BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

100 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 10(20)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi894Mumbai837Jaipur299Ahmedabad231Hyderabad196Bangalore182Chennai167Raipur147Indore134Pune122Kolkata121Chandigarh100Surat98Rajkot90Allahabad51Amritsar51Nagpur36Lucknow33Visakhapatnam30Panaji16Guwahati15Cuttack13Jabalpur11Cochin10Patna10Jodhpur9Varanasi8Ranchi6Dehradun4Agra2

Key Topics

Section 14865Addition to Income58Section 26355Section 143(3)48Section 153A48Section 143(2)36Section 14734Section 25029Penalty

M/S APEEJAY EDUCATION SOCIETY,JALANDHAR vs. DCIT, C-1 (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 706/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(b)

20-30. From the chart given above and even from the penalty order it is clear that the assessee has complied with the notice and same may not be as per requisition of the AO. In such case penalty cannot be imposed and the penalty imposed by the AO is against the Provisions of the law. Keeping in view

ANJALI SAINI,ZIRAKPUR vs. ITO-WARD-5(5), CHANDIGARH

Showing 1–20 of 100 · Page 1 of 5

29
Section 142(1)28
Deduction20
Disallowance16

The appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 620/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 253Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

10. That it is contended the notice for initiation of penalty dated 271(1)(b) dated 15.11.2019 is invalid in law and shall be deemed to have never been issued. Keeping in view that the notice for very initiation of penalty u.s 271(1)(b) dated 15.11.2019 is invalid, the subsequent proceedings also become invalid and void ab initio

INDER PAL SINGH LEGAL HEIR OF DECEASED SATNAM SINGH 171789, STREET NO.8, GURU TEG BAHADUR JAGRAON,PUNJAB vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 JAGRAON , PUNJAB

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 43/CHANDI/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Aug 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kushal Chopra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 250Section 253Section 269SSection 271Section 271DSection 274

10 10/4/2017 To Cash 85 2,00,000 11 11/4/2017 To Cash 93 2,00,000 12 12/4/2017 To Cash 98 2,00,000 13 13/4/2017 To Cash 104 2,00,000 14 14/4/2017 To Cash 109 2,00,000 15 15/4/2017 To Cash 115 2,00,000 16 16/4/2017 To Cash 121 2,00,000 17 17/4/2017 To Cash

SH. JAGMOHAN SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 421/CHANDI/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

10. It was further submitted that the assessee, vide another submission dt. 09/11/2011 filed during the course of assessment proceedings, which is available at assessee’s paper book at pages 3 & 4, has submitted that he has purchased a plot of land to construct a residential house away from the city. He had full intention to construction the house

M/S PAGRO FROZEN FOODS PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-2(3), CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1076/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Krishan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act is being initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 25. The Assessee feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the AO’s order dt. 26/12/2016 had filed first appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned order has dismissed the same. The core finding of CIT(A) is as follows

CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 126/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ANDSHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Jindal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

10 that a sum of Rs. 278 crores which was deposited by the Chandigarh Housing Board in the Government treasury, is agreed to be adjusted in income tax head and it is treated as final in so far as liability of income tax is concerned. Having regard to the settlement reached between the parties, it is clear that the dispute

CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD,CHANDIGARH vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 44/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ANDSHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Jindal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

10 that a sum of Rs. 278 crores which was deposited by the Chandigarh Housing Board in the Government treasury, is agreed to be adjusted in income tax head and it is treated as final in so far as liability of income tax is concerned. Having regard to the settlement reached between the parties, it is clear that the dispute

CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 125/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ANDSHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Jindal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

10 that a sum of Rs. 278 crores which was deposited by the Chandigarh Housing Board in the Government treasury, is agreed to be adjusted in income tax head and it is treated as final in so far as liability of income tax is concerned. Having regard to the settlement reached between the parties, it is clear that the dispute

DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 103/CHANDI/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ANDSHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Jindal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

10 that a sum of Rs. 278 crores which was deposited by the Chandigarh Housing Board in the Government treasury, is agreed to be adjusted in income tax head and it is treated as final in so far as liability of income tax is concerned. Having regard to the settlement reached between the parties, it is clear that the dispute

RAM KUMAR,NEHRU GARDEN COLONY vs. ITO WARD 2, KAITHAL

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 415/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar Singla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 69

10. That in reply filed on 02/11/2018 it was submitted that the cash deposit of Rs. 23,64,000/- was deposited in HDFC Bank (supra) out of limit amount of Rs. 33,80,000/- from SBI Kaithal. 11. That Ld. AO carried out due process during the assessment pr4oceedings both in respect of HDFC Account (supra) and SBI Account (supra

RAM KUMAR,NEHRU GARDEN COLONY vs. ITO WARD 2 KAITHAL, AAYKAR BHAWAN, AMBALA ROAD KAITHAL

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 416/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar Singla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 69

