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.

516 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 142(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi516Mumbai486Jaipur243Ahmedabad171Hyderabad165Indore152Surat147Pune137Rajkot112Bangalore108Chennai108Kolkata97Chandigarh88Raipur58Visakhapatnam56Allahabad47Amritsar36Lucknow34Patna32Guwahati27Nagpur26Jodhpur22Dehradun17Jabalpur16Cuttack14Agra14Cochin11Panaji10Ranchi7Varanasi1

Key Topics

Addition to Income56Section 142(1)52Section 143(3)50Section 143(2)47Section 153A44Penalty43Section 271(1)(c)41Section 271(1)(b)41Section 27135

JAR METAL INDUSTRIES(P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-13(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

ITA 9694/DEL/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2025AY 2005-06
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

142(1)/143(2) of the Income\nTax Act, 1961 dated\n*have concealed the particulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income in terms\nof explanation 1,2,3,4 and 5.\nYou are hereby requested to appear before me at..\n11.A.M./P.M.on. 15/07/2009.\nand show cause why an order imposing a penalty on you should

DCIT, CIRCLE 22(2), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. SAHIL VACHANI, DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2604/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 516 · Page 1 of 26

...
Section 153C33
Search & Seizure12
Cash Deposit12
ITAT Delhi
23 Jun 2025
AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice Presdient (), Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shriavdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.2604/िद"ी/2023(िन.व. 2016-17)

For Appellant: S/Shri Anuj Garg & Narpat Singh, Sr.DRFor Respondent: S/Shri Rohan Khare & Priyam
Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) for non- compliance of provisions of Section 54F of the Act. These questions are being answered as under: 7.1 Admittedly the assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny assessment by issuing notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act dated 06.07.2017 and thereafter notice under section 142

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)

142(1). 8. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the penalty order of the Assessing Officer levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(b)and then the assessee filed appeal before ITAT. 9. The complete background of the issue is as under: 9.1 In April/May, 2011 Government of India received information from a Foreign Government

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)

142(1). 8. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the penalty order of the Assessing Officer levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(b)and then the assessee filed appeal before ITAT. 9. The complete background of the issue is as under: 9.1 In April/May, 2011 Government of India received information from a Foreign Government

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)

142(1). 8. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the penalty order of the Assessing Officer levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(b)and then the assessee filed appeal before ITAT. 9. The complete background of the issue is as under: 9.1 In April/May, 2011 Government of India received information from a Foreign Government

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)

142(1). 8. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the penalty order of the Assessing Officer levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(b)and then the assessee filed appeal before ITAT. 9. The complete background of the issue is as under: 9.1 In April/May, 2011 Government of India received information from a Foreign Government

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)

142(1). 8. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the penalty order of the Assessing Officer levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(b)and then the assessee filed appeal before ITAT. 9. The complete background of the issue is as under: 9.1 In April/May, 2011 Government of India received information from a Foreign Government

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)

142(1). 8. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the penalty order of the Assessing Officer levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(b)and then the assessee filed appeal before ITAT. 9. The complete background of the issue is as under: 9.1 In April/May, 2011 Government of India received information from a Foreign Government

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)

142(1). 8. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the penalty order of the Assessing Officer levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(b)and then the assessee filed appeal before ITAT. 9. The complete background of the issue is as under: 9.1 In April/May, 2011 Government of India received information from a Foreign Government

TISHA ELECTRONICS PVT LTD,NOIDA vs. DCIT CIRCLE-25(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

ITA 6862/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.6862 /Del/2019 (Assessment Year : 2011-12)

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 248(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

u/s 142(1) of the Act however, the assessing officer has to draw ‘satisfaction’ for the purpose of Section 271(1)(b) of the Act, that there is a failure requiring initiation of 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

142 or under sub-section (1) of section 115WH or under section 148 for the making of the return or by the notice under the first proviso to section 115WF or under the first proviso to section 144 to show cause why the assessment should not be completed to the best of the judgment of the Assessing Officer, whichever

