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.

284 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Revision u/s 263clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi284Mumbai248Jaipur141Karnataka102Kolkata90Bangalore81Chennai67Indore44Ahmedabad44Pune34Visakhapatnam28Raipur26Allahabad20Hyderabad19Chandigarh18Nagpur13Lucknow11Cochin9Surat7Amritsar5Rajkot4Ranchi4Jodhpur2Cuttack2Jabalpur2SC1Guwahati1Telangana1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 26394Section 143(3)69Addition to Income59Section 271(1)(c)56Penalty56Section 153A32Section 14725Disallowance24Section 27121

M/S. JINDAL STEEL & POWER LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, HISAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3052/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. C.M. Garg & Sh. O.P. Kant

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

revision proceedings or reassessment proceedings. In such circumstances we cannot regard the mistake to be an inadvertent mistake or simple case of oversight. We therefore find justification in the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. As a result the grounds No. 3 to 3.2 of the appeal are dismissed and grounds

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

Showing 1–20 of 284 · Page 1 of 15

...
Section 271D20
Deduction20
Section 143(2)19

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

revision but were not part of the show cause notice issued u/s 263 are concerned. The order of the ClT passed u/s 263 is therefore liable to be quashed insofar as those grounds are concerned. " 13. The above ground which had led the learned Tribunal to interfere with the order of the learned CIT. seems to be contrary

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

revision but were not part of the show cause notice issued u/s 263 are concerned. The order of the ClT passed u/s 263 is therefore liable to be quashed insofar as those grounds are concerned. " 13. The above ground which had led the learned Tribunal to interfere with the order of the learned CIT. seems to be contrary

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

revision but were not part of the show cause notice issued u/s 263 are concerned. The order of the ClT passed u/s 263 is therefore liable to be quashed insofar as those grounds are concerned. " 13. The above ground which had led the learned Tribunal to interfere with the order of the learned CIT. seems to be contrary

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

revision but were not part of the show cause notice issued u/s 263 are concerned. The order of the ClT passed u/s 263 is therefore liable to be quashed insofar as those grounds are concerned. " 13. The above ground which had led the learned Tribunal to interfere with the order of the learned CIT. seems to be contrary

RIVET ELECTRICAL PVT LTD,FARIDABAD vs. PR. CIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6225/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Rivet Electrical Pvt.Ltd., Vs Pr.Cit, Ff-9, Vishnu Place, Faridabad, Near Neelam Flyover, Sec-20B, Haryana. Faridabad, Haryana-121002. Pan-Aafcr8803C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rajeev Saxena, Adv., Ms. Sumangl Saxena, Adv. & Shri Sahyamsunder, Adv. Respondent By Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 15.11.2022

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

penalty or fine has been incurred by the assessee. At point 37, no payment by way of commission or brokerage has been made during the year. At point 38, details regarding the expenses on which TDS is required to be deducted has been provided. At point 39, details regarding foreign transactions have been provided. At point 40, it is submitted

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

revised his show cause for still maintaining his intention to initiate penalty u/s 271(l)(c) as Ld. CIT(A) through his order dt 22.12.2011 had reasoning of disallowance. 8. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding penalty u/s 27(l)(c) for disallowance u/s 14A of Rs. 40,69,000.00 when it falls

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

revised his show cause for still maintaining his intention to initiate penalty u/s 271(l)(c) as Ld. CIT(A) through his order dt 22.12.2011 had reasoning of disallowance. 8. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding penalty u/s 27(l)(c) for disallowance u/s 14A of Rs. 40,69,000.00 when it falls

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

revised his show cause for still maintaining his intention to initiate penalty u/s 271(l)(c) as Ld. CIT(A) through his order dt 22.12.2011 had reasoning of disallowance. 8. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding penalty u/s 27(l)(c) for disallowance u/s 14A of Rs. 40,69,000.00 when it falls

PAWAN KUMAR AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT - 12, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1355/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Satish Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

