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.

46 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 13(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi3,434Mumbai2,841Ahmedabad784Kolkata675Bangalore662Jaipur661Pune504Indore435Chennai396Hyderabad372Surat343Chandigarh245Raipur201Rajkot157Karnataka146Amritsar132Visakhapatnam117Lucknow105Nagpur99Cochin94Cuttack92Allahabad67Agra56Ranchi54Dehradun46Patna38Guwahati37Calcutta37Panaji33Jabalpur27Kerala15Jodhpur15SC12Telangana9Varanasi6Rajasthan4Punjab & Haryana1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 153A41Addition to Income37Section 153D36Section 271(1)(c)34Section 44B26Section 143(3)23Section 14721Penalty20Section 143(2)

ADIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. M.I. OVERSEAS LTD., NOIDA

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 3045/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun08 Jun 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Thakur Singh Mapwal, JCIT DR
Section 263Section 44BSection 9

u/s 143 (3) read with Section 144C (13) of The Income Tax Act 1961 dated 13/4/2012 wherein the total income of the assessee is assessed at ₹ 1,194,359,160/– against the returned income of ₹ 248,086,095/– pursuant to the direction of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel –II, New Delhi dated 28th of March 2012. 51. The assessee

MI OVERSEAS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

Showing 1–20 of 46 · Page 1 of 3

19
Section 915
Reopening of Assessment7
Natural Justice6

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 2956/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun08 Jun 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Thakur Singh Mapwal, JCIT DR
Section 263Section 44BSection 9

u/s 143 (3) read with Section 144C (13) of The Income Tax Act 1961 dated 13/4/2012 wherein the total income of the assessee is assessed at ₹ 1,194,359,160/– against the returned income of ₹ 248,086,095/– pursuant to the direction of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel –II, New Delhi dated 28th of March 2012. 51. The assessee

ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN vs. M/S. M.I, OVERSEAS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 5564/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun08 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Thakur Singh Mapwal, JCIT DR
Section 263Section 44BSection 9

u/s 143 (3) read with Section 144C (13) of The Income Tax Act 1961 dated 13/4/2012 wherein the total income of the assessee is assessed at ₹ 1,194,359,160/– against the returned income of ₹ 248,086,095/– pursuant to the direction of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel –II, New Delhi dated 28th of March 2012. 51. The assessee

ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN vs. M/S. M.I, OVERSEAS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 5565/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun08 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Thakur Singh Mapwal, JCIT DR
Section 263Section 44BSection 9

u/s 143 (3) read with Section 144C (13) of The Income Tax Act 1961 dated 13/4/2012 wherein the total income of the assessee is assessed at ₹ 1,194,359,160/– against the returned income of ₹ 248,086,095/– pursuant to the direction of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel –II, New Delhi dated 28th of March 2012. 51. The assessee

MI OVERSEAS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 5584/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun08 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Thakur Singh Mapwal, JCIT DR
Section 263Section 44BSection 9

u/s 143 (3) read with Section 144C (13) of The Income Tax Act 1961 dated 13/4/2012 wherein the total income of the assessee is assessed at ₹ 1,194,359,160/– against the returned income of ₹ 248,086,095/– pursuant to the direction of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel –II, New Delhi dated 28th of March 2012. 51. The assessee

MI OVERSEAS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 3072/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun08 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Thakur Singh Mapwal, JCIT DR
Section 263Section 44BSection 9

u/s 143 (3) read with Section 144C (13) of The Income Tax Act 1961 dated 13/4/2012 wherein the total income of the assessee is assessed at ₹ 1,194,359,160/– against the returned income of ₹ 248,086,095/– pursuant to the direction of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel –II, New Delhi dated 28th of March 2012. 51. The assessee

MI OVERSEAS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 5583/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun08 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Thakur Singh Mapwal, JCIT DR
Section 263Section 44BSection 9

u/s 143 (3) read with Section 144C (13) of The Income Tax Act 1961 dated 13/4/2012 wherein the total income of the assessee is assessed at ₹ 1,194,359,160/– against the returned income of ₹ 248,086,095/– pursuant to the direction of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel –II, New Delhi dated 28th of March 2012. 51. The assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEHRADUN vs. SEABIRD EXPLORATION FZ-LLC, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 134/DDN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44B

13) of the Act. AO further initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. Thereafter, the AO proceeded to conclude the pending penalty proceedings and in terms of order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 31.10.2019 imposed a penalty of INR 7,09,14,142/- being

HOTEL SAURAB,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2438/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun16 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

13 (SC)].” 8. As could be seen from the above the Hon'ble Delhi High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal in holding that the notice 7 I.T.A. No. 2438/Del/2019 issued by the Assessing Officer was bad in law if it did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c ) of the Act the penalty proceedings

EKSHAD AHAMAD PATODI,U S NAGAR vs. ACIT(OSD), WARD-2(3)(5), KHATIMA

In the result, the Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 76/DDN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun15 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40A(3)

