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.

1,222 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 132(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,222Mumbai1,032Jaipur353Indore265Kolkata229Ahmedabad217Bangalore190Hyderabad182Surat176Pune175Chennai155Karnataka111Raipur109Chandigarh102Lucknow71Rajkot63Visakhapatnam60Allahabad43Amritsar41Cochin40Nagpur37Calcutta35Guwahati34Cuttack28Ranchi27Agra26Patna22Dehradun19Panaji17Jabalpur11SC7Jodhpur6Rajasthan2Telangana2Varanasi1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 153A109Section 271(1)(c)100Addition to Income79Section 13252Section 153C47Penalty47Section 27136Section 153D34Search & Seizure

AMIT BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, DELHI

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

ITA 3665/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of 1.T.Act: 1. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Smt. Meera Devi [2012] 26 taxmann.com 132 (Delhi)/[2013] 212 Taxman 68 (Delhi) (MAG.)/[2012] 253 CTR 559 (Delhi), interpreted the applicability of Expln. 5 to Section

SURESH CHAND BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16 , DELHI

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

ITA 3666/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 1,222 · Page 1 of 62

...
33
Section 6832
Section 143(3)27
Disallowance14
ITAT Delhi
26 Jun 2024
AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of 1.T.Act: 1. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Smt. Meera Devi [2012] 26 taxmann.com 132 (Delhi)/[2013] 212 Taxman 68 (Delhi) (MAG.)/[2012] 253 CTR 559 (Delhi), interpreted the applicability of Expln. 5 to Section

AMIT BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, DELHI

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

ITA 3664/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of 1.T.Act: 1. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Smt. Meera Devi [2012] 26 taxmann.com 132 (Delhi)/[2013] 212 Taxman 68 (Delhi) (MAG.)/[2012] 253 CTR 559 (Delhi), interpreted the applicability of Expln. 5 to Section

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4438/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Act on account of alleged non-compliance in proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A I of the Act, is illegal and bad in law.” 5. Admission of the additional ground has been opposed in principle by the ld. DR. Keeping in view, the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4436/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Act on account of alleged non-compliance in proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A I of the Act, is illegal and bad in law.” 5. Admission of the additional ground has been opposed in principle by the ld. DR. Keeping in view, the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4439/DEL/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Act on account of alleged non-compliance in proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A I of the Act, is illegal and bad in law.” 5. Admission of the additional ground has been opposed in principle by the ld. DR. Keeping in view, the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4434/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Act on account of alleged non-compliance in proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A I of the Act, is illegal and bad in law.” 5. Admission of the additional ground has been opposed in principle by the ld. DR. Keeping in view, the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4435/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Act on account of alleged non-compliance in proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A I of the Act, is illegal and bad in law.” 5. Admission of the additional ground has been opposed in principle by the ld. DR. Keeping in view, the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4437/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Act on account of alleged non-compliance in proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A I of the Act, is illegal and bad in law.” 5. Admission of the additional ground has been opposed in principle by the ld. DR. Keeping in view, the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4433/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Act on account of alleged non-compliance in proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A I of the Act, is illegal and bad in law.” 5. Admission of the additional ground has been opposed in principle by the ld. DR. Keeping in view, the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court

SAVITA BANSAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-35(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8937/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mathur, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rajareswari R, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 54FSection 68

132 of the Act having regard to the facts and circumstances existing in the case. 9.1 Multiple objections have been raised on behalf of the assessee to assail the imposition of penalty. The first and foremost objection borne out on behalf of the assessee is that the allegation on the exact nature of default in the order of the Assessing

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

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is being issued separately” After framing the assessment, a notice under Section 274 r.w. Section 271(1)(c) was also issued without showing the specific charge/nature of default alleged against the assessee. Consequently, penalty order dated 12.03.2018 was framed whereby penalty of Rs.53,02,440/- was imposed in I.T.As No.2631/Del/2018

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

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is being issued separately” After framing the assessment, a notice under Section 274 r.w. Section 271(1)(c) was also issued without showing the specific charge/nature of default alleged against the assessee. Consequently, penalty order dated 12.03.2018 was framed whereby penalty of Rs.53,02,440/- was imposed in I.T.As No.2631/Del/2018

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

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is being issued separately” After framing the assessment, a notice under Section 274 r.w. Section 271(1)(c) was also issued without showing the specific charge/nature of default alleged against the assessee. Consequently, penalty order dated 12.03.2018 was framed whereby penalty of Rs.53,02,440/- was imposed in I.T.As No.2631/Del/2018

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

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is being issued separately” After framing the assessment, a notice under Section 274 r.w. Section 271(1)(c) was also issued without showing the specific charge/nature of default alleged against the assessee. Consequently, penalty order dated 12.03.2018 was framed whereby penalty of Rs.53,02,440/- was imposed in I.T.As No.2631/Del/2018

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

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is being issued separately” After framing the assessment, a notice under Section 274 r.w. Section 271(1)(c) was also issued without showing the specific charge/nature of default alleged against the assessee. Consequently, penalty order dated 12.03.2018 was framed whereby penalty of Rs.53,02,440/- was imposed in I.T.As No.2631/Del/2018

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

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is being issued separately” After framing the assessment, a notice under Section 274 r.w. Section 271(1)(c) was also issued without showing the specific charge/nature of default alleged against the assessee. Consequently, penalty order dated 12.03.2018 was framed whereby penalty of Rs.53,02,440/- was imposed in I.T.As No.2631/Del/2018

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

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is being issued separately” After framing the assessment, a notice under Section 274 r.w. Section 271(1)(c) was also issued without showing the specific charge/nature of default alleged against the assessee. Consequently, penalty order dated 12.03.2018 was framed whereby penalty of Rs.53,02,440/- was imposed in I.T.As No.2631/Del/2018

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

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is being issued separately” After framing the assessment, a notice under Section 274 r.w. Section 271(1)(c) was also issued without showing the specific charge/nature of default alleged against the assessee. Consequently, penalty order dated 12.03.2018 was framed whereby penalty of Rs.53,02,440/- was imposed in I.T.As No.2631/Del/2018

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

1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty order dated 04.03.2015 u/s 271AAA of the Act passed by the ld Assessing Authority levying penalty of Rs. 94,00,000 is invalid and bad at law as the notice issued for initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA of the Act was vague and was issued without application of mind