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.

76 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 10(26)(AAA)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi76Mumbai9Indore8Bangalore8Chandigarh8Kolkata7Agra6Pune2Hyderabad2Surat2Telangana1SC1Ahmedabad1Nagpur1

Key Topics

Section 271A40Section 27128Section 13225Addition to Income20Penalty17Section 14312Undisclosed Income11Section 132(4)9Search & Seizure

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

AAA had been met. The latter decision was in the context of timeline relating to payment of tax. In the case of the appellant, it has already been noted that clauses (i) and (ii) in sub section (2) of section 271AAA were not met. The claim of the appellant about payment of Rs 76.50 lakhs as advance

Showing 1–20 of 76 · Page 1 of 4

9
Section 697
Section 687
Section 153A6

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

AAA had been met. The latter decision was in the context of timeline relating to payment of tax. In the case of the appellant, it has already been noted that clauses (i) and (ii) in sub section (2) of section 271AAA were not met. The claim of the appellant about payment of Rs 76.50 lakhs as advance

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

AAA had been met. The latter decision was in the context of timeline relating to payment of tax. In the case of the appellant, it has already been noted that clauses (i) and (ii) in sub section (2) of section 271AAA were not met. The claim of the appellant about payment of Rs 76.50 lakhs as advance

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

AAA had been met. The latter decision was in the context of timeline relating to payment of tax. In the case of the appellant, it has already been noted that clauses (i) and (ii) in sub section (2) of section 271AAA were not met. The claim of the appellant about payment of Rs 76.50 lakhs as advance

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

AAA had been met. The latter decision was in the context of timeline relating to payment of tax. In the case of the appellant, it has already been noted that clauses (i) and (ii) in sub section (2) of section 271AAA were not met. The claim of the appellant about payment of Rs 76.50 lakhs as advance

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. HARMENDER SINGH SRAN, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of the ld AO is allowed and CO of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2671/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Amandeep Singh Saran, Vs. Acit, B-53, B-1, Community Centre, Central Circle-4, Janakpuri, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Auvps5370E (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. Amandeep Singh Saran, Central Circle-29, 7/73, Punjabi Bagh West New Delhi Pan: Auvps5370E

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Arora, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 69

271 AAA of the act levied by ld AO of Rs 94,00,000/- is deleted by the ld CIT (A). 19. The ld AO raised the following grounds of appeal:- “(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) had erred in law and on facts in deleting the penalty

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. AMANDEEP SINGH SRAN, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of the ld AO is allowed and CO of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2672/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Amandeep Singh Saran, Vs. Acit, B-53, B-1, Community Centre, Central Circle-4, Janakpuri, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Auvps5370E (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. Amandeep Singh Saran, Central Circle-29, 7/73, Punjabi Bagh West New Delhi Pan: Auvps5370E

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Arora, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 69

271 AAA of the act levied by ld AO of Rs 94,00,000/- is deleted by the ld CIT (A). 19. The ld AO raised the following grounds of appeal:- “(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) had erred in law and on facts in deleting the penalty

SMT. TRIPAT KAUR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2835/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishismt. Tripat Kaur Vs. The Assistant A-29, Friends Colony, East Commissioner Of Income New Delhi Tax Pan: Aaapk8020A Central Circle- 14 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 154Section 271Section 271A

penalty u/s 271 AAA of the act despite same is disclosed in statements u/s 132 (4) of the act and payment of due taxes thereon. 19. Facts in the present case is that assessee has disclosed income in the return of income which were disclosed in statement U/s 132 (4) of the act. Copies of the statement are submitted before

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9 vs. AMUL GABRANI,

The appeal is allowed and the questions raised are

ITA/1251/2018HC Delhi24 Jul 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 271Section 271A

Section 271-AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act”], notwithstanding a purported failure on the part of the assessee to substantiate the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above

RAJENDRA AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2702/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 2702/Del/2015 (A.Y 2009-10) Rajendra Aggarwal Vs Dcit 23/5, Central Circle-5 Shakti Nagar New Delhi New Delhi (Respondent) Adpqa4147F (Appellant) Appellant By Sh. V. K. Bindal, Ca Respondent By Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 22.01.2019

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271Section 271ASection 272(2)Section 274

section 271 AAA of the Act. 11. Further, the Ld. AR submitted that though the assessee mentioned ‘sum of Rs. 6.641 lakhs on account of cash in hand, jewellery and any other items, but in fact nothing pertains to cash or jewellery. The total jewellery found was valued at Rs. 26,74,710/- and nothing was seized. The notice u/s

