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.

11 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Short Term Capital Gainsclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai832Delhi618Ahmedabad253Jaipur230Kolkata147Chennai125Bangalore116Surat109Karnataka103Indore87Hyderabad70Pune67Raipur47Chandigarh44Calcutta34Visakhapatnam28Nagpur23Rajkot23Ranchi20Agra12Amritsar11Lucknow11Cuttack9Dehradun8Guwahati5Panaji5Cochin5Jodhpur4Telangana3Jabalpur3Patna3Allahabad1Rajasthan1SC1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)28Section 14814Long Term Capital Gains9Section 1478Penalty8Capital Gains7Section 80C6Addition to Income5Section 154

SH. VIJAY KUMAR,PROP. ,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3, MOGA

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

ITA 129/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Ghansham Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

short term capital gains. The Assessing Officer has mentioned in the penalty order, that when this, discrepancy was brought to the notice of the assessee, the assessee did not file any reply whatsoever with regard to the discrepancy pointed out, rather on the on the other side the assessee objected to 4 Vijay Kumar v. ITO the issue of notice

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

4
Section 143(3)4
Section 142(1)4
Deduction4
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

Term Capital Gains of Rs. 33 lacs is upheld. 8. Being aggrieved by the said order of the CIT(A), both the assessee and Revenue is in appeal before us. 9. Before us, Ld. AR of the assessee filed copy of the notice dated issued u/s 274 of the Act. We find that the notice dated 22.12.2010, issued u/s

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

Term Capital Gains of Rs. 33 lacs is upheld. 8. Being aggrieved by the said order of the CIT(A), both the assessee and Revenue is in appeal before us. 9. Before us, Ld. AR of the assessee filed copy of the notice dated issued u/s 274 of the Act. We find that the notice dated 22.12.2010, issued u/s

MESERS EMBROCIA FARMS PVT LTD,PATHANKOT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, PATHANKOT

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is (in ITA No

ITA 561/ASR/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 May 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. Nos. 561/Asr/2018 & 284/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. Tarsem Lal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) levied by the Assessing Officer (AO) for the said year on 13/3/2015, by the ld. CIT(A) vide his order dated 03/02/2017. (AY 2006-07) Embrocia Farms Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy CIT 2.1 The facts, briefly stated, are that the assessee-company sold its’ feed mill Unit during the relevant year for a lump

M/S EMBROCIA FARMS PVT LTD. ,PATHANKOT vs. D.C.I.T, CIRCLE-6,, PATHANKOT

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is (in ITA No

ITA 284/ASR/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 May 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. Nos. 561/Asr/2018 & 284/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. Tarsem Lal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) levied by the Assessing Officer (AO) for the said year on 13/3/2015, by the ld. CIT(A) vide his order dated 03/02/2017. (AY 2006-07) Embrocia Farms Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy CIT 2.1 The facts, briefly stated, are that the assessee-company sold its’ feed mill Unit during the relevant year for a lump

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)

capital gain tax only when the same was so received, and not otherwise. Accordingly, the CIT(A) in terms of his aforesaid observations partly allowed the appeal. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. At the very outset of the hearing of the appeal, it was submitted

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)

capital gain tax only when the same was so received, and not otherwise. Accordingly, the CIT(A) in terms of his aforesaid observations partly allowed the appeal. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. At the very outset of the hearing of the appeal, it was submitted

SMT. JANAK RANI DHINGRA,HARYANA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, MOGA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 294/ASR/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Feb 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 294/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. P.N. Arora, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Bhawani Shankar, DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 54Section 54F

Term Capital Gains from sale of residential house as declared by the Assessee. Thereafter, the AO levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs. 1,60,000/- being 100% of the amount of tax sought to be evaded by the assessee on the ground of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee. 4. On appeal

THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR. vs. SH. RAJIV MEHRA PROP., AMRITSAR.

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 452/ASR/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 452(Asr)/2014 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Bhawani Shankar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty of Rs. 37,07,496/- imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act", in short). 3. The brief facts of the case are that the AO passed the order u/s 143(3) of the Act on 30.12.2010 and made the following additions:- a) Addition on account to Long Term

INCOME TAX OFICER, WARD1(3), JALANDHAR vs. SH. RAJESH MAYUR, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 400/ASR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year : 2010-11 The Income-Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Rajesh Mayor, Ward-1(3), M/S Mayor & Co., Jalandhar. G.T. Road, Jalandhar. Pan: Acgpm7469P (Appellants) (Respondents)

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Vijh, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Negi
Section 271(1)(c)

penalty of Rs.16,11,000/- imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) in relation to the Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee declared income of Rs.54 lac in his return under the head ‘Income from other sources

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

short) dated 24.5.2018, dismissing the assessee’s appeal contesting his assessment u/s. 143(3) read with s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) dated 09.3.2018 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. 2. The issue arising in the instant appeal is the maintainability of the assessee’s claims for deduction under sections