Search: penalty u/s 271 | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court 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.

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

Sorted by relevance

Delhi210 Mumbai209 Ahmedabad58 Jaipur54 Pune46 Raipur43 Chennai39 Bangalore38 Allahabad24 Chandigarh23 Hyderabad21 Kolkata18 Indore13 Ranchi13 Cochin12 Nagpur10 Agra8 Lucknow8 Surat8 Jodhpur7 Patna6 Dehradun5 Rajkot4 Jabalpur3 Amritsar3 Panaji2 Guwahati1 SC1 Visakhapatnam1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)13 Section 271C5 Penalty5 Section 143(3)4 Section 270A4 Section 44B3 Addition to Income3 Section 43B2

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

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

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