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.

12 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 271Fclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai63Jaipur58Delhi45Ahmedabad37Rajkot35Bangalore27Indore25Surat24Amritsar18Pune14Chandigarh12Nagpur12Visakhapatnam11Lucknow11Hyderabad8Chennai6Jabalpur4Cuttack4Raipur4Guwahati3Patna3Kolkata2Allahabad2Agra1

Key Topics

Section 14832Section 271F14Section 14411Penalty10Section 1478Addition to Income8Section 271(1)(c)7Section 142(1)6Section 696

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

Section 273B encompasses that certain penalties "shall" not be imposed in cases where "reasonable cause" is successfully pleaded. It is seen that penalties imposable u/s. 271(1)(b) and u/s 271F

Section 271(1)(b)6
Limitation/Time-bar5
Cash Deposit4

THE GHARTHOON AGRI CULTURAL SERVICE SOCIETY ,KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - PALAMPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH , PALAMPUR

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 928/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Chaudhary, Sr.DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

Section 144/144B of the Income Tax Act, ITA No. 927/CHD/2025 emerges out of a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(b) and ITA No.926/CHD/2025 emerges out from a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, whereas ITA No.928/CHD/2025 emerges out from penalty proceeding u/s 271F

THE GHARTHOON AGRI CULTURAL SERVICES SOCIETY,PALAMPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - PALAMPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH , PALAMPUR

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 926/CHANDI/2025[2015-16 ]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Chaudhary, Sr.DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

Section 144/144B of the Income Tax Act, ITA No. 927/CHD/2025 emerges out of a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(b) and ITA No.926/CHD/2025 emerges out from a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, whereas ITA No.928/CHD/2025 emerges out from penalty proceeding u/s 271F

THE GHARTHOON AGRI CULTURAL SERVICES SOCIETY,KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - PALAMPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH, PALAMPUR

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 925/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Chaudhary, Sr.DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

Section 144/144B of the Income Tax Act, ITA No. 927/CHD/2025 emerges out of a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(b) and ITA No.926/CHD/2025 emerges out from a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, whereas ITA No.928/CHD/2025 emerges out from penalty proceeding u/s 271F

THE GHARTHOON AGRI CULTURAL SERVICES SOCIETY,KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - PALAMPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH, PALAMPUR

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 927/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Nov 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Chaudhary, Sr.DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

Section 144/144B of the Income Tax\nAct, ITA No. 927/CHD/2025 emerges out of a penalty\nproceeding u/s 271(1)(b) and ITA No.926/CHD/2025 emerges\nout from a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax\nAct, whereas ITA No.928/CHD/2025 emerges out from penalty\nproceeding u/s 271F

PAWAN GARG,PANCHKULA vs. ITO WARD 5((5) CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1218/CHANDI/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1218/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pawan Garg, The Ito, House No. 766, Sector 16, Vs Ward 5(5), Panchkula. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Abmpg4243N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr.DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 68

271F for non-filing of ITR in respect to the notice u/s 148 of the IT. Act 1961, penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1)(b) for noncompliance of notices u/s 142(1) and penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for concealing the income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income have been initiated separately. Issue notice of demand.” 4. The appeal

AJMER SINGH,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(5), MOHALI , MOHALI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 963/CHANDI/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 963/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Ajmer Singh, Vs The Ito, C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate, Ward 6(5), # 527, Sector 10-D, Chandigarh. Mohali. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Cwjps6206H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.06.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R Per Raj Pal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271F

271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A.Y. 2010-11 2 3. The ld. AO got an information that assessee has made deposits of more than Rs.2.60 Cr in the Saving Bank Account and did not file the return. Therefore, he reopened the assessment and issued notices u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee

SH. LAIQ RAM S/O SH. TULSI RAM,SHIMLA vs. ITO, WARD, SHIMLA

In the result, the present appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 230/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2025AY 2013-14
Section 69

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nIssued penalty notice u/s 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nIssued penalty notice u/s 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nAssessed. Issue Demand Notice and Challan alongwith a copy of this order,\nand the penalty notices mentioned above for service upon the assessee.\nCopy to the assessee.\nITO

BHAGWANT KAUR,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 122/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal. C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 148rSection 251(1)(a)Section 69

u/s 69 and has wrongly remanded the case back to Ld. AO for fresh proceedings/adjudication more-so when the addition was wrongly made, the back material and opportunity of cross examination was not provided. 4. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the orders passed by Ld. AO and then by Worthy CIT(A) deserves

DAI CHAND,KAITHAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAITHAL

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

ITA 936/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Pulkit Saini, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69A

penalty provisions of section 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. A.O. has erred in law and on facts in charging interest u/s

GURMELO DEVI,JAGADHARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, YUMNANAGAR

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

ITA 1170/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

penalty pro ceedings u/s 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b) AND 271F o f the Income Tax A ct,1961. 5. The Assessee reserves the right to amend, alter , add, and withdraw any ground of appeal. 5. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessment was reopened under Section

SMT. JAGDEEP KAUR,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, WARD 6(4), LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 81/CHANDI/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: This Hon’Ble Tribunal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048105767(1) Dt. 20/12/2022 Which Was Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac, Delhi Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Said First Appeal Was Dismissed By The Ld. Cit(A). Therefore Assessee Is Before Us. The Said Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. 4. In Form No. 36 The Assessee Interalia Has Take Up Following Grounds Of Appeal Against The Impugned Order Which Are Reproduced Below:

For Appellant: Smt. Supriya, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253

271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for concealment of particulars of income are being initiated separately. Penalty proceedings u/s 271F for non filing of Income Tax Return are being initiated separately. Based upon above, the total income of the assessee is computed as under:- Addition on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 Rs. 7,35,000/- Assessed