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.

26 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 9(1)(vi)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,090Mumbai855Jaipur238Ahmedabad218Bangalore178Karnataka123Indore115Hyderabad100Kolkata93Pune93Chandigarh82Chennai76Raipur48Surat44Lucknow42Calcutta35Rajkot31Cuttack29Visakhapatnam26Amritsar26Allahabad26Agra25Cochin22Nagpur20Ranchi15Dehradun8Patna7Guwahati6Varanasi6SC5Jabalpur4Telangana3Jodhpur2Gauhati1Rajasthan1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 1027Section 14824Section 271(1)(c)21Section 80I20Section 143(3)19Addition to Income17Deduction15Section 25014Disallowance

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)

9 ITA No. 548 (Asr)/2016 (AY 2009-10) Kashmir Steel Rolling Mills v. Asst. CIT We are thus unable to accept the assessee’s contention that merely because the AO has not stated in the assessment order that he is satisfied as regards the applicability of section 271(1)(c) qua a particular addition made or disallowance effected

M/S EARTHTECH ENGINEERS,PATHANKOT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - VI, PATHANKOT

Showing 1–20 of 26 · Page 1 of 2

13
Section 14712
Penalty11
Depreciation11

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 580/ASR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 553/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 M/S Earthtech Engineers, Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income C/O Shri Vaishno Malhotra, Tax, Circle-Vi, Outside Mann Market, Main Pathankot Bazar, Pathankot (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacfe1819R Assessee By : Written Submission Revenue By : Smt. Ratinder Kaur, Dr

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Smt. Ratinder Kaur, DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

VI, Pathankot of Rs.9,77,480/-. ITA Nos. 553 & 580/Asr./2017 2 Earthtech Engineers 2. In view of the above stated facts, the appeal No. 553/Asr./2017 is dismissed on the ground of filing duplicate appeal. 3. Now we proceed to adjudicate the appeal No. 580/Asr./2017. 4. The AR of the assessee Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv. And Shri Sanat

SHRI BRIJINDERPAL SINGH BHULLAR,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (3), BATHINDA

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 671/ASR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Trilochan Singh PS Khalsa, DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 27.08.2014. We shall first take up the appeal filed by the 2 Brijinder Pal Singh Bhullar Vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Bathinda ITA Nos. 671 & 672/Asr/2019 – A.Y 2008-09 assessee against the quantum assessment. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us : “1. That

SHRI BARJINDERPAL SINGH BHULLAR,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (3), BATHINDA

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 672/ASR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Trilochan Singh PS Khalsa, DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 27.08.2014. We shall first take up the appeal filed by the 2 Brijinder Pal Singh Bhullar Vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Bathinda ITA Nos. 671 & 672/Asr/2019 – A.Y 2008-09 assessee against the quantum assessment. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us : “1. That

THE HALDHAR FOODS(P) LTD.,FEROZPUR CANTT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-III(5), FEROZPUR

In the result, the appeal i

ITA 59/ASR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. P.N. Arora (Ld. Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Yashender Garg (Ld. DR)
Section 250(6)Section 271Section 271BSection 44A

271(B) of the I.T. Act, 1961 which is wrong, illegal and baseless because this the assessee has reasonable cause for not getting the books audited under section 44AB of the I.T. Act, 1961 in time due the reasons beyond his control. Since the assessee had reasonable cause for not getting the books of accounts audited hence penalty levied

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

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

vi. The Id. counsel also argued that it is a settled principle of law that 5. even if some claim made bythe Assessee is not allowed by the A.O., penalty cannot be imposed on that. The Id. Counsel also argued that the litigant should not suffer on account of mistake of the Counsel as here in this case, Assessee

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

VI-A. Accordingly, Rs.2,40,000/- was calculated I.T.A. No. 427/Asr/2019 3 as an escaped income and added to the assessee. The assessee filed a revised return against the rectification of the error, but the revised return filed after issuance of notice u/s 147/148. In the ground of the assessee, it is challenged that the penalty u/s 271(1

SH. VISHWA MITTER SEKHRI CHARITABLE SOCIETY,BATALA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTION), AMRITSAR.

