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.

313 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 271(1)(b)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi3,658Mumbai3,159Ahmedabad851Jaipur791Kolkata788Bangalore750Pune629Chennai498Indore420Hyderabad415Surat358Chandigarh313Raipur185Rajkot176Karnataka147Amritsar146Lucknow136Visakhapatnam110Cochin89Cuttack87Nagpur81Allahabad74Agra62Patna58Dehradun50Ranchi49Guwahati47Jabalpur42Calcutta39Jodhpur39Panaji22Kerala18Varanasi16SC11Telangana7Rajasthan2Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 148101Addition to Income72Penalty55Section 271(1)(c)42Section 142(1)38Section 14438Section 14736Section 143(3)35Section 153A

JARNAIL SINGH GILL,JAGRAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JAGRAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 941/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: The Tribunal & The Matter Was Remanded Back To Ao For Fresh Adjudication. Thereafter, The Assessment Order Was Passed

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(b)

271(l)(b) for non compliance of notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act. The details of the notices issued under section 142(1) as reproduced by the AO in para 1 of the penalty order are as under:- Notice u/s

Showing 1–20 of 313 · Page 1 of 16

...
34
Section 27123
Cash Deposit13
Disallowance13

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 read with section 271(1)(b) of the act vide notices dated 15.11.2019,14.06.2021,15.07.2021 and 03.09.2021 were issued to show cause as to why penalty

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)

Section 271(1)(b). 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A)fell into grave error by confirming the penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. 2. The Assessing Officer (in short ‘the AO’), while imposing penalty in question, vide order dated 15.10.2019, observed as follows : "Vide notice u/s

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

ITA 45/CHANDI/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 271(1)(c)

B) to section 271(1)(c) of the Act was not fulfilled and, therefore, Assessing officer has rightly imposed / levied penalty. That as per Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, it was not necessary for the Assessing officer to add or to disallow something to attract the penalty provisions. Further, as per the Explanation

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

ITA 44/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 271(1)(c)

B) to section 271(1)(c) of the Act was not fulfilled and, therefore, Assessing officer has rightly imposed / levied penalty. That as per Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, it was not necessary for the Assessing officer to add or to disallow something to attract the penalty provisions. Further, as per the Explanation

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

ITA 387/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 271(1)(c)

B) to section 271(1)(c) of the Act was not fulfilled and, therefore, Assessing officer has rightly imposed / levied penalty. That as per Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, it was not necessary for the Assessing officer to add or to disallow something to attract the penalty provisions. Further, as per the Explanation

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

ITA 50/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 271(1)(c)

B) to section 271(1)(c) of the Act was not fulfilled and, therefore, Assessing officer has rightly imposed / levied penalty. That as per Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, it was not necessary for the Assessing officer to add or to disallow something to attract the penalty provisions. Further, as per the Explanation

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

ITA 48/CHANDI/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 271(1)(c)

B) to section 271(1)(c) of the Act was not fulfilled and, therefore, Assessing officer has rightly imposed / levied penalty. That as per Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, it was not necessary for the Assessing officer to add or to disallow something to attract the penalty provisions. Further, as per the Explanation

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

ITA 54/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 271(1)(c)

B) to section 271(1)(c) of the Act was not fulfilled and, therefore, Assessing officer has rightly imposed / levied penalty. That as per Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, it was not necessary for the Assessing officer to add or to disallow something to attract the penalty provisions. Further, as per the Explanation

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

ITA 51/CHANDI/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 271(1)(c)

B) to section 271(1)(c) of the Act was not fulfilled and, therefore, Assessing officer has rightly imposed / levied penalty. That as per Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, it was not necessary for the Assessing officer to add or to disallow something to attract the penalty provisions. Further, as per the Explanation

SH. CHETAN JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 256/CHANDI/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptash.Chetan Jain, Vs. The D.C.I.T., B-121, Pushap Vihar, Central Circle-Iii, Canal Road, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. Pan: Aaypj0618H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt.Chanderkanta, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the same the assessee has come up in appeal before us raising the following effective ground: “1. That the learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act,1961 imposed by the Assessing Officer against the facts and circumstances

SH. MUNISH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 255/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Chanderkanta, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was leviable. The Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee stating that the surrender is not covered u./s 132(4) of the Act as per the provisions of section 271AAA(4)(b

SH. MUNISH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 254/CHANDI/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Chanderkanta, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was leviable. The Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee stating that the surrender is not covered u./s 132(4) of the Act as per the provisions of section 271AAA(4)(b

DCIT, PARWANOO vs. M/S HYCRON ELECTRONICS, SOLAN

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1195/CHANDI/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Gulshan Raj
Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80I

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We, accordingly, set aside the orders of authorities below and cancel the penalty. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 10. The issue of levy of penalty on this issue under appeal is squarely covered by the order of the ITAT referred supra. Following the same

HYCRON ELECTRONICS vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1217/CHANDI/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Gulshan Raj
Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80I

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We, accordingly, set aside the orders of authorities below and cancel the penalty. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 10. The issue of levy of penalty on this issue under appeal is squarely covered by the order of the ITAT referred supra. Following the same

THE KANGRA CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,DHARAMSHALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PALAMPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 804/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(viia)

B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE "ी राजपाल यादव, , उपा"य" एवं "ी "व"म "संह यादव, , लेखा सद"य , , , , BEFORE: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV, VP & SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 804 & 805/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Kangra Central The DCIT बनाम Cooperative Bank Ltd. Circle, Palampur Civil Lines, Dharamshala District Kangra

SH RAMESH KUMAR DUDANI,MOHALI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE -6(1), MOHALI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1146/CHANDI/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Oct 2020AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Nalin K. Nohria, C.A Shri B.K. Nohria, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rishi Kumar, ACIT
Section 154Section 246ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 271(l)(c) has been levied on the addition of Rs. 81,072/- made under the head 'Income from Other Sources'. Further, reply to query no. 1 may be referred for the calculation of penalty. iii. Please provide the information whether any approval of the Addl. CIT/JCIT Mohali Range has been obtained before levy of penalty. Since penalty

THE KANGRA CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,DHARAMSHALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PALAMPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 805/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jan 2025AY 2013-14
For Respondent: \nShri Ashwani Kumar, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(viia)

B”, CHANDIGARH\nHEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE\nश्री राजपाल यादव, उपाध्यक्ष एवं श्री विक्रम सिंह यादव, लेखा सदस्य\nBEFORE: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV, VP & SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM\nआयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 804 & 805/Chd/2023\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14\n\nThe Kangra Central\nCooperative Bank Ltd.\nCivil Lines, Dharamshala\nDistrict Kangra\nबनाम\The DCIT\nCircle, Palampur\nस्थायी

BALWINDER SINGH,SANGRUR vs. ITO, WARD, SUNAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 252/CHANDI/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Dev Ahuja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 271F

1)(b) and u/s. 271F of the Act without considering u/s. 273B of the Act. Applying the provisions of Section 273B of the Act, we have no hesitation in deleting the penalties levied u/s. 271(1

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

u/s 271AAB of the Act, as reproduced herein above, the assessee rightly contends that it does not depict the charge against the assessee, as to under which clause (a), (b) or (c) of Section 271AAB (1), or clause (a) or (b) of 271 AAB (1 A) of the Act, penalty