BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

4 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 56clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai497Delhi470Jaipur156Ahmedabad120Bangalore119Hyderabad111Chennai68Kolkata64Chandigarh60Pune58Raipur53Indore48Rajkot47Amritsar40Surat39Nagpur29Allahabad26Lucknow22Visakhapatnam21Patna12Agra10Guwahati10Cuttack8Varanasi7Ranchi7Cochin5Dehradun4Jodhpur3Panaji3Jabalpur3

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)12Section 50C4Section 143(3)4Penalty4Addition to Income4Section 43B2

SHRI PRITPAL SINGH,DEHRADUN vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 189/DDN/2019[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun15 Sept 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Pritpal Singh, Vs. Acit, 71, Guru Road, Circle-2, Dehradun Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ahkps3632F Assessee By : Shri Savyasachi Kumar Sahai, Adv Revenue By: Shri Amar Singh Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15/09/2023

For Appellant: Shri Savyasachi Kumar Sahai, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amar Singh Rana, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act could be levied at an addition which has been made u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act on a deeming fiction. 3. We have heard the rival submission and perused the material available on record. The Assessee filed original return of income on 29.11.2014 for AY 2014-15 declaring total income

MAYANK SINGH MEHRA,NAINITAL vs. ITO, NAINITAL

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 100/DDN/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M Balaganesh[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Mayank Singh Mehra V Ito Oak Over Cottage, Mallital, S Nainital Nainital, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand Pan: Abipm5085E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Sharad Kumar Vishnoi, Adv Respondent By Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.11.2023 Date Of 23.11.2023 Pronouncement

Section 27(1)Section 271(1)(c)

section 27(1) Income Tax Act. 1961 categorically states that penalty would be livable if the assessee conceals particulars of his Income or furnishes Inaccurate particulars thereof. But by reason of such concealment of furnishing of inaccurate alone, the assessee does not ipso facto becomes liable for penalty. Imposition of penalty is not automatic. Not only is the levy

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

M/S THDC INDIA LIMITED, RISHIKESH,RISHIKESH vs. PCIT, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 69/DDN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun24 Dec 2025AY 2020-21
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 270ASection 80

56,06,82,000 on the ground that the Assessing Officer while\ncalculating the period for LPSC has considered only 10 months on estimate\nbasis whereas debtors carried forward from earlier years are outstanding for\n12 months and the same was required to be adopted for the purpose of\ncalculation of LPSC.\n3.8. The Appellant submits that the mercantile system