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act specifying the particular charge was issued to the assessee. A notice dated 08.03.2013 has been placed on record by the assessee at page 39 of the Paper Book. For the sake of clarity, the same is reproduced herein below:- Date-08.03.2013 To, Sh. George Kutty C/o Oasis Tours Pvt. Ltd. C-40, Middle

LATE JITENDER SAPRA (THROUGH WIFE ANJALI SAPRA),NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 50(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2109/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Sh. V. K. Sabharwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 159Section 162Section 2(31)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 271ASection 271B

section 271(1)(b) of Income Tax Act in this case. The AO pointed out in the penalty order that the assessee failed to comply with notices as mentioned below: S.No Description of Date of Notice Date of hearing Remarks Notice 1. U/s 143(2) 04.08.2015 17.08.2015 AO filed POA on 12.08.2015 but failed to file any details

SHRING CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PVT. LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, MUZAFFARNAGAR

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

ITA 7056/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh, Hon’Blea.Y. : 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

section 142(1)/143(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961. * have concealed the particulars of such income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income.” 6.1 After perusing the said notice dated 31.3.2014 issued by the DCIT, Circle-I, Muzaffarnagar to the assessee, we are of the considered view that the AO has initiated the penalty proceedings u/s. 271

SOM NATH VIRMANI AND SONS HUF,HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(1), GURGAON, HARYANA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5081/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshm/S. Som Nath Virmani & Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sons Huf, Ward-5(1), Flat No. 303, Soverign 1, Gurgaon Vatika City, Sector-49, Sohna Road, Gurgaon-122001 Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanhs1927F Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somit Aggarwal, Adv Revenue By: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/05/2025

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

142/-whereas the self-assessment tax paid by the assessee before the notice u/s 148 was issued is Rs.2,16,470/-, then balance would be nil and consequently, there would be nil amount of tax sought to be evaded for the purpose of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, when the amount

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)

271 ITR 138/(20051 142 Taxman 555 (Mad.), India Cine Agencies v. Dy. CIT(2005] 275 ITR 430 (Mad.), Bharat Rice Mill v. CIT {2005] 148 Taxman 145 (All.) CIT VS. S.M Construction, Bombay High Court, CIT VS. Reliance Petroproduct Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158. (b) Penalty proceedings are penal in nature. Elementary principles of criminal law will apply

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

271 ITR 138/(20051 142 Taxman 555 (Mad.), India Cine Agencies v. Dy. CIT(2005] 275 ITR 430 (Mad.), Bharat Rice Mill v. CIT {2005] 148 Taxman 145 (All.) CIT VS. S.M Construction, Bombay High Court, CIT VS. Reliance Petroproduct Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158. (b) Penalty proceedings are penal in nature. Elementary principles of criminal law will apply

ACIT, CIRCLE- 27(1), NEW DELHI vs. UNITECH LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 8914/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The relevant operative paragraphs of the order of the CIT(A) is extracted hereunder:- “5.1 I have considered the facts of the case and contention of the AR of the appellant. At the outset, the contentions of the AR in stating that the order levying penalty is liable to be set aside

ASIA SUGAR INDS.P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4795/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Tanpreet Singh KohilFor Respondent: Sh. Zahid Parvez, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Thereafter, the case was taken-up for scrutiny and assessment was framed under section 143(3) vide order dated 28.03.2013 and the total income of the assessee was determined at Rs.84,05,446/- inter alia, by making the addition of Rs.44,50,000/- on account of unaccounted cash and addition of Rs.26

EBRO INDIA PVT.LTD. ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI

In the result, the ground no 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1291/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Delhi09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 68

142 has been issued by the Assessing Officer, the National Faceless Assessment Centre shall intimate the assessee that assessment in his case shall be completed in accordance with the procedure laid down under this section ………….. (xiv) the assessment unit shall, after taking into account all the relevant material available on the record make in writing, a draft assessment order