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.

2,629 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Disallowanceclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,244Delhi2,629Ahmedabad777Bangalore465Jaipur448Kolkata415Pune364Chennai282Indore244Hyderabad242Surat214Chandigarh193Raipur96Rajkot86Amritsar79Nagpur69Lucknow55Visakhapatnam53Cochin49Allahabad47Agra40Cuttack37Calcutta36Ranchi32Jodhpur18Dehradun18Panaji17Jabalpur16Guwahati13Karnataka12Varanasi12Patna7SC4Telangana4Rajasthan2Gauhati1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)122Addition to Income80Penalty50Disallowance48Section 143(3)46Deduction25Section 27123Section 153D21Section 27421Section 80I

SMT. SUMAN LAKHANI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the penalty amounting to Rs

ITA 857/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Madan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Janardan Das, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36

disallowance of interest u/s 36(l)(iii) on interest free advances made by the assessee. Further, addition was made by restricting the deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. The Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s 271

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GRANITE GATE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Showing 1–20 of 2,629 · Page 1 of 132

...
19
Section 14718
Section 6818
ITA 2239/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: Disposed
ITAT Delhi
16 Dec 2016
AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadi N Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Sapra, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT (DR)
Section 271

disallowed the expenses totalling the aforesaid amount of Rs. 11,24,67,886/- claimed under different heads. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceeding u/s 271

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. RESURGERE MINES AND MINERALS INDIA LTD., MUMBAI

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

ITA 1531/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, CA and Shri Ashish Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

penalty imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act by holding that disallowance u/s 14A of the I.T. Act was a debatable

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Ergo, the impugned order is upheld and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed being devoid of any merit.” 4. In view of the facts mentioned above in para-2, I am unable to persuade myself with the finding of the draft order that in facts of the case and in light

HINDUSTAN COCA COLA MARKETING COMPANY PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-11(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal is partly allowed and the stay

ITA 7900/DEL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Aparna Karan, CIT(DR)
Section 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40Section 44A

Disallowance U/s 13,97,08,721/- No 40A(i)(a) 5 Incorrect claim U/s 2,43,72,131/- No 40A(i)(a) 6 Excess 20,89,501/- No shortage/breakage A notice dated 30.12.2008 U/s 271(1)(c) was issued by the Assessing Officer(‘AO’ for short) accordingly, thereby initiating penalty

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

ITA 3531/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Khare, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Chopra, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

disallowance u/s 14A of the I.T. Act. He also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA and 271(1)(c). While adjudicating

M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

ITA 3135/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Khare, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Chopra, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

disallowance u/s 14A of the I.T. Act. He also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA and 271(1)(c). While adjudicating

M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

ITA 3136/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Khare, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Chopra, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

disallowance u/s 14A of the I.T. Act. He also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA and 271(1)(c). While adjudicating

NIRALA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

ITA 3155/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Khare, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Chopra, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

disallowance u/s 14A of the I.T. Act. He also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA and 271(1)(c). While adjudicating

M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

ITA 3137/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Khare, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Chopra, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

disallowance u/s 14A of the I.T. Act. He also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA and 271(1)(c). While adjudicating

M/S. PADMINI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1002/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri K.N. Chary & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, FCA and Shri Somil Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

u/s 271(l)(c) is clearly leviable in such cases. 7. Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) has introduced a deeming provision which makes an assessee liable for penalty in respect of any amount which is added or disallowed

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), NEW DELHI vs. ASIAN CONSOLIDATED INDS.LTD), REWARI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 3013/DEL/2018[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2024AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 1997-98

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 264Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292

u/s 271(1)(c) could be initiated and the penalty notice issued to the assessee dated 08.03.2016 is defective and therefore the action of the CIT(A) in deleting the penalty is correct. B. No penalty can be imposed on additions which are based on estimates and mere disallowance

M/S. OIL INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4663/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 154Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 36

disallowance under u/s 35 of Rs 3,74,06,800.00 initiated revised show cause due to changed reasoning for denial of such claim before trigger of penalty u/s 271

M/S. OIL INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4664/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 154Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 36

disallowance under u/s 35 of Rs 3,74,06,800.00 initiated revised show cause due to changed reasoning for denial of such claim before trigger of penalty u/s 271

M/S. OIL INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4662/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 154Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 36

disallowance under u/s 35 of Rs 3,74,06,800.00 initiated revised show cause due to changed reasoning for denial of such claim before trigger of penalty u/s 271

SHARSH FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO. PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 878/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishia.Y. : 2005-06 M/S Sharsh Finance & Acit, Circle 18(1), Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vs. New Delhi 16L, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001 (Pan: Aahcs1410L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. V.K. Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Sh. N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

disallowance u/s 14A. Penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) is bad in law 2. A perusal of the notice u/s

SHRI KRISHNA JEWELS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

ITA 6758/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: FixedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year : 2013-14

Section 271(1)(c)

disallowed the claim of expenditure or made any addition by rejecting the claim of the assessee then, the Assessing Officer is under statutory obligation to specify the default/charge for which the 7 | P a g e penalty proceedings are initiated and penalty is proposed to be levied u/s 271

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PODDAR PIGMENTS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2219/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/S. Poddar Pigments Ltd., A- Dcit, Circle-14(1), New Delhi 283, Ground Floor, Okhla Indl. Area-1, New Delhi. Pan : Aaacp1125E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.Dr Respondent By Sh. P.C. Parwal, Fca Date Of Hearing 08.08.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 05.10.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15/01/2014 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) For Assessment Year 2007-08, Wherein He Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against Order Of The Assessing Officer Dated 29/03/2012 Levying Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Under: I. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Deleting The Penalty Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On Account Of Additions Under The Head Of U/S 40(A)(I) Amounting To Rs.9,14,191/- & Ltcg Amounting To Rs.41,62,154/- Holding That The Assessee Has Not Furnished Any Inaccurate Particulars Or Has Made Any Deliberate Attempt To Conceal Income. Ii. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Deleting The Above

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

disallowance made by the A.O. u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act was on account of legal provision and u/s 14A of the Act by attributing expenses to the tax free income claimed by the appellant." ”. ….. The A.O. has in the last page of his order u/s 271(l)(c) levied the penalty

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

disallowance was upheld by CIT(A). Thereafter, A0 imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance

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

disallowance was upheld by CIT(A). Thereafter, A0 imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance