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.

845 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Reopening of Assessmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,299Delhi845Ahmedabad379Jaipur289Chennai269Pune220Kolkata162Bangalore144Surat144Rajkot119Karnataka105Chandigarh102Indore101Hyderabad75Raipur65Amritsar53Visakhapatnam47Lucknow45Calcutta35Agra31Nagpur27Allahabad25Cuttack23Patna20Dehradun14Guwahati13Cochin11Jabalpur9Jodhpur8Ranchi7Varanasi4SC3Telangana2

Key Topics

Section 14789Section 271(1)(c)77Addition to Income73Section 14872Section 143(3)66Penalty58Section 234E42Section 6841Reopening of Assessment24Section 143(2)

M/S. INDIA EXPOSITION MART LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 1079/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Aug 2025AY 2009-10
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of\nthe Act, is initiated separately.”\n\n(2.3) The Assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) in which the following grounds\nof appeal were raised:\n\n\"1. The Learned DCIT erred in law by reopening assessment

MAHESH KUMAR,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-68(6), DELHI

In the result, Ground no. 3 as raised by the assessee deserves to be allowed and the impugned addition cannot be sustained

ITA 2650/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang(), Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Mahesh Kumar, Vs Ito, 6/305/1A, Doonger Ward-68(6), Mohalla, Delhi-110032. Delhi. Pan-Aoopk6335A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca Respondent By Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025

Showing 1–20 of 845 · Page 1 of 43

...
23
Reassessment21
Section 153A19
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

reopened by the AO vide notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 28.03.2019. 2.1. As per the facts mentioned by the AO in para no.2 and 2.1 of the assessment order, the AO had received information from ITO(Inv.) Unit-7, New Delhi, about the assessee having received accommodation entries amounting to Rs.9,60,000/- on different dates during

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), DELHI, DELHI vs. ARTISTIC FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, Ground no. 3 as raised by the assessee deserves to be allowed and the impugned addition cannot be sustained

ITA 2650/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang(), Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Mahesh Kumar, Vs Ito, 6/305/1A, Doonger Ward-68(6), Mohalla, Delhi-110032. Delhi. Pan-Aoopk6335A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca Respondent By Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

reopened by the AO vide notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 28.03.2019. 2.1. As per the facts mentioned by the AO in para no.2 and 2.1 of the assessment order, the AO had received information from ITO(Inv.) Unit-7, New Delhi, about the assessee having received accommodation entries amounting to Rs.9,60,000/- on different dates during

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1160/DEL/2011[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2019AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41

271(1)(c) of the Act. In the case before the HKHC, since such reasons were neither mentioned in the penalty initiation notice, nor were clearly discernible from the assessment order where the taxable income was enhanced, the penalty levy was deleted for want of application of mind by the tax officer. Revenue's appeal against this HKHC judgment before

HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5234/DEL/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41

271(1)(c) of the Act. In the case before the HKHC, since such reasons were neither mentioned in the penalty initiation notice, nor were clearly discernible from the assessment order where the taxable income was enhanced, the penalty levy was deleted for want of application of mind by the tax officer. Revenue's appeal against this HKHC judgment before

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1161/DEL/2011[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2019AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41

271(1)(c) of the Act. In the case before the HKHC, since such reasons were neither mentioned in the penalty initiation notice, nor were clearly discernible from the assessment order where the taxable income was enhanced, the penalty levy was deleted for want of application of mind by the tax officer. Revenue's appeal against this HKHC judgment before

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1162/DEL/2011[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2019AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41

271(1)(c) of the Act. In the case before the HKHC, since such reasons were neither mentioned in the penalty initiation notice, nor were clearly discernible from the assessment order where the taxable income was enhanced, the penalty levy was deleted for want of application of mind by the tax officer. Revenue's appeal against this HKHC judgment before

VISHWANATH AGGARWAL ,DELHI vs. THE ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-05, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 611/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

reopening, grounds of appeal filed by department for the AY 2009-10 and the copy of communication made by the DDIT (Inv.) Surat dated 18.03.2016 to the AO were submitted. It was submitted that under identical circumstances for alleged breach of section 269SS and 269T no penalty u/s 271D or 271E was levied by the AO/JCIT. On the contrary identical

VISHWANATH AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. THE ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-05, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 618/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

reopening, grounds of appeal filed by department for the AY 2009-10 and the copy of communication made by the DDIT (Inv.) Surat dated 18.03.2016 to the AO were submitted. It was submitted that under identical circumstances for alleged breach of section 269SS and 269T no penalty u/s 271D or 271E was levied by the AO/JCIT. On the contrary identical

