BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

196 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 133(1)(d)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai273Delhi196Jaipur105Raipur95Ahmedabad85Kolkata59Chennai55Bangalore39Hyderabad33Indore29Surat27Allahabad25Visakhapatnam24Pune21Lucknow17Rajkot16Chandigarh14Nagpur11Patna8Guwahati7Ranchi3Jodhpur2Cochin2Jabalpur1Amritsar1Cuttack1

Key Topics

Addition to Income76Section 143(3)66Section 6845Section 271(1)(c)38Penalty36Section 153A33Section 153C26Section 143(2)24Disallowance

ACIT, CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI vs. VODAFONE WEST LTD., (THEREAFTER MERGED WITH VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.),, NEW DELHI

ITA 7658/DEL/2018[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 1999-2000 Vs. M/S. Vodafone West Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Thereafter Merged With New Delhi Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacf1190P (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/S. Vodafone Idea Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Earlier Known As Vodafone New Delhi Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacb2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Sh. Anil Chachra, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Department By Sh. Vijay B. Basanta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.03.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm These Revenue’S Appeals Ita No.7658/Del/2018 & 8079/Del/2018 For Assessment Years 1999-2000 & 2007-08

Section 271(1)(c)

D) WHERE TWO OPINIONS ARE POSSIBLE OR THERE ARE DEBATABLE VIEWS THEN THERE CAN BE NO PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME At the very outset, we wish to submit that based on a plain reading of the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, along with Explanation attached thereto, it is apparent that penalty under for concealment

ACIT, CIRCLE- 26(2), NEW DELHI vs. VODAFONE IDEA LTD. (EARLIER KNWON AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.), NEW DELHI

Showing 1–20 of 196 · Page 1 of 10

...
21
Section 142(1)20
Section 40A(3)19
Limitation/Time-bar19
ITA 8079/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 1999-2000 Vs. M/S. Vodafone West Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Thereafter Merged With New Delhi Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacf1190P (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/S. Vodafone Idea Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Earlier Known As Vodafone New Delhi Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacb2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Sh. Anil Chachra, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Department By Sh. Vijay B. Basanta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.03.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm These Revenue’S Appeals Ita No.7658/Del/2018 & 8079/Del/2018 For Assessment Years 1999-2000 & 2007-08

Section 271(1)(c)

D) WHERE TWO OPINIONS ARE POSSIBLE OR THERE ARE DEBATABLE VIEWS THEN THERE CAN BE NO PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME At the very outset, we wish to submit that based on a plain reading of the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, along with Explanation attached thereto, it is apparent that penalty under for concealment

GEORGE KUTTY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3788/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] George Kutty, Vs Dcit, C/O-M/S. Oasis Tours India (P.) Circle-13(1), Ltd., C-40, Middle Circle, Dwarka New Delhi. Sadan, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aajpk4005H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Manish Malik, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2022

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 276CSection 68

133 (Ahd.) (SB), relied upon by the Id. Counsel, the AO had initiated penalty proceedings for disallowance of loss as capital loss. This ground was not accepted by the CIT (Appeals) as correct. It was held that in view of the finding of the CIT (Appeals), the foundation on which penalty was initiated has fallen down. Therefore, the penalty

JET LITE (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6 (NOW CC-1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 839/DEL/2019[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2024AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmajet Lite (India) Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 13, Community Central Circle-6, Centre, Yusuf Sarai, (Now Cc-1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aadcs4480L

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT DR
Section 156Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA No.839/Del/2019 for AY 1996-97, arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as „ld. CIT(A)‟, in short] in Appeal No. 124/14-15 dated 18.12.2018 against the order of assessment passed u/s 271(1

CHIRANJEEV KUMAR VINAYAK,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-47(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 6644/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292BSection 68Section 69C

D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JM: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-16, New Delhi, dated 30.05.2019, pertaining to the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. That the penalty has been initiated vide notice U/s 274 without any specific charge

YUVRAJ AGRO FOODS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-27(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 9233/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.9233/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Yubraj Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. Acit C-177, Fateh Nagar, Vs. Circle 27(2) Jail Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccn5302P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 133(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)Section 68

D E R PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-9, New Delhi dated 27.09.2019 for AY 2015-16 in sustaining the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Several notices have been issued to the assessee

JINDAL ITF LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-13(2), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2342/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal CAFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, A.M.: The captioned appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXIII, New Delhi [‘CIT(A)’ in short] dated 25.07.2022 arising from the penalty order dated 29.06.2018 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income

DHANKOT FILLING STATION ,GURGAON vs. PR.CIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1030/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshdhankot Filling Station, Vs. Pr. Cit, Sultanpur Road, Village Faridabad Dhankot, Gurgaon, Haryana- 122505 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaefd7291A Assessee By : Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Ca Revenue By: Sh. T. James Singson, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 20/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24/04/2023

For Appellant: Sh. Sandeep Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. T. James Singson, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 270ASection 271ASection 275Section 69A

u/s 139(4) of I.T. Act? 2. Briefly stated, the facts necessary for adjudication of the instant appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. The assessee derives income from real estate business. On 11.12.2008, search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act was conducted at the premises of the assessee. Notice under Section 153A

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

In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 1356/DEL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Satish Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

u/s. 263, the PC1T is not empowered to give directions on the issue of penalty which direction is bad in law and facts of the case.” 3. Adverting to Ground No.5(ii) supra, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the Pr.CIT in the revisional order has alleged non disclosure / understatement of interest income to the tune of Rs.14

