Search: penalty u/s 271 | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

8 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 158clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi754 Mumbai657 Ahmedabad179 Jaipur141 Karnataka104 Pune94 Chennai78 Bangalore65 Indore61 Kolkata61 Surat54 Raipur47 Chandigarh37 Hyderabad36 Lucknow30 Amritsar29 Agra25 Allahabad24 Cochin21 Cuttack18 Ranchi13 Nagpur13 Rajkot10 Dehradun8 Jodhpur7 Patna6 Jabalpur4 Panaji4 Visakhapatnam3 Rajasthan2 Guwahati2 SC1 Calcutta1 Telangana1 Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)16 Section 143(3)6 Penalty6 Section 271C5 Section 270A4 Addition to Income4 Section 44B3 Disallowance3 Section 271

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

158 (SC) and deleted the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 9. Explanation 1 to section

SHIV RATAN EDUCATION SOCIETY,HARIDWAR vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 184/DDN/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed

2

Transfer Pricing2

ITAT Dehradun

18 Feb 2026

AY 2020-21

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

Section 270ASection 270A(9)(a)Section 9

u/s 270A of the Act, the AO had ignored this fact of claim of application towards capital assets and if the same is considered there would be no deficit in the application of funds up to 85% of the gross receipts. It is further observed that the error of claiming depreciation in the application of funds was inadvertently made

SAWNEY BUILDERS,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2, DEHRADUN

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4421/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun15 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 132Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 274 read with Section 271 was issued on 30/1/2014 and after giving opportunity to the assessee passed the penalty order dated 30/03/2016. 4. Being aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT (A). The CIT (A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that notice dated 30/1/2014 has not specified

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), DEHRADUN vs. THE DIRECTOR, HIGHER EDUCATION, NANITAL

In the result, all the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 18/DDN/2020[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 Jul 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: The Hon'Ble Itat. 3. That The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Haldwani Be Set Aside That Of The Ao Be Restored.”

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Poonam Sharma, Addl. CIT DR

Section 201Section 271Section 271C

u/s 271C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). However, this plea of the assessee was out-rightly rejected by the assessing officer on the premise that ignorance of law is not an excuse. Accordingly, penalty was imposed as under :- AY 2014-15 AY 2015-16 AY 2016-17 AY 2017-18 Amount of Rs.1

RAVINDER KUMAR AGARWAL,RISHIKESH vs. CIT(A)-3, NOIDA

Appeal is allowed

ITA 203/DDN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun30 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 203/Ddn/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Ravinder Kumar Agarwal, Vs Cit(A)-3, A. R. T.O. Complex, 2Nd M/S Agarwal Jewellers, Mukherji Road, Rishikesh, Floor, Sector-33, Uttarakhand-249201 Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abjpa9045P Assessee By : Sh. Nitish Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14, Arises Against The Cit(A)-3, Noida’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/M/250/2025-26/1079253888(1) Dated 04.08.2025, In Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Heard Both The Parties At Length. Case File Perused.

For Appellant: Sh. Nitish Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs.1,72,800/- in the Assessing Officer’s order dated 09.03.2021 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 2 Ravinder Kumar Agarwal 4. That being the case, learned departmental representative vehemently argues that the assessee all along had failed to prove source of it’s investment amounting to Rs.1,01,743/- made

KISAN SAHKARI CHINI MILLS LIMITED, GADARPUR,GADARPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), KASHIPUR

Appeal is allowed

ITA 101/DDN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Ms. Gurkiran Kaur, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 43B

u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused. 3. We notice during the course of hearing that the assessee/appellant raises it’s sole substantive grievance challenging both the learned lower authorities’ action levying section 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs.54,56,853/- in the Assessing 2 Kisan Sahkari Chini

B G EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, DDIT/ ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN, UTTARAKHAND

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

ITA 13/DDN/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Mayak Kumar, JCIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

271(1 )(c) of the Act. 20.3 The Appellant submits that each grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another. 20.4 The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute and /or modify in any manner whatsoever all or any of the foregoing grounds of objections at or before the hearing of the appeal.” 3. The assessee has raised

B G EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, DDIT/ ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

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

ITA 47/DDN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Mayak Kumar, JCIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

271(1 )(c) of the Act. 20.3 The Appellant submits that each grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another. 20.4 The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute and /or modify in any manner whatsoever all or any of the foregoing grounds of objections at or before the hearing of the appeal.” 3. The assessee has raised