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.

4 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 1Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi190Mumbai169Raipur80Bangalore66Chennai65Jaipur62Rajkot34Ahmedabad31Nagpur28Indore21Kolkata17Pune17Hyderabad15Jabalpur6Surat6Cuttack5Dehradun5Chandigarh4Ranchi3Jodhpur3Panaji3Guwahati3Visakhapatnam2Amritsar2Cochin2Agra2Lucknow1Patna1

Key Topics

Section 271A20Section 1325Section 2715Section 285Penalty3Undisclosed Income3Limitation/Time-bar3Section 10(37)2

M/S HAPPY STEEL PRIVATE LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 398/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271Section 271A

1A) of the Act, penalty is leviable on the assessee. It was submitted that thus, the notice initiating the penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act is a vague notice and it is, therefore, illegal, and consequently, the order of penalty and the order of the ld. CIT(A) confirming the same deserve to be set aside. The ld. Counsel

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, LUDHIANA, PUNJAB, LUDHIANA vs. AMIT KUMAR, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 549/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL .YADAV, VP &SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं/ . ITA No. 549/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 3, Ludhiana Punjab बनाम Amit Kumar C/o Leeford Healthcare Ltd., LEO House, DugriDhadra Road, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Ludhiana स्थायी लेखा सं/ . PAN NO: ACBPK3657Q अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Cross Objection No. 23/Chd/2024 In (आयकर अपील सं/ . ITA No. 549/Chd/2024) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 20

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Hitesh Bhakoo, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 271Section 271A

1A)(a) on the undisclosed income of Rs. 80,23,500/- surrendered during search u/s 132 of the Act on account of cash found instead of penalty levied @ 60% by AO as per provisions of section 271

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. LEEFORD HEALTHCARE LTD., PUNJAB, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 551/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL .YADAV, VP &SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं/ . ITA No. 549/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax बनाम Central Circle 3, Ludhiana Punjab Amit Kumar C/o Leeford Healthcare Ltd., LEO House, DugriDhadra Road, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Ludhiana स्थायी लेखा सं/ . PAN NO: ACBPK3657Q अपीलार्थी/ Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Cross Objection No. 23/Chd/2024 In (आयकर अपील सं/ . ITA No. 549/Chd/2024) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Hitesh Bhakoo, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 271Section 271A

1A)(a) on the undisclosed income of Rs. 80,23,500/- surrendered during search u/s 132 of the Act on account of cash found instead of penalty levied @ 60% by AO as per provisions of section 271

PARAS AND SHUBHAM CHAUDHARY LEGAL HEIR OF KANHAIYA LAL,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD 2, PANCHKULA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1236/CHANDI/2016[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Chandigarh24 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Rishab Gupta & Shri Mukesh Aggarwal,CAsFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT Sr.DR
Section 10(37)Section 18Section 28Section 4Section 5

1A) and solatium under Section 23(2) of the 1894 Act, would be extremely difficult after all these years, will not be done.” 10.2 The Income Tax Department has also not disputed this aspect because AO is also taxing this amount on receipt basis, otherwise land of the assessee was acquired long back and the Additional District Judge has decided