271(1)(c). page 10 of the order incriminating material. passed u/s 263. Merit The direction on the issue of penalty is beyond the purview of provisions of section 263 of the Act. 10. In sum and substance, his core argument is that the order passed under section 263 in the above captioned years, i.e. Assessment Years

PAWAN KUMAR AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT - 12, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1354/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Satish Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

271(1)(c). page 10 of the order incriminating material. passed u/s 263. Merit The direction on the issue of penalty is beyond the purview of provisions of section 263 of the Act. 10. In sum and substance, his core argument is that the order passed under section 263 in the above captioned years, i.e. Assessment Years

PAWAN KUMAR AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT - 12, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1357/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Satish Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

271(1)(c). page 10 of the order incriminating material. passed u/s 263. Merit The direction on the issue of penalty is beyond the purview of provisions of section 263 of the Act. 10. In sum and substance, his core argument is that the order passed under section 263 in the above captioned years, i.e. Assessment Years

M/S. JRK AUTO PARTS (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3458/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

revised or rectified u/s 263 or u/s 154 or has been reopened u/s 147/148. Once the addition has been made/confirmed in the quantum proceedings, then subject matter of penalty proceedings u/s 271

ATMA RAM BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED, NEW DELHI,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 3593/DEL/2025[A.Y. 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 269TSection 270ASection 271ESection 69ASection 80G

revision under the said section, the Commissioner finds that the Assessing Officer has not initiated penalty proceedings, he cannot direct initiation of penalty proceedings because penalty proceedings are not a part of assessment proceedings. It was, thus, held that the Commissioner cannot pass an order u/s 263 of the Act pertaining to penalty. 3. Following the said judgment, with

DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1153/DEL/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 4432/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2000-01) I.T.A. No. 4433/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2001-02)

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 56

revised return after claiming deduction of expenses for earning of interest income, the income was worked out at Rs. 45,10,06,672/-, which was claimed exempt u/s 10(20A). While completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer did not allowed any deduction of expenses for earning of interest income. Claim for exemption u/s 10(20A) was also rejected

DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1) vs. DELHI METRO RAIL CORP. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4432/DEL/2005[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2019AY 2000-2001

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 4432/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2000-01) I.T.A. No. 4433/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2001-02)

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 56

revised return after claiming deduction of expenses for earning of interest income, the income was worked out at Rs. 45,10,06,672/-, which was claimed exempt u/s 10(20A). While completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer did not allowed any deduction of expenses for earning of interest income. Claim for exemption u/s 10(20A) was also rejected

DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1) vs. DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD.,,

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4433/DEL/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2019AY 2001-2002

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 4432/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2000-01) I.T.A. No. 4433/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2001-02)

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 56

revised return after claiming deduction of expenses for earning of interest income, the income was worked out at Rs. 45,10,06,672/-, which was claimed exempt u/s 10(20A). While completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer did not allowed any deduction of expenses for earning of interest income. Claim for exemption u/s 10(20A) was also rejected

PRATEEK GUPTA,GHAZIABAD vs. PR, CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 785/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16 Prateek Gupta, Vs. Pr. Cit 152, Chanderpuri, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201001 Pan Atbpg8602J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

revision order passed by the learned CIT u/s 263 is bad in law. (ii) That the assessing officer having dropped the penalty proceedings u/s 271

SANDEEP GUPTA,GHAZIABAD vs. PR, CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 784/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16 Sandeep Gupta, Vs. Pr. Cit 152, Chanderpuri, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201009 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

revision order passed by the learned CIT u/s 263 is bad in law. (ii) That the assessing officer having dropped the penalty proceedings u/s 271

HARISH KUMAR HUF,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-34(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1469/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Dr. B.R.R. Kumara.Y. : 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Naveen ND Gupta, CA & Sh. AshuFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 288ASection 94(7)

263 CTR 1] Where Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Under Explanation 1 to s. 271 (1 )(c), voluntary disclosure of concealed income does not absolve assessee of s. 271 (1 )(c) penalty if the assessee fails to offer an explanation which is bona fide and proves that all the material facts have been disclosed