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.

9 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 273Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai189Delhi145Bangalore102Indore95Jaipur51Surat48Cochin45Chennai44Kolkata39Hyderabad35Ahmedabad32Lucknow22Karnataka21Visakhapatnam20Pune17Cuttack16Amritsar15Rajkot13Jabalpur12Chandigarh9Allahabad9Panaji5Guwahati4Agra3Jodhpur3Nagpur3Raipur3Varanasi2Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 271C12Penalty9Section 271F8Section 2068Addition to Income8Section 2715Section 271(1)(b)5Section 271A4Section 28

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

penalties u/s. 271(1)(b) and u/s. 271F of the Act without considering u/s. 273B of the Act. Applying the provisions of Section

4
Section 133A4
TDS4
Survey u/s 133A4

THE ASSISTANT EXCISE & TAXATION COMMISSIONER ,SHIMLA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE, SHIMLA

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 906/CHANDI/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.903 /Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2007-08 The Assistant Excise & बनाम The Additional Cit, Taxation Commissioner, Tds Range, Nahan Shimla "थायीलेखासं./Pan/Tan No: Ptla12468B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh.Harry Rikhy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. AmanpreetKaur, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 206Section 206CSection 271C

u/s 271CA on the appellant is duly covered by the provisions of section 273B of the I.T. Act, 1961 and the appellant duly had a genuine reasonable cause as explained above for not collecting the Tax at Source (TCS). Moreover, the admission of the appeal by the Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court also supports the bona fide

THE ASSISTANT EXCISE & TAXATION COMMISSIONER ,NAHAN vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE, SHIMLA

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 903/CHANDI/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Dec 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.903 /Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2007-08 The Assistant Excise & बनाम The Additional Cit, Taxation Commissioner, Tds Range, Nahan Shimla "थायीलेखासं./Pan/Tan No: Ptla12468B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh.Harry Rikhy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. AmanpreetKaur, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 206Section 206CSection 271C

u/s 271CA on the appellant is duly covered by the provisions of section 273B of the I.T. Act, 1961 and the appellant duly had a genuine reasonable cause as explained above for not collecting the Tax at Source (TCS). Moreover, the admission of the appeal by the Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court also supports the bona fide

THE ASSISTANT EXCISE & TAXATION COMMISSIONER ,NAHAN vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE, SHIMLA

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 904/CHANDI/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.903 /Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2007-08 The Assistant Excise & बनाम The Additional Cit, Taxation Commissioner, Tds Range, Nahan Shimla "थायीलेखासं./Pan/Tan No: Ptla12468B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh.Harry Rikhy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. AmanpreetKaur, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 206Section 206CSection 271C

u/s 271CA on the appellant is duly covered by the provisions of section 273B of the I.T. Act, 1961 and the appellant duly had a genuine reasonable cause as explained above for not collecting the Tax at Source (TCS). Moreover, the admission of the appeal by the Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court also supports the bona fide

THE ASSISTANT EXCISE & TAXATION COMMISSIONER ,SHIMLA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE, SHIMLA

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 905/CHANDI/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Dec 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.903 /Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2007-08 The Assistant Excise & बनाम The Additional Cit, Taxation Commissioner, Tds Range, Nahan Shimla "थायीलेखासं./Pan/Tan No: Ptla12468B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh.Harry Rikhy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. AmanpreetKaur, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 206Section 206CSection 271C

u/s 271CA on the appellant is duly covered by the provisions of section 273B of the I.T. Act, 1961 and the appellant duly had a genuine reasonable cause as explained above for not collecting the Tax at Source (TCS). Moreover, the admission of the appeal by the Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court also supports the bona fide

SMT. RENU JAIN,ZIRAKPUR vs. ITO-WARD-3(3), CHANDIGARH

ITA 1136/CHANDI/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 249Section 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

u/s 271(l)(b) without considering the provisions of s. 273B of the Act and on consideration of provisions of s. 273B, the impugned penalty was not imposable on the appellant. 5. That the appellant craves leave for any addition, deletion or amendment in the grounds of appeal on or before the disposal of the same. 2. Briefly stated, assessment

M/S YAMUNA POWER & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,JAGADHRI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1229/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 80ISection 92C

271 AA o f the Act the appellant was asked to provide any details/copies o f account of such transactions. No such notice/questionnaire/order sheet entry in this regard is available on record/file o f the appellant with the department. The Ld. Assessing Officer while levying the impugned penalty has time and again referred to the failure on part

SH. KULDEEP SINGH S/O SH. AJMER SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD 1, PANCHKULA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 609/CHANDI/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Dec 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Smt. Neelam Dhiman, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 28

271(1)(c)of the Act is directed to be quashed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 8. In ITA 609/CHD/2022, the assessee challenges the order of the NFAC, Delhi sitting as First Appellate Authority wherein penalty imposed u/s 271F of the Act has been confirmed in appeal by the First Appellate Authority. 8.1 In the facts

SH. KULDEEP SINGH S/O SH. AJMER SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD 1, PANCHKULA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 608/CHANDI/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Dec 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Smt. Neelam Dhiman, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 28

271(1)(c)of the Act is directed to be quashed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 8. In ITA 609/CHD/2022, the assessee challenges the order of the NFAC, Delhi sitting as First Appellate Authority wherein penalty imposed u/s 271F of the Act has been confirmed in appeal by the First Appellate Authority. 8.1 In the facts