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

In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 1358/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Satish Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

u/s. 263, the PC1T is not empowered to give directions on the issue of penalty which direction is bad in law and facts of the case.” 3. Adverting to Ground No.5(ii) supra, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the Pr.CIT in the revisional order has alleged non disclosure / understatement of interest income to the tune of Rs.14

PRIYAMDA MEDIA & INFOTAINMENT P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-20(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7489/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Kul Bharat

Section 133Section 133(6)Section 143Section 145Section 271Section 40aSection 41Section 41(1)

D-47, Gulmohar New Delhi Park, New Delhi-110049 PAN No.AAECP8504F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Gautam Jain, Advocate Sh. Parth, Advocate Respondent by Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 12/12/2023 Date of Pronouncement: 18/12/2023 ORDER PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM: and 1589/Del/2020 are two separate appeals by the assessee preferred against two separate orders

PRIYAMDA MEDIA & INFOTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-20(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1598/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Kul Bharat

Section 133Section 133(6)Section 143Section 145Section 271Section 40aSection 41Section 41(1)

D-47, Gulmohar New Delhi Park, New Delhi-110049 PAN No.AAECP8504F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Gautam Jain, Advocate Sh. Parth, Advocate Respondent by Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 12/12/2023 Date of Pronouncement: 18/12/2023 ORDER PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM: and 1589/Del/2020 are two separate appeals by the assessee preferred against two separate orders

COMPUTER MODELLING GROUP LIMITED,CANADA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), INT. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AY 2012-13,

ITA 2305/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44B

271(1)(c) of the Act. Assessment Year 2019-20 1. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Ld. AO under s. 143(3) read with s. 144C(13) of the Act, taxing the receipts amounting to Rs. 7,94,63,248/- under s. 44BB

COMPUTER MODELLING GROUP LIMITED,CANADA vs. DCIT CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(2)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AY 2012-13,

ITA 2090/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44B

271(1)(c) of the Act. Assessment Year 2019-20 1. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Ld. AO under s. 143(3) read with s. 144C(13) of the Act, taxing the receipts amounting to Rs. 7,94,63,248/- under s. 44BB

COMPUTER MODELLING GROUP LIMITED,CANADA vs. ACIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 1(2)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AY 2012-13,

ITA 2091/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44B

271(1)(c) of the Act. Assessment Year 2019-20 1. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Ld. AO under s. 143(3) read with s. 144C(13) of the Act, taxing the receipts amounting to Rs. 7,94,63,248/- under s. 44BB

M/S. H.B. LEASING & FINANCE COMPANY LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2323/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshand, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69B

Section 271(1)(c) on the impugned enhancement on account of allegedly wrong claim of losses and understatement of income attributable to derivative transactions for Assessment Year 2009-10 in question. 2. We shall first take up the quantum appeal in ITA No.2323/Del/2015 for adjudication purposes. I.T.As.2323 & 5089/Del/2015 2 ITA No.2323/Del/2015 for Assessment Year 2009-10 3. The grounds

M/S H.B. LEASING & FINANCE COMPANY LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5089/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshand, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69B

Section 271(1)(c) on the impugned enhancement on account of allegedly wrong claim of losses and understatement of income attributable to derivative transactions for Assessment Year 2009-10 in question. 2. We shall first take up the quantum appeal in ITA No.2323/Del/2015 for adjudication purposes. I.T.As.2323 & 5089/Del/2015 2 ITA No.2323/Del/2015 for Assessment Year 2009-10 3. The grounds

SURIENDER JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. PRCIT-13, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3036/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3036 To 3038/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12 बनाम Suriender Jain, Pr. Cit-13, 133-2-F, Pocket-12, Sector-24, Vs. Room No.901, 9Th Floor, E-2 Block, Rohini, New Delhi. Pan No.Acypj9387K Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Minto Road, New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 273Section 44A

u/s 273 or 271(1)(c) of the Act. While holding so the Hon’ble High Court observed as under: “Turning now to the case of penalty which is covered by the second question, the Tribunal held that the matter was outside the jurisdiction of the Commissioner. On this part of the case, the decision of this court in Addl

SURIENDER JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. PRCIT-13, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3038/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3036 To 3038/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12 बनाम Suriender Jain, Pr. Cit-13, 133-2-F, Pocket-12, Sector-24, Vs. Room No.901, 9Th Floor, E-2 Block, Rohini, New Delhi. Pan No.Acypj9387K Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Minto Road, New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 273Section 44A

u/s 273 or 271(1)(c) of the Act. While holding so the Hon’ble High Court observed as under: “Turning now to the case of penalty which is covered by the second question, the Tribunal held that the matter was outside the jurisdiction of the Commissioner. On this part of the case, the decision of this court in Addl

SURIENDER JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. PRCIT-13, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3037/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3036 To 3038/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12 बनाम Suriender Jain, Pr. Cit-13, 133-2-F, Pocket-12, Sector-24, Vs. Room No.901, 9Th Floor, E-2 Block, Rohini, New Delhi. Pan No.Acypj9387K Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Minto Road, New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 273Section 44A

u/s 273 or 271(1)(c) of the Act. While holding so the Hon’ble High Court observed as under: “Turning now to the case of penalty which is covered by the second question, the Tribunal held that the matter was outside the jurisdiction of the Commissioner. On this part of the case, the decision of this court in Addl