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.

110 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 20clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi933Mumbai931Jaipur313Ahmedabad251Hyderabad201Bangalore189Chennai177Raipur147Indore142Kolkata140Pune132Chandigarh110Rajkot103Surat101Amritsar56Allahabad51Nagpur39Lucknow34Visakhapatnam30Guwahati19Agra18Panaji16Patna15Cochin14Cuttack14Jabalpur13Dehradun10Jodhpur10Varanasi8Ranchi6

Key Topics

Section 14863Addition to Income57Section 26355Section 143(3)54Section 153A37Section 14736Penalty31Section 142(1)26Section 143(2)

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

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)

u/s 271(1)(b) which is dated 15.07.2021 bearing a DIN including one dated 03.09.2021. That the Ld. AO vide DIN order no:- IBA/PNL/F/271(1)(b)/2021-2022/1038023701(1) dated 22.12.2021 wherein penalty has been imposed of Rs. 20,000/- in aggregate for non-compliance of notice dated 20.05.2019 (Rs.10,000) and notice dated 05.11.2022 (Rs.10,000). 11. That the assesse

Showing 1–20 of 110 · Page 1 of 6

26
Section 25025
Deduction19
Disallowance17

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

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

20 20/4/2017 To Cash 139 2,00,000 21 21/4/2017 To Cash 145 2,00,000 22 22/4/2017 To Cash 149 2,00,000 23 23/4/2017 To Cash 154 2,00,000 24 24/4/2017 To Cash 160 2,00,000 25 25/4/2017 To Cash 163 2,00,000 26 26/4/2017 To Cash 172 2,00,000 27 27/4/2017 To Cash

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

penalty of Rs. 1,32,00,000/- levied u/s 271AAB(IA)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 196l by the Assessing Officer on the undisclosed income of Rs. 2,20,00,000/- surrendered during search action u/s 132 of the Act as the assessee failed to disclose the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived? 3. Whether

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

penalty of Rs. 1,32,00,000/- levied u/s 271AAB(IA)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 196l by the Assessing Officer on the undisclosed income of Rs. 2,20,00,000/- surrendered during search action u/s 132 of the Act as the assessee failed to disclose the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived? 3. Whether

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

Section 54 of the Act. The necessary corollary to the same is that the scheme so specified is for the purposes of monitoring the compliances in terms of earmarking and setting aside the funds and utilization thereof within the specified time period towards construction of the residential house and even where the amount is not deposited in the specified scheme

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)

section 40(a)(ii)of the Income Tax Act, 1961.. 3. 20.11.2018 u/s 250(6) The CIT(A) has confirmed the addition.As the assessee has not filed any appeal with regard to CIT(A) order. Hence, the addition has attained finality. 4. 29.06.2017 u/s 271(l)(c) Penalty was imposed by the Assessing Officer amounting to Rs.8

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)

section 40(a)(ii)of the Income Tax Act, 1961.. 3. 20.11.2018 u/s 250(6) The CIT(A) has confirmed the addition.As the assessee has not filed any appeal with regard to CIT(A) order. Hence, the addition has attained finality. 4. 29.06.2017 u/s 271(l)(c) Penalty was imposed by the Assessing Officer amounting to Rs.8

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)

section 40(a)(ii)of the Income Tax Act, 1961.. 3. 20.11.2018 u/s 250(6) The CIT(A) has confirmed the addition.As the assessee has not filed any appeal with regard to CIT(A) order. Hence, the addition has attained finality. 4. 29.06.2017 u/s 271(l)(c) Penalty was imposed by the Assessing Officer amounting to Rs.8

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)

section 40(a)(ii)of the Income Tax Act, 1961.. 3. 20.11.2018 u/s 250(6) The CIT(A) has confirmed the addition.As the assessee has not filed any appeal with regard to CIT(A) order. Hence, the addition has attained finality. 4. 29.06.2017 u/s 271(l)(c) Penalty was imposed by the Assessing Officer amounting to Rs.8

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

20,70,000/- consequently penalty of 100% of Rs. 5,56,200/- was imposed under section 271(1) of the Act. 28. The assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of Ld. AO dt. 26/06/2019 exercised his right of first appeal and preferred first appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who by an order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1061111793(1) dt. 19/02/2024 passed

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

20,70,000/- consequently penalty of 100% of Rs. 5,56,200/- was imposed under section 271(1) of the Act. 28. The assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of Ld. AO dt. 26/06/2019 exercised his right of first appeal and preferred first appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who by an order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1061111793(1) dt. 19/02/2024 passed

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

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

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

SHRI BALBIR SINGH VERMA,SHIMLA vs. PR.CIT, SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 314/CHANDI/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR (Virtual)
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment. 4. After reviewing the necessary details, the Assessing Officer assessed the assessee’s total income at Rs. 2,98,98,600/-, Agricultural income remained Rs. 20,27,700/-. During hearing before us, it was stated by Ld. AR that the appellant had filed appeal before the CIT(A) against this assessment

MAHESH T. PRASANA,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-1, PARWANOO

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 419/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.D.Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 419/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Goyal, Advocate, &For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl.CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 80I

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the ITA 419/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2012-13 6 Income Tax Act. 6. We have considered the submissions filed by the Revenue on this issue as well as the detailed affidavit filed by the assessee on this issue of condonation of delay. We find that the Revenue has conceded that the Dispatch Register

AMAN FEED INDUSTRIES,KHANNA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, , LUDHIANA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 1252/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 1252, 1253,1254,1255/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19,2019-20 M/S Aman Feed Industries, The Dcit, E-2, Focal Point, Vs Central Circle-1, Khanna. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aacfa3624L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 116,181,457/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 The Dcit, Vs M/S Aman Feed Industries, Central Circle-1, E-2, Focal Point, Ludhiana. Khanna. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aacfa3624L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Shri Kulbhushan Goyal & Ms, Deepali Aggarwal, Cas Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, Shri Kulbhushan Goyal &For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 68

271(l)(c) of the Act, the failure to obtain prior permission from the IAC for imposing penalty was only a procedural error and not fatal to the order of penalty. (vi) Since the entire documents were already available to the Additional CIT in the file sent for approval, there was no need for exchange of the said documents prior