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.

148 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 14Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai210Delhi148Chennai35Raipur34Kolkata30Ahmedabad28Pune24Jaipur23Hyderabad14Ranchi13Visakhapatnam12Bangalore12Indore5Guwahati5Cuttack5Nagpur4Chandigarh3Cochin2Surat2Amritsar1Jodhpur1Lucknow1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)159Section 14A99Addition to Income79Penalty71Section 143(3)59Disallowance54Section 153A41Section 27428Deduction26Section 143(2)

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: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jun 2025AY 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 provision u/s. 271(1)(c) are not attracted. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts P. Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (SC) held: “. It was tried to be suggested that section 14A

MAX LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Showing 1–20 of 148 · Page 1 of 8

...
24
Depreciation24
Section 271A21
ITA 1138/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Max Life Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Acit, Plot No.90A, Sector-18, Udyog Vihar, Circle-1, Ltu, Gurgaon, Haryana-122018. New Delhi. Pan-Aaccm3201E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Himanshu Sinha, Adv. & Shri Bhuvan Dhoopar, Adv. Respondent By Shri Jeetender Chand, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 18.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.10.2022 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-22, New Delhi, Dated 29.11.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. “That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Upholding Penalty Levied By The Ao Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Without Considering The Material Available On Record. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)/Ao Has Failed To Appreciate That The Penalty Proceedings Are Separate & Distinct From Assessment Proceedings & Mere Disallowance Of A Claim Made By The Appellant Does Not Automatically Lead To Imposition Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C). 3. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)/Ao Has Failed To Appreciate That The Issue Involved In Appellant’S Case Is Purely A Legal Issue To Be Decided On Interpretation Of The Provisions Of The Act & Merely Because Ld. Ao Adopts A View

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.84,97,000/- in respect of the addition of Rs.2.50 crores i.e. the disallowance of claim of donation paid by the assessee company. 3. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A) who after considering the submissions, confirmed the penalty. 4. Aggrieved against the order of Ld.CIT

JAINA MARKETING & ASSOCIATES,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, DELHI

Accordingly, Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 226/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 132Section 153ASection 270ASection 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

14A of the Act. This by no stretch of imagination can be held to be 'misreporting'. 8. This Court also finds that there is not even a whisper as to which limb of section 270A of the Act is attracted and how the ingredient of sub- section (9) of section 270A is satisfied. In the absence of such particulars

JAINA MARKETING & ASSOCIATES,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, DELHI

Accordingly, Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 224/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 132Section 153ASection 270ASection 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

14A of the Act. This by no stretch of imagination can be held to be 'misreporting'. 8. This Court also finds that there is not even a whisper as to which limb of section 270A of the Act is attracted and how the ingredient of sub- section (9) of section 270A is satisfied. In the absence of such particulars

JAINA MARKETING & ASSOCIATES,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, DELHI

Accordingly, Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 225/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 132Section 153ASection 270ASection 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

14A of the Act. This by no stretch of imagination can be held to be 'misreporting'. 8. This Court also finds that there is not even a whisper as to which limb of section 270A of the Act is attracted and how the ingredient of sub- section (9) of section 270A is satisfied. In the absence of such particulars

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

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)

u/s 271(1)(c) had been deleted by observing that the assessee had declared and disclosed full and true material facts in the returns. Also, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Cement Marketing Company of India Ltd. vs. Asst. CST (124 ITR 15) also made an observation on similar lines in its judgment, stating that "where the assessee does

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)

u/s 271(1)(c) had been deleted by observing that the assessee had declared and disclosed full and true material facts in the returns. Also, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Cement Marketing Company of India Ltd. vs. Asst. CST (124 ITR 15) also made an observation on similar lines in its judgment, stating that "where the assessee does

ABHINAV INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of appellant bearing Appeal

ITA 7822/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(viib)

271(1)(c) of the Act are attracted in the case of the appellant. It is already held that penalty should not be imposed on disallowance of Rs 3,65,546/- u/s 14A. Excluding the disallowance u/s 14A, the remaining disallowance comes to Rs 95,17,010/- of Rs. 98,82,556/- Rs 3,65,546/-). The provisions of section

BRIJ GOPAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4800/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 1Section 143Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(2)(a)

