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.

30 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 150clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi428Mumbai308Jaipur143Karnataka99Ahmedabad94Bangalore72Hyderabad64Pune62Indore56Allahabad55Chennai50Kolkata42Raipur35Calcutta35Chandigarh30Lucknow22Cuttack14Cochin14Nagpur13Ranchi13Rajkot12Visakhapatnam10Surat9Guwahati9Amritsar7Patna5Dehradun4Agra3SC3Rajasthan2Jodhpur1Jabalpur1Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 26342Section 143(3)20Addition to Income17Deduction8Section 143(2)7Section 271(1)(c)7Disallowance7Penalty7Section 153A

M/S TRIVIKRAM REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER & CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD.,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(1), MOHALI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1698/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Nov 2018AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri. Jaspal SharmaFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta
Section 143(3)Section 271

150/- 0n total turnover at Rs.6,51,00,000/.- excluding turnover declared for the AY2012-13. The assessment for the AY 2013- 14 has been completed on 30.03.2016 accepting turnover and net profit declared as per revised return. 8. The Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271(1) (c) on the income declared by the Assessee

SHRI DARBARA SINGH,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO-WARD-5(5), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Showing 1–20 of 30 · Page 1 of 2

6
Section 10(3)6
Section 80P6
Section 250(6)6
ITA 37/CHANDI/2020[2010-11]Status: Disposed
ITAT Chandigarh
25 Jun 2021
AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Amitoz Singh Kamboj, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Meenakshi Vohra, Addl. CIT
Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (For short ‘the Act’). 2. Brief facts of the case are that during the year relevant to the assessment year under consideration, the assessee had received interest of Rs. 59,12,449/- on delayed payment of compensation on acquisition of land by the Chandigarh Administration. Since

SH. AMAN SETH,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-1(1), LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1318/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 129Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253Section 36Section 44A

150. Issue penalty notice u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. Being aggrieved by the AO order dt. 10/02/2015 (supra) the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who by an order dt. 05/06/2017 has sustained the additions. 7. The assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of Ld. CIT(A) dt. 05/06/2017

SH. LALIT JAIN,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, C-4(1), CHANDIGARH

The appeals of the assessees are allowed for

ITA 1074/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 1074/Chd/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Lalit Jain The Assistant Commissioner बनाम S.C.O. 371-372, 2Nd Floor, Of Income Tax Circle-4(1), Sector-35B, Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./Pan No : Aaupj 0091Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Goyal, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Meenakshi Vohra, Addl. CIT
Section 10(38)Section 133ASection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

150/- in the case of Shri. Lalit Jain and 56,58,000/- in the case of Smt. Jyoti Jain. That the revised return filed by the assessee was assessed as ITA Nos. 1074&1075/Chd/2019 Lalit Jain & Jyoti Jain v. ACIT, Chandigarh 3 such in both cases and penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were initiated. That against the assessment order

SMT. JYOTI JAIN,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, C-4(1), CHANDIGARH

The appeals of the assessees are allowed for

ITA 1075/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 1074/Chd/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Lalit Jain The Assistant Commissioner बनाम S.C.O. 371-372, 2Nd Floor, Of Income Tax Circle-4(1), Sector-35B, Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./Pan No : Aaupj 0091Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Goyal, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Meenakshi Vohra, Addl. CIT
Section 10(38)Section 133ASection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

150/- in the case of Shri. Lalit Jain and 56,58,000/- in the case of Smt. Jyoti Jain. That the revised return filed by the assessee was assessed as ITA Nos. 1074&1075/Chd/2019 Lalit Jain & Jyoti Jain v. ACIT, Chandigarh 3 such in both cases and penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were initiated. That against the assessment order

DCIT, C-5, LUDHIANA vs. M/S HERO CYCLES LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed and the Cross

ITA 1493/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jun 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Subhash Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta, CIT
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

Penalty proceeding u/s 271(l)(c) is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income as discussed above. D) Disallowance of Interest u/s 36(l)(iii) on Share Application Money:- On the details has submitted by the assessee regarding investments it is seen that the assessee has invested certain sum of its money as mentioned below under the head share

HUSNA BEGAM,YAMUNA NAGAR, HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, YAMUNA NAGAR, YAMUNA NAGAR, HARYANA

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

ITA 970/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Adj. Application (Rejected)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr .DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

u/s 144 by the AO, without appreciating the fact that the investment of Rs. 1,03,09,200/- was made out of the sale proceeds of agricultural land amounting to Rs. 78,70,000/- and out of the agricultural income of the assessee and there was legitimate sources for purchase of agricultural land. 6. That the learned

RAJESH POPLI,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1393/CHANDI/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: For Imposition Of Penalty U/S271(L)(C).

