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.

154 results for “penalty u/s 271”

Sorted by relevance

Delhi6,612Mumbai5,986Ahmedabad1,414Kolkata1,412Pune1,097Jaipur1,063Bangalore1,023Chennai852Indore796Hyderabad648Surat574Chandigarh514Amritsar325Rajkot302Raipur251Cochin208Visakhapatnam201Lucknow187Nagpur169Karnataka164Cuttack154Agra132Patna128Ranchi105Allahabad104Dehradun102Guwahati91Jodhpur76Jabalpur70Panaji54Calcutta39Varanasi23Kerala18SC14Telangana9Rajasthan4Punjab & Haryana2Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)164Penalty82Section 271A73Section 27465Section 271F56Section 270A45Addition to Income43Section 153A41Section 271

M/S. PRAKASH KUMAR ROUT,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, all the appeals of the all the assessees are allowed

ITA 311/CTK/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Oct 2021AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 139(1)Section 271Section 271ASection 274

penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act Ld. A.O had to issue notice u/s 274 of the Act, as provided in Section 271AAB(3) of the Act. In the notice issued to the assessee there is no mention about the various conditions provided u/s 271

M/S. PASUPATI BREEDING FARM PVT. LTD.,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, all the appeals of the all the assessees are allowed

Showing 1–20 of 154 · Page 1 of 8

...
34
Section 14732
Undisclosed Income22
Limitation/Time-bar21
ITA 313/CTK/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Oct 2021AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 139(1)Section 271Section 271ASection 274

penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act Ld. A.O had to issue notice u/s 274 of the Act, as provided in Section 271AAB(3) of the Act. In the notice issued to the assessee there is no mention about the various conditions provided u/s 271

M/S. PRAKASH KUMAR ROUT,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, all the appeals of the all the assessees are allowed

ITA 310/CTK/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Oct 2021AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 139(1)Section 271Section 271ASection 274

penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act Ld. A.O had to issue notice u/s 274 of the Act, as provided in Section 271AAB(3) of the Act. In the notice issued to the assessee there is no mention about the various conditions provided u/s 271

M/S. PRAGATI MILK PRODUCT PVT. LTD.,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, all the appeals of the all the assessees are allowed

ITA 312/CTK/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Oct 2021AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 139(1)Section 271Section 271ASection 274

penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act Ld. A.O had to issue notice u/s 274 of the Act, as provided in Section 271AAB(3) of the Act. In the notice issued to the assessee there is no mention about the various conditions provided u/s 271

M/S. PRAMOD KUMAR ROUT,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, all the appeals of the all the assessees are allowed

ITA 307/CTK/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Oct 2021AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 139(1)Section 271Section 271ASection 274

penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act Ld. A.O had to issue notice u/s 274 of the Act, as provided in Section 271AAB(3) of the Act. In the notice issued to the assessee there is no mention about the various conditions provided u/s 271

TRIJAL ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

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

ITA 263/CTK/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.261, 262 & 263/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Trijal Enterprise Private Limited Vs Acit, Central Circle-2, At-Hall No.6, Block-2, Bmc Bhubaneswar Bhawani Mall, Saheed Nagar, Khordha-751007, Bhubaneswar Pan No. :Aafct 9662 B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2, All Dated 25.03.2025 For The Assessment Years 2017-2018, 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 Confirming The Penalty Levy Under 270A Of The Act. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That For The Impugned Assessment Years The Assessee Has Filed Original Return For The Assessment Year 2017- 18 Disclosing A Loss Of Rs.8,30,930/-, For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Income Of Rs.20,46,140/- & For Assessment Year 2019-20 An Income Of Rs.17,27,850/-. There Was A Search On The Premises Of The Assessee On 03/04/2019. In Response To Notice Issued U/S.153A Of The Act, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Disclosing A Loss

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 153ASection 270ASection 271A

271 AAB (1A) of the Act penalty is leviable on the assessee. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the notice initiating penalty u/s

TRIJAL ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

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

ITA 261/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.261, 262 & 263/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Trijal Enterprise Private Limited Vs Acit, Central Circle-2, At-Hall No.6, Block-2, Bmc Bhubaneswar Bhawani Mall, Saheed Nagar, Khordha-751007, Bhubaneswar Pan No. :Aafct 9662 B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2, All Dated 25.03.2025 For The Assessment Years 2017-2018, 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 Confirming The Penalty Levy Under 270A Of The Act. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That For The Impugned Assessment Years The Assessee Has Filed Original Return For The Assessment Year 2017- 18 Disclosing A Loss Of Rs.8,30,930/-, For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Income Of Rs.20,46,140/- & For Assessment Year 2019-20 An Income Of Rs.17,27,850/-. There Was A Search On The Premises Of The Assessee On 03/04/2019. In Response To Notice Issued U/S.153A Of The Act, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Disclosing A Loss

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 153ASection 270ASection 271A

271 AAB (1A) of the Act penalty is leviable on the assessee. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the notice initiating penalty u/s