14A read with Rule 8D at 3,20,962/- and levied penalty of 99,177/-. Since the facts are identical, for the detailed discussion in the earlier part of this order, we cancel the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c). x) ITA No. 5481/D/2019 dated 2.8.2024 Rukmani Wires Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT 11. Since, we have already held that

CHOWDRY ASSOCIATES,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-6(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6333/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Chandra Mohan Gargchowdry Associates Vs. Acit 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Circle – 6(1) 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi New Delhi-110 002

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 94(7)

Section 94(7)/94(8) of the Act would not result into the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Similarly on the issue of levy of penalty u/s 14A

DCIT, CIRCLE- 13(1), NEW DELHI vs. JAGSON INTERNATIONAL LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4761/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Baranwal, CIT (DR)
Section 115VSection 14ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

14A; addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of provision for gratuity, addition of Rs. 57,38,564/- on account of difference in 26AS and addition of Rs. 22,02,437/- on account of short term capital gain were confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) vide his appellate order dated 23.12.2015. In response to penalty notices under section 271

MANOJ MITTAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2412/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2412/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Manoj Mittal, Dcit H-1, Phase-1, Ashok Vihar, Vs. Central Circle-8, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. Aaipm7274J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 254Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 2(22)(e) was deleted. Hence respectfully following decision of the Coordinate Bench referred (supra), we hereby delete the penalty in the hands of the assessee for both the years under consideration. " 8. Following the consistent position taken by the Coordinate Benches in assessee's group cases where the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) has been deleted

ACIT, CIRCLE- 7(1), NEW DELHI vs. DLF HOMES DEVELOPERS LTD. , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5705/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA and ShriFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR
Section 14(3)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 14A(3)Section 8D

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, this ground of appeal is hereby dismissed. 10. As a result, the appeal is partly allowed.” 6. Aggrieved by the relief granted by the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal in Assessment Year 2013-14 as well as Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2015- 16 captioned above

ACIT, CIRCLE- 7(1), NEW DELHI vs. DLF HOMES DEVELOPERS LTD. , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5704/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA and ShriFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR
Section 14(3)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 14A(3)Section 8D

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, this ground of appeal is hereby dismissed. 10. As a result, the appeal is partly allowed.” 6. Aggrieved by the relief granted by the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal in Assessment Year 2013-14 as well as Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2015- 16 captioned above

ACIT, CIRCLE- 7(1), NEW DELHI vs. DLF HOMES DEVELOPERS LTD. , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5703/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA and ShriFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR
Section 14(3)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 14A(3)Section 8D

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, this ground of appeal is hereby dismissed. 10. As a result, the appeal is partly allowed.” 6. Aggrieved by the relief granted by the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal in Assessment Year 2013-14 as well as Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2015- 16 captioned above

DIALNET COMMUNICATIONS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 7(3), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7885/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year: 2015-16 Dial Net Communications Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, C-31, Ground Floor, Greater Ward-7(3), New Delhi. Kailash, Part-I, Delhi-110048. Pan: Aabcd 5472 D Appellant Respondent

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 was a vague notice in a printed form without specifying the exact charge for which the assessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non-application of mind while initiating penalty against the assessee. The Ld. AO, while initiating the penalty was not clear as to specific limb which was applicable

M/S. IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is 7

ITA 206/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Deepesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 5Section 80I

14A, Exclusion of Income under DTAA Agreement at Rs.4,38,64,96,302/- and denying claim of deduction under section 80IA(4) amounting to Rs.70,79,44,520/-. On the aforesaid disallowances/additions made, the A.O. vide penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 26.03.2015 levied the penalty of Rs.153

ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is 7

ITA 1161/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Deepesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 5Section 80I

14A, Exclusion of Income under DTAA Agreement at Rs.4,38,64,96,302/- and denying claim of deduction under section 80IA(4) amounting to Rs.70,79,44,520/-. On the aforesaid disallowances/additions made, the A.O. vide penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 26.03.2015 levied the penalty of Rs.153

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

ACIT, CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI vs. JOHNSON MATTHEY INDIA P.LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 735/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Anukrati Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT(DR)
Section 271(1)(c)

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be imposed and sustained. She further submitted that the disallowance/addition on account of payment made under cost sharing arrangements has been deleted by the Tribunal therefore no penalty could have been imposed against the assessee on the basis of non-existing and deleted disallowance. The ld. AR thus submitted that