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.

1,206 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 148(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,274Delhi1,206Jaipur402Ahmedabad369Surat260Pune253Bangalore227Kolkata227Chennai210Indore178Hyderabad175Chandigarh151Rajkot138Karnataka128Raipur96Visakhapatnam66Amritsar63Lucknow59Allahabad53Agra42Nagpur41Patna40Cochin38Calcutta35Cuttack29Guwahati28Dehradun19Jabalpur17Jodhpur15Panaji10Varanasi4Ranchi3SC3Rajasthan2Telangana2Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 14883Section 271(1)(c)74Addition to Income71Section 14770Section 143(3)57Penalty49Section 6842Section 14428Section 153A22

NOVA PROMOTERS AND FINLEASE PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

ITA 3173/DEL/2014[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2024AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Ms.Madhumita Roynova Promoters & Vs. Ito, Ward 13(3) Finlease Pvt. Ltd. Ito Building, I.P. Estate 7, Kapil Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi – 34

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anshul
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. Thus, in the penalty order the AO has not specifically mentioned the offences. However, from the assessment order it is evident that penalty proceedings have been initiated by the AO for concealment of income 4.8 Further, the facts of the case as indicated above and the findings given by Hon'ble High

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

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

Showing 1–20 of 1,206 · Page 1 of 61

...
Reassessment21
Section 143(2)20
Disallowance14
ITA 3666/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

148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall- (a) Issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such period

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

148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall- (a) Issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such period

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

148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall- (a) Issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such period

SHYAM SUNDER KANSAL,U.P vs. WARD 2(3)(2), U.P

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 139/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 50C

u/s 271(1)(c) was deleted, the Bench pronounced that since the assessee had not suppressed any material fact from the notice of the A.O. in these circumstances, the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act alleging furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income is not appropriate. Copy of judgment of Bhavya Anant

SANJAY TYAGI,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6868/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 6864/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6865/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6866/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6867/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6868/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6869/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6870/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6871/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6872/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6873/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6874/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Shri Sanjay Tyagi, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of C/O- Shri Sankalp Anil Sharma, Adv. Income Tax, Central C-4/129, 1St Floor, Safdarjung Circle-1, Development Area, New Delhi New Delhi-110016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aeipt1282R Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Saxena, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H.K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

148 (Raj.). It was argued that while the penalty u/s 271A is Rs.25,000/- for non-maintenance of books of accounts and Rs.1,50,000/- the maximum penalty u/s 271B for failure to get the accounts audited, if the proposition as canvassed by the ld. AR is accepted it will only encourage the assessee’s for non-maintenance of books

SANJAY TYAGI,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6869/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 6864/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6865/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6866/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6867/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6868/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6869/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6870/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6871/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6872/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6873/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6874/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Shri Sanjay Tyagi, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of C/O- Shri Sankalp Anil Sharma, Adv. Income Tax, Central C-4/129, 1St Floor, Safdarjung Circle-1, Development Area, New Delhi New Delhi-110016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aeipt1282R Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Saxena, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H.K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

148 (Raj.). It was argued that while the penalty u/s 271A is Rs.25,000/- for non-maintenance of books of accounts and Rs.1,50,000/- the maximum penalty u/s 271B for failure to get the accounts audited, if the proposition as canvassed by the ld. AR is accepted it will only encourage the assessee’s for non-maintenance of books

SANJAY TYAGI,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6870/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 6864/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6865/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6866/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6867/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6868/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6869/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6870/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6871/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6872/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6873/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6874/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Shri Sanjay Tyagi, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of C/O- Shri Sankalp Anil Sharma, Adv. Income Tax, Central C-4/129, 1St Floor, Safdarjung Circle-1, Development Area, New Delhi New Delhi-110016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aeipt1282R Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Saxena, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H.K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

148 (Raj.). It was argued that while the penalty u/s 271A is Rs.25,000/- for non-maintenance of books of accounts and Rs.1,50,000/- the maximum penalty u/s 271B for failure to get the accounts audited, if the proposition as canvassed by the ld. AR is accepted it will only encourage the assessee’s for non-maintenance of books

SANJAY TYAGI,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6872/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 6864/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6865/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6866/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6867/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6868/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6869/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6870/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6871/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6872/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6873/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6874/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Shri Sanjay Tyagi, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of C/O- Shri Sankalp Anil Sharma, Adv. Income Tax, Central C-4/129, 1St Floor, Safdarjung Circle-1, Development Area, New Delhi New Delhi-110016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aeipt1282R Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Saxena, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H.K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

148 (Raj.). It was argued that while the penalty u/s 271A is Rs.25,000/- for non-maintenance of books of accounts and Rs.1,50,000/- the maximum penalty u/s 271B for failure to get the accounts audited, if the proposition as canvassed by the ld. AR is accepted it will only encourage the assessee’s for non-maintenance of books

SANJAY TYAGI,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6871/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 6864/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6865/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6866/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6867/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6868/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6869/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6870/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6871/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6872/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6873/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6874/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Shri Sanjay Tyagi, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of C/O- Shri Sankalp Anil Sharma, Adv. Income Tax, Central C-4/129, 1St Floor, Safdarjung Circle-1, Development Area, New Delhi New Delhi-110016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aeipt1282R Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Saxena, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H.K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

148 (Raj.). It was argued that while the penalty u/s 271A is Rs.25,000/- for non-maintenance of books of accounts and Rs.1,50,000/- the maximum penalty u/s 271B for failure to get the accounts audited, if the proposition as canvassed by the ld. AR is accepted it will only encourage the assessee’s for non-maintenance of books

