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.

209 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Carry Forward of Lossesclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai463Delhi209Ahmedabad121Jaipur93Hyderabad75Raipur71Pune65Kolkata57Chandigarh53Rajkot46Chennai45Amritsar42Nagpur37Bangalore28Guwahati25Surat22Indore19Visakhapatnam16Cuttack11Lucknow7Allahabad3Jabalpur2Panaji2Ranchi2Jodhpur2Patna2Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)82Addition to Income64Disallowance38Section 143(3)37Penalty29Section 43B26Deduction24Section 153D20Section 153A20

DCIT, CIRCLE 22(2), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. SAHIL VACHANI, DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2604/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice Presdient (), Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shriavdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.2604/िद"ी/2023(िन.व. 2016-17)

For Appellant: S/Shri Anuj Garg & Narpat Singh, Sr.DRFor Respondent: S/Shri Rohan Khare & Priyam
Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

carried the matter, of levy of penalty, before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) deleted the penalty by stating that the construction of building was delayed by the contractor which was beyond the control of the assessee and the same was not a deliberate delay. The CIT(A) further noted that the assessee has not contested theaddition as agreed

MR. NIKHIL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Showing 1–20 of 209 · Page 1 of 11

...
Section 194H16
Section 14A14
Depreciation14
ITA 1249/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarmr. Nikhil Sawhney, Vs. Dcit, 17, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, New Delhi-11003 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaups0222Q

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur hansra, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

carry forward the same for set off of in subsequent assessment years, when the income arising from such transfer of unit is exempt u/s. 10(33). The Tribunal held that the source both capital gain and capital loss on sale of units of US64 is itself excluded and not only the income arising out of capital gain

INFRA ENGINEERS LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CC-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 942/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

forward trading in commodities. The A treated the transaction as speculative loss and therefore did not allow the loss. This disallowance was upheld by CIT(A). Thereafter, AO imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance. 5.3.4 In the case of DCIT v/s Shree Ram Electrocast (P) Ltd (20171 84 taxmann.com 63 (Kolkata-Trib

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-2 , FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 939/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

forward trading in commodities. The A treated the transaction as speculative loss and therefore did not allow the loss. This disallowance was upheld by CIT(A). Thereafter, AO imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance. 5.3.4 In the case of DCIT v/s Shree Ram Electrocast (P) Ltd (20171 84 taxmann.com 63 (Kolkata-Trib

A2Z MAINTENANCE & ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2631/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

forward trading in commodities. The A treated the transaction as speculative loss and therefore did not allow the loss. This disallowance was upheld by CIT(A). Thereafter, AO imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance. 5.3.4 In the case of DCIT v/s Shree Ram Electrocast (P) Ltd (20171 84 taxmann.com 63 (Kolkata-Trib

DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD vs. A2Z INFRA ENGINEERS LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 812/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

forward trading in commodities. The A treated the transaction as speculative loss and therefore did not allow the loss. This disallowance was upheld by CIT(A). Thereafter, AO imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance. 5.3.4 In the case of DCIT v/s Shree Ram Electrocast (P) Ltd (20171 84 taxmann.com 63 (Kolkata-Trib

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 943/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

forward trading in commodities. The A treated the transaction as speculative loss and therefore did not allow the loss. This disallowance was upheld by CIT(A). Thereafter, AO imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance. 5.3.4 In the case of DCIT v/s Shree Ram Electrocast (P) Ltd (20171 84 taxmann.com 63 (Kolkata-Trib

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 941/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

forward trading in commodities. The A treated the transaction as speculative loss and therefore did not allow the loss. This disallowance was upheld by CIT(A). Thereafter, AO imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance. 5.3.4 In the case of DCIT v/s Shree Ram Electrocast (P) Ltd (20171 84 taxmann.com 63 (Kolkata-Trib

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. CCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 940/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

forward trading in commodities. The A treated the transaction as speculative loss and therefore did not allow the loss. This disallowance was upheld by CIT(A). Thereafter, AO imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance. 5.3.4 In the case of DCIT v/s Shree Ram Electrocast (P) Ltd (20171 84 taxmann.com 63 (Kolkata-Trib

DCIT CC-2 , FARIDABAD vs. A2Z MAINTENANCE AND ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 811/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

forward trading in commodities. The A treated the transaction as speculative loss and therefore did not allow the loss. This disallowance was upheld by CIT(A). Thereafter, AO imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance. 5.3.4 In the case of DCIT v/s Shree Ram Electrocast (P) Ltd (20171 84 taxmann.com 63 (Kolkata-Trib

ACIT, CIRCLE-26(1), NEW DELHI vs. VALUE FIRST DIGITAL MEDIA PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA No. 3143/Del/2019 [A

ITA 3143/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 250Section 40Section 72ASection 9(1)(vi)

carry forward of losses and depreciation as claimed in its revised return of income. In the result, GROUND Nos. 1 to 3 are allowed for statistical purposes. 10. Coming to GROUND no. 4 which pertains to deletion of the disallowance of Rs. 8,31,45,470/- made by the AO u/s 40(a)(i) of the Income