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Proxy for Shri Vishal Mohan)For Respondent: Smt. Renu Amitabh, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 139Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) of Rs. 3,17,525/- . The penalty so imposed is illegal and has wrongly been upheld. 2. That the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is bad in law and facts. 3. Facts taken from the order of the Ld. CIT(A) are that a search & seizure operation u/s

RAJESH POPLI,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1394/CHANDI/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 May 2019AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Proxy for Shri Vishal Mohan)For Respondent: Smr. Renu Amitabh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139Section 271Section 271A

u/s 139 of the Income Tax Act,1961 on 07.07.2012 showing a total income of Rs. 8,94,195/-. 4. During the search an amount of Rs. 21,46,150/- has been found at the premises belonging to the assessee out of which an amount of Rs. 640503/- was treated as undisclosed income. Further jewellery valued

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,KALA AMB vs. ITO, SIRMOUR

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

ITA 61/CHANDI/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Aditya Sood, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253Section 80I

271(1) (b) of the Income Tax Act 1961 was also issued vide letter No.763 dated 17.8.2009 for non-furnishing of information. In all these cases, hearing was fixed on 19.8.2009. On this date, the assessee furnished reply, vide letter dated 17.8.2009 of its CA, Sh.Manoj Gupta vide which it furnished some of the addresses of the account holders

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,SIRMOUR vs. ADDL. CIT, SOLAN

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

ITA 388/CHANDI/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jul 2024AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Aditya Sood, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253Section 80I

271(1) (b) of the Income Tax Act 1961 was also issued vide letter No.763 dated 17.8.2009 for non-furnishing of information. In all these cases, hearing was fixed on 19.8.2009. On this date, the assessee furnished reply, vide letter dated 17.8.2009 of its CA, Sh.Manoj Gupta vide which it furnished some of the addresses of the account holders

THE SHAHABAD COOP. SUGAR MILLS,SHAHABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, KURUKSHETRA

The appeal is disposed off accordingly as aforesaid

ITA 1491/CHANDI/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 May 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Shri Varun Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 250(6)Section 253Section 36(1)(VA)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

150 (KER)[2018]) dated 02.07.2018 that the effect of Sections 2(24)(x) and 36(1)(va) of the IT Act, 1961 would make available deductions only if contributions are paid within the due dates prescribed in the respective statutes. The non-obstante clause of Section 43B of the IT Act has no effect in so far as employees contribution

SH. GAURAV PATHAK,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

ITA 413/CHANDI/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 271(1)

section 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act, dt. 17/12/2019 wherein an amount of Rs. 2,62,37,267/- was brought to tax in the hands of the assessee for the reason that the assessee was involved in doing business of accommodation entry and has earned commission income which was determined by the AO at the rate

M/S PUNJAB CHEMICALS & CROP. PROTECTION LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ADDL. CIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 60/CHANDI/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri. Anil KhannaFor Respondent: Mrs. Mona Mohanty
Section 111ASection 115Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 6(1)(iii)

150 reflected in the returns of income tax on which STT was paid. The same be charged as per the provisions of law. 10. As per the facts and circumstance of the case and as per the provisions of law, the assessing officer has erred in not allowing tax credit eligible u/s 115JAA as detailed below from the tax payable

PUNJAB CHEMICALS & CROP. PROTECTION LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 100/CHANDI/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri. Anil KhannaFor Respondent: Mrs. Mona Mohanty
Section 111ASection 115Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 6(1)(iii)

150 reflected in the returns of income tax on which STT was paid. The same be charged as per the provisions of law. 10. As per the facts and circumstance of the case and as per the provisions of law, the assessing officer has erred in not allowing tax credit eligible u/s 115JAA as detailed below from the tax payable

DCIT, LUDHIANA vs. M/S INCITE HOMECARE PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 896/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R.Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Dr.Gulshan Raj, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Sudhir Sehgal
Section 36Section 43(1)Section 69

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) are initiated on this point for furnishing inaccurate particular income. 9.1. A perusal of the impugned order shows that considering the written submissions of the assessee and the arguments advanced, the CIT(A) deleted the addition holding as under : 14. I have carefully considered the appellant's various submission. I have also gone through

THE PUNJAB STATE FEDERATION OF COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 797/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Atul Goyal, C.A (Virtual Mode)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 57oSection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

150-152, Sector-34A, Chandigarh "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAAAT0759L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Atul Goyal, C.A (Virtual Mode) राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 15/01/2026 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 19/01/2026 आदेश/Order PER LALIET KUMAR

THE PUNJAB STATE FEDERATION OF COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 1308/CHANDI/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: the appeal is finally heard.

For Appellant: Shri Atul Goyal, C.A (Virtual Mode)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 57oSection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

150-152, Sector-34A, Chandigarh "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAAAT0759L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Atul Goyal, C.A (Virtual Mode) राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 15/01/2026 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 19/01/2026 आदेश/Order PER LALIET KUMAR

DAMANDEEP KAUR,MOHALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE-2), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 901/CHANDI/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Dec 2025AY 2019-20
Section 10(3)Section 153ASection 245D(4)

271 | 94 | Non-Resident\n| | 07-01-2017 | 31.03.2017 | 83 | | | \n| 2017-18 | 01.04.2017 | 18-07-2017 | 108 | 328 | 37 | Non-Resident\n\n| | 23-08-2017 | 31.03.2018 | 220 | | | \n| 2018-19 | 01.04.2018 | 31-03-2019 | 365 | 365 | 0 | Non-Resident

DAMANDEEP KAUR,MOHALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE-2), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 902/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Dec 2025AY 2020-21
Section 10(3)Section 153ASection 245D(4)

271 | 94 | Non-Resident\n| | 07-01-2017\n31.03.2017 | 83 | | |\n| 2017-18 | 01.04.2017\n18-07-2017 | 108 | 328 | 37 | Non-Resident\n\n| | 23-08-2017\n31.03.2018 | 220 | | |\n| 2018-19 | 01.04.2018\n31-03-2019 | 365 | 365 | 0 | Non-Resident\n| | 01-04-2019\n09-07-2019 | 99 | | |\n| 2019-20 | | 323 | 43 | Non-Resident