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.

9 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 140Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Hyderabad27Karnataka24Amritsar10Pune10Delhi9Mumbai9Kolkata8Chandigarh3Ahmedabad2Chennai2Lucknow2Raipur2Bangalore1SC1Rajkot1Jaipur1

Key Topics

Section 43B10Section 271A10Section 143(3)8Section 2717Addition to Income7Section 132(4)5Section 271(1)(c)4Section 144C4Section 171

S. AVTAR SINGH KOCHAR,ROHTAK vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2969/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. N. Charyavtar Singh Kochar, Vs. Dcit, C/O. S. K. Bansal, Ca, Central Circle-25, 101, First Floor, Kochar Market, New Delhi Jhajjar Road, Rohtak Pan: Aeopk4447F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 271Section 271ASection 274(2)

section 271AAA of the act, we also do not find that there is any time limit for payment of the tax, despite the necessary condition. It is rather surprising that the legislator has made a condition precedent for immunity from levy of the penalty of payment of taxes along with interest on undisclosed income, but has not prescribed the time

4
Disallowance4
Deduction4
Penalty4

ASHOK GUPTA,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4619/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleashok Gupta Vs Dcit House No. 114, Sector-15 Central Circle-1 Faridabad Faridabad Aahpg3179R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 140ASection 143(3)Section 156Section 271Section 271A

140A Rs.1,51,850/- Total Rs.19,64,655/- The advance tax of Rs.16,18,128/- claimed as above included an amount of Rs.16 Lacs, cash seized by the department on 29/1/2009. The issue with regard to credit of said Rs.16 Lacs on account of advance tax payment was 3 settled by the CIT(A) vide order dated 25/4/2012. The order

AJAY KUMAR SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5317/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 171Section 271(1)(c)Section 80C

penalty u/sec. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 26.03.2010 declaring income of Rs.3,24,170/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. The assessee declared income from business and profession ofRs.3,29,213/- and interest income of Rs.961/- out of which

PRAMOD KUMAR SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5318/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 171Section 271(1)(c)Section 80C

penalty u/sec. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 26.03.2010 declaring income of Rs.3,24,170/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. The assessee declared income from business and profession ofRs.3,29,213/- and interest income of Rs.961/- out of which

PME POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 249/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(9)Section 140ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 249(4)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 276C(2)

140A of the Act. However, the assessee due to financial difficulties could not pay the outstanding self-assessment tax and due to this failure, the AO treated the return of income filed by the assessee as invalid return u/s 139(9) of the Act. 19.01.2016 The Assessing Officer passed the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act and assessed

PME POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 242/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(9)Section 140ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 249(4)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 276C(2)

140A of the Act. However, the assessee due to financial difficulties could not pay the outstanding self-assessment tax and due to this failure, the AO treated the return of income filed by the assessee as invalid return u/s 139(9) of the Act. 19.01.2016 The Assessing Officer passed the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act and assessed

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 5720/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs. Additional Cit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Range-6, Vasant Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacm0829Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Neeraj Jain, Rohit Jain, Adv. Romit Katyal & Ms. Tejasvi Jain, Cas Department By:Shri Amrendra Kumar, Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. NeerajFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT(DR)

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act mechanically and without recording any satisfaction for its initiation. 17 That the AO has erred in law, on facts and in the circumstances of the case in not allowing the credit of TDS certificates claimed through the revised return of Rs 3,55,99,213/- and during the course of assessment

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 467/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No. 467/Del/2014 (A.Y 2009-10)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

u/s 43B of the Act, which the AO denied. 47 5.4 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. The Ld. AR contended that this issue has been decided in earlier years in the assessee’s favour by the Tribunal. He further referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 6021/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri K.N. Charry

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 14ASection 35DSection 43BSection 92C

271 crores Rs. 8,415 crores 6.9. Ld. AR submitted that in case of mixed pool of funds, the correct method to establish source of investment would be to consider the macro fund/ cash flow position during the year and basing on the decisions in East India Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. CIT: 224 ITR 627 (SC), Indian Explosives