ACIT, CIRCLE-26(1), NEW DELHI vs. VALUE FIRST DIGITAL MEDIA PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA No. 3143/Del/2019 [A

ITA 5127/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 250Section 40Section 72ASection 9(1)(vi)

carry forward of losses and depreciation as claimed in its revised return of income. In the result, GROUND Nos. 1 to 3 are allowed for statistical purposes. 10. Coming to GROUND no. 4 which pertains to deletion of the disallowance of Rs. 8,31,45,470/- made by the AO u/s 40(a)(i) of the Income

ACIT CIRCLE 25-(1), DELHI vs. VALUE FIRST DIGITAL MEDIA PVT. LTD. , GURGAON HARYANA

In the result, ITA No. 3143/Del/2019 [A

ITA 2050/DEL/2021[2014-15]Status: PendingITAT Delhi08 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 250Section 40Section 72ASection 9(1)(vi)

carry forward of losses and depreciation as claimed in its revised return of income. In the result, GROUND Nos. 1 to 3 are allowed for statistical purposes. 10. Coming to GROUND no. 4 which pertains to deletion of the disallowance of Rs. 8,31,45,470/- made by the AO u/s 40(a)(i) of the Income

VISHNU KUMAR AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 46(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2836/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Gargassessment Year: 2015-16 Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal, Vs. Ito, 3762/64, Chawri Bazar, Ward-46(5), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aarpk3173D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.05.2022 Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 43(5)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act is being initiated separately. 12. Assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act at a total income of Rs.4,86,370/- (as per discussion in para 10 above). However, since there is business loss carried forward

MAX LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1138/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Max Life Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Acit, Plot No.90A, Sector-18, Udyog Vihar, Circle-1, Ltu, Gurgaon, Haryana-122018. New Delhi. Pan-Aaccm3201E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Himanshu Sinha, Adv. & Shri Bhuvan Dhoopar, Adv. Respondent By Shri Jeetender Chand, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 18.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.10.2022 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-22, New Delhi, Dated 29.11.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. “That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Upholding Penalty Levied By The Ao Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Without Considering The Material Available On Record. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)/Ao Has Failed To Appreciate That The Penalty Proceedings Are Separate & Distinct From Assessment Proceedings & Mere Disallowance Of A Claim Made By The Appellant Does Not Automatically Lead To Imposition Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C). 3. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)/Ao Has Failed To Appreciate That The Issue Involved In Appellant’S Case Is Purely A Legal Issue To Be Decided On Interpretation Of The Provisions Of The Act & Merely Because Ld. Ao Adopts A View

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

carried forward from AYs 2002-03 & 2003-04 to the extent of Rs.56,84,41,016/- thus, the total income was assessed 2 | P a g e at NIL after giving set off of loss. The AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

GEORGE KUTTY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3788/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] George Kutty, Vs Dcit, C/O-M/S. Oasis Tours India (P.) Circle-13(1), Ltd., C-40, Middle Circle, Dwarka New Delhi. Sadan, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aajpk4005H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Manish Malik, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2022

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 276CSection 68

271(1 )(c) because positive income of assessee was reduced to nil after allowing set-off of carried forward losses of earlier years 10. K.P. Madhusudhanan Vs CIT [2001] 118 Taxman 324 (SC)/[2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC)/[2001] 169 CTR 489 (SC)] 4 | P a g e The Hon’ble Apex Court held that the onus

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NEW DELHI vs. NIRULAS CORNER HOUSE PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 4686/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Jeetender Chand, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

carry forward of business losses of Rs. 8,61,02,164/- as return of income was filed after due date prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act. Penalty proceedings u/s 271

AIMIL PHARMACEUTICALS (I) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 2334/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Agarwal, ld. ARFor Respondent: ShriAnujGarg, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 247Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

forward book loss for F.Y. 2008-09 of Rs. 89,26,065/- under Section 115JB of the Act. The Assessing Officer while noticing that the book profit as per part B- TI and TTI – computation of tax liability on total income of return of income- for assessment year 2010-11 is Rs.3,05,36,863/- whereas the assessee had shown

RUKMANI WIRES PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-21(2), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 5481/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarrukmani Wires Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, G-1087, Dsiidc Industrial Circle-1(2), Complex Area, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaccr7552F

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 115QSection 143(3)Section 18Section 271(1)Section 46ASection 48

carrying forward long-term capital loss of ₹2,81,47,885/- by Rukmani Wires Pvt. Ltd applying the provisions of section 115QA read with section 10(34A) of the Act and initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271

M/S. H.B. LEASING & FINANCE COMPANY LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2323/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshand, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69B

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 has been wrongly initiated.” 4. When the matter was called for hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that Grounds No.4 and 5 are not pressed in view of the relief granted by the CIT(A). The ld. counsel further submitted that Ground no.3 is the only substantive