TRIJAL ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

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

ITA 262/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.261, 262 & 263/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Trijal Enterprise Private Limited Vs Acit, Central Circle-2, At-Hall No.6, Block-2, Bmc Bhubaneswar Bhawani Mall, Saheed Nagar, Khordha-751007, Bhubaneswar Pan No. :Aafct 9662 B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2, All Dated 25.03.2025 For The Assessment Years 2017-2018, 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 Confirming The Penalty Levy Under 270A Of The Act. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That For The Impugned Assessment Years The Assessee Has Filed Original Return For The Assessment Year 2017- 18 Disclosing A Loss Of Rs.8,30,930/-, For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Income Of Rs.20,46,140/- & For Assessment Year 2019-20 An Income Of Rs.17,27,850/-. There Was A Search On The Premises Of The Assessee On 03/04/2019. In Response To Notice Issued U/S.153A Of The Act, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Disclosing A Loss

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 153ASection 270ASection 271A

271 AAB (1A) of the Act penalty is leviable on the assessee. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the notice initiating penalty u/s

DIBYAJYOTI CHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,DHENKANAL vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 51/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Harichandan, ARFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Lenka, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) when the inappropriate words in the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act have

DIBYAJYOTI CHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,DHENKANAL vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 320/CTK/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Harichandan, ARFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Lenka, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) when the inappropriate words in the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act have

BHUBANESWAR CLUB,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 349/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-2015

For Appellant: Shri G.Naik/Rajat Kar & S.K.Sarangi, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 dated 14.12.2016 show that the inappropriate words in the said notice have not been struck off. Even the last line of the said notice only speaks of Section 271 and does not even mention of section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. It is pertinent to note here that the penalty

DCIT, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. G.V.V.CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD., BHUBANESWAR

Appeal of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 297/CTK/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack03 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.297/Ctk/2015 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Vs. M/S G.V.V. Constructions Bhubaneswar Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.358, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751007 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccg 3649 Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) & Cross Objection No.36/Ctk/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) M/S G.V.V.Constructions Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.358, Bhubaneswar Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751007 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccg 3649 Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Pradhan, Citdr धनधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03/08/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 09/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed An Appeal & The Assessee Has Filed Cross Objection Against The Order Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar In I.T.Appeal No.0593/2013-14, Dated 9-3-2015, Passed U/S.271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee When The Matter Was Called For Hearing. Hence, We Proceed To Dispose Off The Appeal On The Basis Of Material Available On Record & The Submissions Of Ld. Dr. 3. We Take Up The Revenue’S Appeal In Ita No.297/Ctk/2015, Wherein The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds :-

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 69A

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is a civil liability. Mens rea is not an essential element for imposing penalty for breach

SANTOSH KUMAR KHANDELWAL,BARIPADA vs. ACIT, BALASORE, BALASORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 449/CTK/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अपील संसंसंसं/Ita No.449/Ctk/2024 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) वष"

Section 144Section 270(9)(c)Section 270ASection 274Section 9

u/s. 274 r.w.s 270A of the Act dated 6.12.2019, it appears 5 that in the said notice also the Assessing Officer as failed to state the proper satisfaction the notice as issued is reproduced as under: 8. From the perusal of the above notice also it is seen that the AO has simply mentioned that “whereas in the course

BIJAY BRATA KUNDU,BANGALORE vs. ITO, WARD- 3(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 61/CTK/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year : 2013-2014

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Kar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) when the inappropriate words in the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act have

DIPU KUMAR JAISWAL,KEONJHAR vs. ITO, KEONJHAR WARD, KEONJHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 146/CTK/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Sahoo/S.N.Sahu,, ARFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Lenkja, DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275(1)(a)

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 was issued on 31.3.2014 and the inappropriate words in the said notice have not been struck off. Therefore, it is not understood as to under which limb of provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the Assessing Officer has levied penalty

PRAVAT KUMAR ROUTRY,JAGATSINGHPUR vs. ITO, PARADEEP WARD, PARADEEP

In the result, appeals in ITA No

ITA 160/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack07 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Jena,AdvFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 271(1)(b)Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act. P a g e 1 | 5 ITA Nos.158 t o 1 60 /CTK/202

PRAVAT KUMAR ROUTRAY,JAGATSINGPUR vs. ITO, PARADEEP WARD, PARADEEP

In the result, appeals in ITA No

ITA 158/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack07 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Jena,AdvFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 271(1)(b)Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act. P a g e 1 | 5 ITA Nos.158 t o 1 60 /CTK/202

PRAVAT KUMAR ROUTRAY,JAGATSINGHPUR vs. ITO, PARADEEP WARD, PARADEEP

In the result, appeals in ITA No

ITA 159/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack07 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Jena,AdvFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 271(1)(b)Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act. P a g e 1 | 5 ITA Nos.158 t o 1 60 /CTK/202

MD. MAHATAB ALAM,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 116/CTK/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Lalatendu Sahu, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of the Act, as there is a difference between the return filed in response to notice issued u/s 153A of the Act and the original return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act, the penalty

MD. MAHATAB ALAM,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 115/CTK/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jul 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Lalatendu Sahu, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of the Act, as there is a difference between the return filed in response to notice issued u/s 153A of the Act and the original return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act, the penalty