10. That in reply filed on 02/11/2018 it was submitted that the cash deposit of Rs. 23,64,000/- was deposited in HDFC Bank (supra) out of limit amount of Rs. 33,80,000/- from SBI Kaithal. 11. That Ld. AO carried out due process during the assessment pr4oceedings both in respect of HDFC Account (supra) and SBI Account (supra

BEE GEE CONSTRUCTION CO,ZIRAKPUR vs. ACIT, CIR-3(1), CHANDIGARH

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 599/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl.CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80

section 80-IB of the Act. 8. We do not find any other in good ground to entertain this appeal. 9. For reasons aforestated, we pass the following: ORDER i. Appeal is dismissed. ii. The order of the Tribunal passed in ITA No. 1629/Bangalore/2016 dated 20-10-2017 Assessment Year 2008-09 is hereby affirmed. The Ld. AR has stated

BEE GEE CONSTRUCTION CO,ZIRAKPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 3(1), CHANDIGARH

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 598/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl.CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80

section 80-IB of the Act. 8. We do not find any other in good ground to entertain this appeal. 9. For reasons aforestated, we pass the following: ORDER i. Appeal is dismissed. ii. The order of the Tribunal passed in ITA No. 1629/Bangalore/2016 dated 20-10-2017 Assessment Year 2008-09 is hereby affirmed. The Ld. AR has stated

SURESH,PINJORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, PANCHKULA

In the result both the above appeals are allowed

ITA 1148/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Neelam Dhiman, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act in respect to the amount received from sale of agriculture land on power of attorney which was duly registered in Tehsil ignoring the fact that the cash of Rs. 10,00,000 was deposited on the same date of execution of power of attorney and same belongs to seven family members

SURESH,PINJORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4,, PANCHKULA

In the result both the above appeals are allowed

ITA 1149/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Neelam Dhiman, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act in respect to the amount received from sale of agriculture land on power of attorney which was duly registered in Tehsil ignoring the fact that the cash of Rs. 10,00,000 was deposited on the same date of execution of power of attorney and same belongs to seven family members

SHRI DINESH SETHI,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 338/CHANDI/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 376/Chd/2014 & "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Janesh Sethi, Legal Heir Of बनाम The Ito, Late Shri Dinesh Sethi, Ward – 1(1), Vs Prop. M/S R.S. Trading Corp., Ludhiana. C-434, Urban Estate Focal Point, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Aaqpk1200Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.8.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) vide order dated 25.06.2009 against whom appeal has been dismissed by the CIT (Appeals) by way of the impugned order). 2. It has been brought to our notice that assessee Shri Dinesh Sethi has died on 14.02.2024. Death Certificate of the assessee has been annexed by the ld. counsel for the assessee

SH. DINESH SETHI,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 376/CHANDI/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 376/Chd/2014 & "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Janesh Sethi, Legal Heir Of बनाम The Ito, Late Shri Dinesh Sethi, Ward – 1(1), Vs Prop. M/S R.S. Trading Corp., Ludhiana. C-434, Urban Estate Focal Point, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Aaqpk1200Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.8.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) vide order dated 25.06.2009 against whom appeal has been dismissed by the CIT (Appeals) by way of the impugned order). 2. It has been brought to our notice that assessee Shri Dinesh Sethi has died on 14.02.2024. Death Certificate of the assessee has been annexed by the ld. counsel for the assessee

M/S SATWANT AGRO ENGINEERS,BHAWANIGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 753/CHANDI/2022[AY 2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 May 2024

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69A

Penalty proceedings are initiated u/s 271AAC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AR has also submitted that the addition in the partner's capita! account of Rs. 50 lacs should be considered as explained under the unaccounted sales transactions of Rs. 42.80 lacs in the impounded documents and other discrepancies of Rs. 7.2 lacs found during the course

SH. RANDHIR SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 494/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

271-276 of JPB). iii) ITA No. 1393/D/2017 Dated: 16.04.2021 Paramjeeet Singh Vs ACIT. (Page 277-280 of JPB). iv) ITA N. 5084/D/2019 Dated: 06.07.2022 Girish Kumar vs. ITO (Page 343-348 of JPB). v) ITA No. 1418/D/2023 Dated 21.09.2022 Kamla Devi vs. ITO (Page 349-355 of JPB). vi) ITA No. 1539/D/2020 Dated 17.03.2023 ITO vs. Hari Singh Saini

SH. ARVAIL SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 286/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

271-276 of JPB). iii) ITA No. 1393/D/2017 Dated: 16.04.2021 Paramjeeet Singh Vs ACIT. (Page 277-280 of JPB). iv) ITA N. 5084/D/2019 Dated: 06.07.2022 Girish Kumar vs. ITO (Page 343-348 of JPB). v) ITA No. 1418/D/2023 Dated 21.09.2022 Kamla Devi vs. ITO (Page 349-355 of JPB). vi) ITA No. 1539/D/2020 Dated 17.03.2023 ITO vs. Hari Singh Saini