplates in vitiating the penalty proceedings

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

271(1)(b) of the Act. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case andinlaw, the learnedCIT(A) erred in not deciding the issue of re-opening thecase by issuing the noticeu/s 148. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

271(1)(b) of the Act. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case andinlaw, the learnedCIT(A) erred in not deciding the issue of re-opening thecase by issuing the noticeu/s 148. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

SHRI BILAS CHAND,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD1(1), BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 399/ASR/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 Apr 2019AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 399/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. J. K. Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 24Section 80CSection 80E

sections, i.e., by mistake, and that he had revised his return accordingly on 17.7.2017 (refer para 5 of the assessment order). The said return, however, while retaining the claim for deduction u/s. 80C at Rs.1.50 lacs, altered that for deduction u/s. 80E to ‘Loss from house property’, at, though, the same sum of Rs.1,50,472, returning thus his income

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA vs. SH. DALJIT SINGH, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

ITA 461/ASR/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Feb 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N.S.Saini & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.461(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year:2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. Bhawani Shankar (Ld. DR)For Respondent: None
Section 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c), but such presumption is rebuttable. The Explanation itself provides for such rebuttal in cases, where the taxpayer has an explanation for the difference, produces all the materials available with him and such explanation is not found to be mala fide. In the instant case, the appellant did provide explanation for the lesser profit disclosed, which