In the result the 2nd ground raised by the assessee is liable to be allowed

ITA 75/ASR/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Jul 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. No. 75/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2007-08

Section 10Section 10(23)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271

penalty proceedings by the AO under Section 271 (1)c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer without giving the reasonable opportunity to be heard to the assessee. 6. That

M/S ARYA MODEL HIGH SCHOOL,,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 13/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

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

Section 10Section 11Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Both the appeals filed with delay of 18 days. The assessee filed condonation petition before the bench. The ld. DR had not made any objection for condonation of delay of 18 days. Accordingly, the delay of 18 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following ground: “1. That the Learned Commissioner of Income

MESERS ARYA MODEL SCHOOL,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 553/ASR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

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

Section 10Section 11Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Both the appeals filed with delay of 18 days. The assessee filed condonation petition before the bench. The ld. DR had not made any objection for condonation of delay of 18 days. Accordingly, the delay of 18 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following ground: “1. That the Learned Commissioner of Income

MESERS ARYA MODEL HIGH SCHOOL,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR WARD, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 552/ASR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

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

Section 10Section 11Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Both the appeals filed with delay of 18 days. The assessee filed condonation petition before the bench. The ld. DR had not made any objection for condonation of delay of 18 days. Accordingly, the delay of 18 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following ground: “1. That the Learned Commissioner of Income

M/S ARYA MODEL HIGH SCHOOL,,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 60/ASR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

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

Section 10Section 11Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Both the appeals filed with delay of 18 days. The assessee filed condonation petition before the bench. The ld. DR had not made any objection for condonation of delay of 18 days. Accordingly, the delay of 18 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following ground: “1. That the Learned Commissioner of Income

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. FIL INDUSTRIES LTD, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 471/ASR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

vi) Electronic Division: - This division is involved in trading of electronic hardware items. In computation of income the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80IB of theAct for Rs.6,61,35,694/-. Various issues are involved for claim of 80IB. The issue was already adjudicated by the ITAT, Amritsar Bench in 415/Asr/2009 for A.Y. 2005-06 order dated 27.06.2012. The issues

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FIL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 293/ASR/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

vi) Electronic Division: - This division is involved in trading of electronic hardware items. In computation of income the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80IB of theAct for Rs.6,61,35,694/-. Various issues are involved for claim of 80IB. The issue was already adjudicated by the ITAT, Amritsar Bench in 415/Asr/2009 for A.Y. 2005-06 order dated 27.06.2012. The issues

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FILL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 289/ASR/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2002-03

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

vi) Electronic Division: - This division is involved in trading of electronic hardware items. In computation of income the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80IB of theAct for Rs.6,61,35,694/-. Various issues are involved for claim of 80IB. The issue was already adjudicated by the ITAT, Amritsar Bench in 415/Asr/2009 for A.Y. 2005-06 order dated 27.06.2012. The issues

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. FIL INDUSTRIES LTD, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 470/ASR/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

vi) Electronic Division: - This division is involved in trading of electronic hardware items. In computation of income the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80IB of theAct for Rs.6,61,35,694/-. Various issues are involved for claim of 80IB. The issue was already adjudicated by the ITAT, Amritsar Bench in 415/Asr/2009 for A.Y. 2005-06 order dated 27.06.2012. The issues

M/S FIL INDUSTRIES LTD,SRINAGAR vs. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 255/ASR/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

vi) Electronic Division: - This division is involved in trading of electronic hardware items. In computation of income the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80IB of theAct for Rs.6,61,35,694/-. Various issues are involved for claim of 80IB. The issue was already adjudicated by the ITAT, Amritsar Bench in 415/Asr/2009 for A.Y. 2005-06 order dated 27.06.2012. The issues

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FIL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 294/ASR/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

vi) Electronic Division: - This division is involved in trading of electronic hardware items. In computation of income the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80IB of theAct for Rs.6,61,35,694/-. Various issues are involved for claim of 80IB. The issue was already adjudicated by the ITAT, Amritsar Bench in 415/Asr/2009 for A.Y. 2005-06 order dated 27.06.2012. The issues

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FILL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 291/ASR/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2004-05

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

vi) Electronic Division: - This division is involved in trading of electronic hardware items. In computation of income the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80IB of theAct for Rs.6,61,35,694/-. Various issues are involved for claim of 80IB. The issue was already adjudicated by the ITAT, Amritsar Bench in 415/Asr/2009 for A.Y. 2005-06 order dated 27.06.2012. The issues