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.

63 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 144Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai146Delhi63Pune53Ahmedabad48Jaipur42Chennai39Hyderabad29Indore29Bangalore24Rajkot24Visakhapatnam23Chandigarh22Kolkata21Lucknow16Agra15Surat14Cochin11Amritsar11Raipur11Dehradun6Patna6Allahabad5Nagpur4Guwahati3Jodhpur3Jabalpur2

Key Topics

Section 147110Section 14876Section 143(3)60Addition to Income56Section 148A44Penalty36Section 25028Section 271(1)(c)25Limitation/Time-bar

ATMA RAM BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED, NEW DELHI,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 3593/DEL/2025[A.Y. 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 269TSection 270ASection 271ESection 69ASection 80G

144B vide assessment order dated 31.08.2022 appeared to be erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue and accordingly, issued a show cause notice u/s 263 of the Act. 7. In reply to the show cause notice, the assessee submitted that Rs. 11,00,000/- is an adjustment of Security Deposit out of total deposit

Showing 1–20 of 63 · Page 1 of 4

25
Section 144B21
Reassessment20
Disallowance20

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

penalty proceedings, if any, to the 15 assessee, alongwith the demand notice, specifying the sum payable by, or refund of any amount due to, the assessee on the basis of such assessment;” 30. On perusal of the aforesaid, it will kindly be appreciated that section 144B clearly mandates that notwithstanding the provisions of section 143, NFAC shall pass the final

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)

144B of the Act determining total income at Rs 72,16,330/-. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c ) of the Act were initiated for concealment of income vide notice dated 26-03-2022, which culminated in the levy of penalty in the sum of Rs 15,63,281/-. The Assessee pleaded that he had remitted the entire taxes that

ASSOCIATED MACHINERY CORP. PVT. LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 4735/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)

144B. The assessee sent in a letter saying that he was agreeable to the proposed addition as the assessee was not in a position to substantiate the objections against-the draft assessment order. However, it was also submitted that the “ penalty may not be levied”. The court held that there was no understanding that the penalty will not be levied

SUMANTO PAUL,DELHI vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER , INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

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

ITA 8755/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year: 2016-17 Sumanto Paul, Vs The Assessing Officer, 139, Kohat Enclave, Assessment Unit, Pitampur, Income Tax Department, Delhi – 110 034. New Delhi. Pan: Aajpp4082C

For Appellant: Ms Shruti Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Nitin Kumar Jaiman, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act. The Ld. AO finalized the penalty by passing orders as follows:- 1. Total amount of addition on which Rs.26,59,125/- penalty u/s 271

SEEMA GOEL,DELHI vs. CIT A, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2005/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 14tSection 250Section 271Section 69A

penalty U/s 271 (1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 5. Thereafter, the assessee has also taken additional grounds of appeal, wherein the assessee has challenged the proceedings initiated by issue of notice u/s 148 passed order u/s 148A(d) of the Act on the ground of limitation. The additional grounds of appeal are as under

SEEMA GOEL,DELHI vs. CIT A, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2006/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 14tSection 250Section 271Section 69A

penalty U/s 271 (1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 5. Thereafter, the assessee has also taken additional grounds of appeal, wherein the assessee has challenged the proceedings initiated by issue of notice u/s 148 passed order u/s 148A(d) of the Act on the ground of limitation. The additional grounds of appeal are as under

K K SPUN INDIA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 NEW DELHI, JHANDEWALAN DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2006/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 14tSection 250Section 271Section 69A

penalty U/s 271 (1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 5. Thereafter, the assessee has also taken additional grounds of appeal, wherein the assessee has challenged the proceedings initiated by issue of notice u/s 148 passed order u/s 148A(d) of the Act on the ground of limitation. The additional grounds of appeal are as under