3: What is the effect of the Supreme Court's decision in Dilip N. Shroff on the issue of non-application of mind when the irrelevant portions of the printed notices are not struck off ? 187. In DUip N. Shroff, for the Supreme Court, it is of "some significance that in the standard Pro-forma used by the assessing officer

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN vs. SWARNGANGA CONSTRUCTION P.LTD, BHILWARA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 186/DDN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun14 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri V.P. Rao

For Appellant: Sh. N.S. Jangpangi, CIT/DRFor Respondent: Sh. Kapil Goel, Advocate
Section 144Section 153CSection 249(3)Section 250(4)Section 271(1)(c)

section 144 and penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act respectively for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. In the quantum appeal, the assessee raised following grounds : “1. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in condoning the delay of more than 2 years merely on ground that the erstwhile

AKHILESH SINGHAL,RISHIKESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RISHIKESH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 79/DDN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun29 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode]

Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

penalty order, both dated 07.09.2022 passed u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act for Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16 respectively. ITA Nos.64, 78 & 79/DDN/2024 2. As these three appeals are having the issues which are inter- linked, inter-connected and this fact has been admitted by both the parties during the course of hearing before us, therefore, all three

SANJAY BANSAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 164/DDN/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad

Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 153A(1)(b)Section 153D

section 144BA.” 13.1 A perusal of the order sheet entries copy of which is placed at page 37 of the paper book, Volume-I shows that on 30th March, 2015, the AO has mentioned as under:- “Draft order submitted for approval u/s 153D. Approval received vide letter No.1158. Order passed u/s 153A. Issue notice of demand.” 14. Similarly, the letter

SANJAY BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 165/DDN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad

Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 153A(1)(b)Section 153D

section 144BA.” 13.1 A perusal of the order sheet entries copy of which is placed at page 37 of the paper book, Volume-I shows that on 30th March, 2015, the AO has mentioned as under:- “Draft order submitted for approval u/s 153D. Approval received vide letter No.1158. Order passed u/s 153A. Issue notice of demand.” 14. Similarly, the letter

SANJAY BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 166/DDN/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad

Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 153A(1)(b)Section 153D

section 144BA.” 13.1 A perusal of the order sheet entries copy of which is placed at page 37 of the paper book, Volume-I shows that on 30th March, 2015, the AO has mentioned as under:- “Draft order submitted for approval u/s 153D. Approval received vide letter No.1158. Order passed u/s 153A. Issue notice of demand.” 14. Similarly, the letter

SANJAY BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 163/DDN/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad

Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 153A(1)(b)Section 153D

section 144BA.” 13.1 A perusal of the order sheet entries copy of which is placed at page 37 of the paper book, Volume-I shows that on 30th March, 2015, the AO has mentioned as under:- “Draft order submitted for approval u/s 153D. Approval received vide letter No.1158. Order passed u/s 153A. Issue notice of demand.” 14. Similarly, the letter

YES BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT (TDS), DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 7498/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun15 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 7498/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 7499/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mayank Prabha Tomar, Addl. CIT
Section 194ASection 194A(3)(iii)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271Section 271CSection 274Section 4

271 of the Act. However the TDS AO passed an order dated 29 August 2016 under section 271C levying penalty of Rs.1,86,539 being 100% of the alleged non-deduction of tax at source including interest under section 201(1 A) of the Act. It was submitted by the assessee that, 1) UEPPCB is a statutory organisation constituted under

YES BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT (TDS), DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 7499/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun15 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 7498/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 7499/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mayank Prabha Tomar, Addl. CIT
Section 194ASection 194A(3)(iii)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271Section 271CSection 274Section 4

271 of the Act. However the TDS AO passed an order dated 29 August 2016 under section 271C levying penalty of Rs.1,86,539 being 100% of the alleged non-deduction of tax at source including interest under section 201(1 A) of the Act. It was submitted by the assessee that, 1) UEPPCB is a statutory organisation constituted under

M/S. KOHLI REATORS (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2197/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun24 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri V.P. Raoassessment Years: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. K.K. Juneja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. N.S. Jangpangi, CIT/DR
Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

section 36(1)(iii)of the IT Act, 1961 does not automatically prove that the assessee has concealed his particulars of income or has furnished any inaccurate particulars of income. The imposition of penalty on wrong facts is erroneous and unwarranted. 3. The AO has not brought on record or communicated any specific charge, whether penalty is being initiated

M/S. VANTAGE INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT CO.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2, DEHRADUN

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5170/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Vantage International Vs Dcit Management Co. (International Taxation), C/O. Srbc & Associates Llp, Circle-2, Aayakar Bhawan, 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 29 13A, Subhash Road, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar Dehradun (West), Mumbai, Aadcv3089Q (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By Sh. M. P. Lohia, Ca, Sh. Sanjay Shukla, Ca Respondent By Sh. Naveen Chandra Upadhyaya, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 23.11.2020

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 254Section 271(1)(c)Section 44B

13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) on the following grounds , which are without prejudice to each other: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer/ Hon’ble Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’) has: 1. erred in assessing total income at INR 1,26,42,88,141 as against the returned income