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.

3 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Bogus/Accommodation Entryclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai15Hyderabad8Delhi3

Key Topics

Section 1475Section 1484Section 143(3)4Section 271(1)(c)3Section 271(1)3Penalty3Section 1512Section 69A2Section 151(1)2Addition to Income2

M/S. INTIME CREDIT & HOLDING PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the

ITA 2944/DEL/2015[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Shailesh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Atiq Ahmed, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

penalty u/s. 271(1)© of the Act amounting to Rs. 2,28,744/- being 100% of the tax sought to evade by the assessee. We further note that in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 1726/Del/2012 (AY 2001-02) vide Order dated 27.07.2015, the Tribunal had adjudicated the issues vide para no. 7 to 8 at pages

M/S. STANDARD WATCH CO. (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 3076/DEL/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S.K. Jain, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)Section 271(1)

271(1)©. 3. That under the facts and circumstances, levy of penalty @200% is very – very excessive and without any cogent reason. 2. The facts narrated by the Revenue Authorities are not disputed by both the parties, therefore, the same are not repeated here for the sake of convenience. 3. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel of the Assessee

RAGHUBIR SINGH PUNIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 30(8), NEW DELHI., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as

ITA 2252/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2252/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 127Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is premature, therefore, need not be to adjudicated. 11. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as much as in fact in I.T.A.No.2252/Del/2024 upholding the levy of tax demand of Rs.18,06,250/- on an assessed income of Rs.39