K K SPUN INDIA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, JHANDEWALAN DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2005/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 14tSection 250Section 271Section 69A

penalty U/s 271 (1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 5. Thereafter, the assessee has also taken additional grounds of appeal, wherein the assessee has challenged the proceedings initiated by issue of notice u/s 148 passed order u/s 148A(d) of the Act on the ground of limitation. The additional grounds of appeal are as under

KOLAHAI INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2815/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usa.Yr. : 2016-17 Kolahai Infotech Private Vs. Assessment Unit, Limited, Income Tax 1St 129, Floor, Transport Department, Delhi Centre, Punjabi Bagh, Civic Centre, Mkinto New Delhi – 110 034 Road, New Delhi – 2 (Pan: Aadck3127C) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Sh. Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

144B of the Act. Hence, the impugned penalty is liable to be quashed. 4. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AU and NFAC have erred in levying a penalty of Rs.30,000/- under section 271(1)(b) of the Act and have not appreciated the fact that the assessment

CAMBRIDGE CONSTRUCTION (DELHI) PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

ITA 4939/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandracambridge Construction Vs. Ito, Ward 5(3) (Delhi) Private Limited New Delhi – 110002 11, Monnet House, Masjid Moth, New Delhi – 110048 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacc0295N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. VK Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 154Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) dated 29.10.2021 and levied Penalty of Rs.2,70,00,000/-. P a g e | 3 Cambridge Construction (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2013-14) 4.1 An appeal was filed before CIT(A) against Order u/s 143(3) dated 22.03.2016 and the appeal was dismissed vide order u/s 250 dated 28.05.2019. 5. An appeal was filed before ITAT

DEFSYS SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-15, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 758/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 144CSection 153ASection 156Section 270ASection 271ASection 274Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

271 of the Act." (Emphasis Supplied) 18. In the case on hand, though it is claimed by the Revenue that order dated December 28, 2018 was a draft assessment order, we may record that the ACIT has directed issuance of demand notice and also initiated penalty proceedings. As in Vijay Television Case, the said order along with demand notice

ASHISH GUPTA,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-36(1), DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2161/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amol Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT- DR
Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) & u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act and Ld. CIT(A) has erred while upholding the same. 10. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or vary any of the above grounds during the pendency of the appeal.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an Individual

ASHISH GUPTA,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-36(1), DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2163/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amol Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT- DR
Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) & u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act and Ld. CIT(A) has erred while upholding the same. 10. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or vary any of the above grounds during the pendency of the appeal.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an Individual

ASHISH GUPTA,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-36(1), DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2162/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amol Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT- DR
Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) & u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act and Ld. CIT(A) has erred while upholding the same. 10. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or vary any of the above grounds during the pendency of the appeal.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an Individual

ASHISH GUPTA,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-36(1), DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2164/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amol Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT- DR
Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) & u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act and Ld. CIT(A) has erred while upholding the same. 10. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or vary any of the above grounds during the pendency of the appeal.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an Individual

ASHISH GUPTA,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-36(1), DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2160/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amol Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT- DR
Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) & u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act and Ld. CIT(A) has erred while upholding the same. 10. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or vary any of the above grounds during the pendency of the appeal.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an Individual

AKUMS DRUGS AND PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED ,NEW DELHI vs. NFAC, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5111/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 35

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter, the ‘Act’) determining income at Rs.69,97,09,635/- as against the returned income of Rs.68,06,66,620/-, wherein following disallowances have made: - 2 Akums Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. S, No. Particulars Amount (in INR) 1. Education Cess claimed as expenses Rs. 91,48,159/- 2. Claim under section

CASIO INDIA COMPANY PRIVATE LTD. ,DELHI vs. DC/ACIT/TP-1(2)(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1956/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 253Section 92B

penalty proceedings under section 271(1 )(c) of the Act. All the above grounds may be considered independent and without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, so as to enable

VIKAS SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 55(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 290/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Sumit Lalchandani, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Monika Dhami, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 69A

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 3. The notice issued u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer is as under: 4 Vikas Sharma 4. The notification dated 29.03.2022 is as under: 5. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in WP No. 21710 of 2024 dated