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. RITU SINGAL, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5257/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishia.Y. : 2010-11 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Smt. Ritu Singal, Tax, Cc-13, Vs. W-29, Greater Kailash, Room No. 332, Ara Centre, Part-Ii, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi – 110 048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Surendra Kumar, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. R.S. Negi, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271A

AAA in the instant cases are not justified and as such, we cancel the penalty so levied u/s 271AAA for the A/Ys under consideration in the case of respective assessees.' (17) The above view also has been subsequently endorsed by various Benches of the Hon'ble ITAT in the following cases:- i) Mothers Pride Education Personna Pvt Ltd vs DCIT

SMT. PREETI LAMBA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

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

ITA 4444/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. H.S.Sidhu & Sh. R. K. Pandaassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 132Section 143Section 271

section 143 (3) / 153 A(1) (b) of the Act on 28.12.2011 at an income of Rs.26,33,760/-. While completing the assessment, penalty proceedings u/s 271 AAA of the Act were initiated in respect of surrendered income made by the assessee on account of the following :- 1. Voluntary disclosure on account of jewelery of Rs.5,00,000/- 2. Voluntary

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. HIMANSHU VERMA, DELHI

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

ITA 6905/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2012-13]

For Appellant: Shri R.N. Poonia, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Meena, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271A

26,117/- Penalty computed @10% Rs. 76,42,611/- Penalty imposed Rs. 76,42,6117- Rs. 76,42,611/- Penalty levied @ 10% of tax on undisclosed income 10. Penalty so levied was agitated before the ld. CIT(A) and once again the assessee pointed out that the provisions of section 271AAA of the Act do not apply on the facts

M/S. BENCHMARK INFOTECH (P) LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3067/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, And Shri Deepesh Garg, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 132(1)(A)Section 153ASection 2Section 271Section 271A

271 AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in assuming 6 ITA No.3067/Del/2016 M/s. Benchmark Infotech (P) Ltd., Gurgaon. jurisdiction in passing the impugned penalty order being illegal, void ab-initio

RAKESH SETHI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 2130/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143

u/s 271 AAA of the act. During the course of penalty proceedings, assessee submitted that he has submitted the complete details regarding the source of income and surrendered amount were explained. The disclosure was made to avoid any litigation with the Department on an agreed basis with the precondition that no penalty proceedings may be initiated. He further stated that

RAKESH SETHI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 2129/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143

u/s 271 AAA of the act. During the course of penalty proceedings, assessee submitted that he has submitted the complete details regarding the source of income and surrendered amount were explained. The disclosure was made to avoid any litigation with the Department on an agreed basis with the precondition that no penalty proceedings may be initiated. He further stated that

MAHAVIR PRASAD JAIPURIA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 6643/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143Section 271Section 271ASection 274

10,26,175/- to tax. Subsequently, he filed a revised return of income on 07/06/2013 disclosing total income of Rs. 13,26,175/-. During the course of search and post search investigation, the assessee did not surrender any income but during the course of assessment proceedings under section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act 1961, the assessee surrendered

PAVITRA REALCON PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 3185/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No. 3185/Del/2015 (A.Y .2011-12)

Section 132Section 234BSection 68

penalty u/s 271 AAA & not on the evidential value of statement u/s 132(4) for quantum addition. The restriction contained in section 271 AAA cannot be brought for determining income by using the statement. Considering the entire facts, the arguments against statement u/s 132(4) are not acceptable. I hold that there existed valid statement u/s 132(4) & not retracted

DELICATE REALTORS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 3253/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No. 3185/Del/2015 (A.Y .2011-12)

Section 132Section 234BSection 68

penalty u/s 271 AAA & not on the evidential value of statement u/s 132(4) for quantum addition. The restriction contained in section 271 AAA cannot be brought for determining income by using the statement. Considering the entire facts, the arguments against statement u/s 132(4) are not acceptable. I hold that there existed valid statement u/s 132(4) & not retracted

ACIT, KARNAL vs. M/S. KUNDAN RICE MILLS LTD., PANIPAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2572/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya[Assessment Year: 2011-12]

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 132(4)Section 271A

26 (Allahabad) in Crossings Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) also decided in assessee's favour in which the surrendered amount was disclosed in the revised return filed with taxes paid thereon. Thus without much elaboration, respectfully following the cited orders of the higher judicial forum, the penalty levied of Rs. 75,00,000/- is directed