SANJAY TYAGI,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6873/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 6864/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6865/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6866/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6867/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6868/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6869/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6870/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6871/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6872/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6873/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6874/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Shri Sanjay Tyagi, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of C/O- Shri Sankalp Anil Sharma, Adv. Income Tax, Central C-4/129, 1St Floor, Safdarjung Circle-1, Development Area, New Delhi New Delhi-110016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aeipt1282R Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Saxena, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H.K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

148 (Raj.). It was argued that while the penalty u/s 271A is Rs.25,000/- for non-maintenance of books of accounts and Rs.1,50,000/- the maximum penalty u/s 271B for failure to get the accounts audited, if the proposition as canvassed by the ld. AR is accepted it will only encourage the assessee’s for non-maintenance of books

SANJAY TYAGI,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6874/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 6864/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6865/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6866/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6867/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6868/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6869/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6870/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6871/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6872/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6873/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6874/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Shri Sanjay Tyagi, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of C/O- Shri Sankalp Anil Sharma, Adv. Income Tax, Central C-4/129, 1St Floor, Safdarjung Circle-1, Development Area, New Delhi New Delhi-110016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aeipt1282R Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Saxena, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H.K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

148 (Raj.). It was argued that while the penalty u/s 271A is Rs.25,000/- for non-maintenance of books of accounts and Rs.1,50,000/- the maximum penalty u/s 271B for failure to get the accounts audited, if the proposition as canvassed by the ld. AR is accepted it will only encourage the assessee’s for non-maintenance of books

SANJAY TYAGI,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6866/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 6864/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6865/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6866/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6867/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6868/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6869/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6870/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6871/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6872/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6873/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6874/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Shri Sanjay Tyagi, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of C/O- Shri Sankalp Anil Sharma, Adv. Income Tax, Central C-4/129, 1St Floor, Safdarjung Circle-1, Development Area, New Delhi New Delhi-110016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aeipt1282R Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Saxena, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H.K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

148 (Raj.). It was argued that while the penalty u/s 271A is Rs.25,000/- for non-maintenance of books of accounts and Rs.1,50,000/- the maximum penalty u/s 271B for failure to get the accounts audited, if the proposition as canvassed by the ld. AR is accepted it will only encourage the assessee’s for non-maintenance of books

SANJAY TYAGI,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6867/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 6864/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6865/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6866/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6867/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6868/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6869/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6870/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6871/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6872/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6873/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6874/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Shri Sanjay Tyagi, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of C/O- Shri Sankalp Anil Sharma, Adv. Income Tax, Central C-4/129, 1St Floor, Safdarjung Circle-1, Development Area, New Delhi New Delhi-110016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aeipt1282R Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Saxena, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H.K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

148 (Raj.). It was argued that while the penalty u/s 271A is Rs.25,000/- for non-maintenance of books of accounts and Rs.1,50,000/- the maximum penalty u/s 271B for failure to get the accounts audited, if the proposition as canvassed by the ld. AR is accepted it will only encourage the assessee’s for non-maintenance of books

SANJAY TYAGI,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6865/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 6864/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6865/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6866/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6867/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6868/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6869/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6870/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6871/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6872/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6873/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6874/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Shri Sanjay Tyagi, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of C/O- Shri Sankalp Anil Sharma, Adv. Income Tax, Central C-4/129, 1St Floor, Safdarjung Circle-1, Development Area, New Delhi New Delhi-110016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aeipt1282R Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Saxena, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H.K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

148 (Raj.). It was argued that while the penalty u/s 271A is Rs.25,000/- for non-maintenance of books of accounts and Rs.1,50,000/- the maximum penalty u/s 271B for failure to get the accounts audited, if the proposition as canvassed by the ld. AR is accepted it will only encourage the assessee’s for non-maintenance of books

SMT. MANJEET KAUR SRAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 2643/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Ms. Ashisha Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Verma, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

1)(c) was issued, initiating the proceedings of imposing the penalty. The assessee had sufficient notice of the action of imposing penalty. We, therefore, do not find either any jurisdictional error or unjust exercise of power by the authority.” [Para 15] The same principle was laid down (even after referring to the Manjunatha Cotton case) by the Hon’ble ITAT

SMT. MANJEET KAUR SRAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 2641/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Ms. Ashisha Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Verma, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

1)(c) was issued, initiating the proceedings of imposing the penalty. The assessee had sufficient notice of the action of imposing penalty. We, therefore, do not find either any jurisdictional error or unjust exercise of power by the authority.” [Para 15] The same principle was laid down (even after referring to the Manjunatha Cotton case) by the Hon’ble ITAT

SMT. MANJEET KAUR SRAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 2642/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Ms. Ashisha Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Verma, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

1)(c) was issued, initiating the proceedings of imposing the penalty. The assessee had sufficient notice of the action of imposing penalty. We, therefore, do not find either any jurisdictional error or unjust exercise of power by the authority.” [Para 15] The same principle was laid down (even after referring to the Manjunatha Cotton case) by the Hon’ble ITAT

SMT. MANJEET KAUR SRAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 2639/DEL/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Ms. Ashisha Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Verma, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

1)(c) was issued, initiating the proceedings of imposing the penalty. The assessee had sufficient notice of the action of imposing penalty. We, therefore, do not find either any jurisdictional error or unjust exercise of power by the authority.” [Para 15] The same principle was laid down (even after referring to the Manjunatha Cotton case) by the Hon’ble ITAT

SMT. MANJEET KAUR SRAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 2640/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Ms. Ashisha Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Verma, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

1)(c) was issued, initiating the proceedings of imposing the penalty. The assessee had sufficient notice of the action of imposing penalty. We, therefore, do not find either any jurisdictional error or unjust exercise of power by the authority.” [Para 15] The same principle was laid down (even after referring to the Manjunatha Cotton case) by the Hon’ble ITAT