VISHWANATH AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. THE ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-05, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 615/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

reopening, grounds of appeal filed by department for the AY 2009-10 and the copy of communication made by the DDIT (Inv.) Surat dated 18.03.2016 to the AO were submitted. It was submitted that under identical circumstances for alleged breach of section 269SS and 269T no penalty u/s 271D or 271E was levied by the AO/JCIT. On the contrary identical

VISHWANATH AGGARWAL ,DELHI vs. THE ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-05, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 616/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

reopening, grounds of appeal filed by department for the AY 2009-10 and the copy of communication made by the DDIT (Inv.) Surat dated 18.03.2016 to the AO were submitted. It was submitted that under identical circumstances for alleged breach of section 269SS and 269T no penalty u/s 271D or 271E was levied by the AO/JCIT. On the contrary identical

VISHWANATH AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. THE ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-05, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 617/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

reopening, grounds of appeal filed by department for the AY 2009-10 and the copy of communication made by the DDIT (Inv.) Surat dated 18.03.2016 to the AO were submitted. It was submitted that under identical circumstances for alleged breach of section 269SS and 269T no penalty u/s 271D or 271E was levied by the AO/JCIT. On the contrary identical

VISHWANATH AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. THE ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-05, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 612/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

reopening, grounds of appeal filed by department for the AY 2009-10 and the copy of communication made by the DDIT (Inv.) Surat dated 18.03.2016 to the AO were submitted. It was submitted that under identical circumstances for alleged breach of section 269SS and 269T no penalty u/s 271D or 271E was levied by the AO/JCIT. On the contrary identical

VISHWANATH AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. THE ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-05, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 614/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

reopening, grounds of appeal filed by department for the AY 2009-10 and the copy of communication made by the DDIT (Inv.) Surat dated 18.03.2016 to the AO were submitted. It was submitted that under identical circumstances for alleged breach of section 269SS and 269T no penalty u/s 271D or 271E was levied by the AO/JCIT. On the contrary identical

VISHWANATH AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. THE ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-05, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 613/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

reopening, grounds of appeal filed by department for the AY 2009-10 and the copy of communication made by the DDIT (Inv.) Surat dated 18.03.2016 to the AO were submitted. It was submitted that under identical circumstances for alleged breach of section 269SS and 269T no penalty u/s 271D or 271E was levied by the AO/JCIT. On the contrary identical

VIKAS STRIPS LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4483/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit & Shri Anadee Nath Misshravikas Strips Ltd., Acit, Delhi. Vs. Circle – 26(2), New Delhi. Pan No: Aabcv7134J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Avikal Manu, Sr. Dr Order Per Anadee Nath Misshra, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Avikal Manu, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

penalty order passed by Ld AO u/s 271(1)(c) on basis of invalid assessment order passed u/s 147/148 of the Act as jurisdiction u/s 148 was not validly assumed and there are series of jurisdictional errors in reopening

JAYANTI DALMIA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3926/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar BindalFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)

reopening of tax assessments for a period of 16 years to cover such cases, which has escaped assessment. Therefore, only in such cases where such persons have refused to deliver signed consent letters the penalty has been initiated and imposed under section 271 (1) (b) of the act. Therefore, these were not the cases of simple tax evasion

SHAILENDRA ,MEERUT vs. ITO, WARD- 2(3), MEERUT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6100/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2009-10] Shailendra, Vs Ito, C/O-Vinod Kumar Goel, 282, Ward-2(3), Boundary Road, Civil Lines, Meerut. Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. Pan-Cavps9753D Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Ms. Maimun Alam, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.02.2023

Section 144Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

reopened the assessment u/s 147 on the ground that there was difference of receipts as per Form No.26AS and Income-tax Return. In response to notice u/s 148, the assessee filed the return of income on 15.04.2016. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was submitted that since the assessee could not obtain the copy of bank statement, therefore

BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICAL LTD. vs. DCIT, CO. CIRCLE-2(1),,

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1835/DEL/2006[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2017AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80Section 80H

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is not appealable. 3. The assessee company filed return of income on 26.11.1999 declaring an income of Rs. 10,84,60,76,693. The assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 15.02.2002 at taxable income of Rs. 10,84,93,70,319 was determined. The case was reopened

NEHA ISPAT PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-18(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the 17

ITA 5656/DEL/2018[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. R.K Panda

Section 148Section 254Section 271Section 274Section 68

penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271 (1) (c) of the IT Act. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the asessee is a company and field its return of income on 30.10.2003 declaring nil income. The case of the assessee was reopened