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.

203 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 151clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai275Delhi203Jaipur95Pune61Raipur47Ahmedabad47Hyderabad45Bangalore45Rajkot41Chennai40Chandigarh38Amritsar33Kolkata23Lucknow23Allahabad22Nagpur19Indore18Agra9Surat8Cuttack8Dehradun7Guwahati5Visakhapatnam3Cochin2Patna2Ranchi2Varanasi2Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 14794Section 14890Addition to Income76Penalty47Section 143(3)39Section 153A39Section 271(1)(c)36Section 15136Section 143(2)25Section 250

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

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, as may be specified

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: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 203 · Page 1 of 11

...
24
Reassessment22
Reopening of Assessment17
ITAT Delhi
26 Jun 2024
AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

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, as may be specified

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

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

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

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, as may be specified

DHANSAMRIDHI FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(2), NEW DELHI , DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1377/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)Section 234Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and interest u/s. 234 of the Act is ex facie unsustainable in law as the very foundation of such proceedings namely, the impugned assessment order and impugned addition therein are without jurisdiction and contrary to law, facts and evidence filed in support thereof by the Appellant. 8. That the Appellant

SHYAM PRODUCTS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-23(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 4908/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C.

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar GuptaFor Respondent: Sr. D. R
Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 68Section 69C

penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) without any material on record.” 3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submits that ground No. 1 of the grounds of appeal is raised challenging the very assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer in re-opening the assessment. The ld. Counsel submits that an identical ground has been decided

OPTIMIST ELECTRONICS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-19(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 4907/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C.

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar GuptaFor Respondent: Sr. D. R
Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 68Section 69C

penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) without any material on record.” 3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submits that ground No. 1 of the grounds of appeal is raised challenging the very assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer in re-opening the assessment. The ld. Counsel submits that an identical ground has been decided

RESHMA HARBAKHSH SINGH THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH. VIKRAMADITYA SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-28(1), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6289/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble Vice- & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Pranshu Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 271(1)(C)

penalty proceedings initiated under Section 271(1)(C) of the Act is incorrect, illegal and bad in law;” 2 | P a g e 6289_DEL_2025 Reshma Harbakhsh Singh through Legal Heir Vikaramaditya Singh VS DCIT 3. Although the assessee ‘s legal heir has raised several grounds, we first take up the legal ground at S. No. 4 wherein

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

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

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

VIKAS MALIK,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 39(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1569/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

151 of the Act. (ii)Even otherwise, the approval so granted by the approving authority is without due application of mind. 7. On the facts and the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 66,36,000/- on account of cash deposits in the bank

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAM PORTFOLIO PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 6220/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 6219/Del/2015 (A.Y 2009-10)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate; &For Respondent: Shri H. K. Chowdhary
Section 147Section 250Section 4

151 of the Act and contended that since the Assessment was originally ccompledted u/s 143(3)/153C was annulled, hence, assessment u/s 147 could not have been done by the A.O. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on several case laws in support of the contention and also the order passed by the coordinate Bench in the following cases

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAM PORTFOLIO PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 6219/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 6219/Del/2015 (A.Y 2009-10)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate; &For Respondent: Shri H. K. Chowdhary
Section 147Section 250Section 4

151 of the Act and contended that since the Assessment was originally ccompledted u/s 143(3)/153C was annulled, hence, assessment u/s 147 could not have been done by the A.O. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on several case laws in support of the contention and also the order passed by the coordinate Bench in the following cases

MONTREAUX RESORTS PVT. LTD.,,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-17(1), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2353/DEL/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Respondent: Ms. Smita Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 151Section 17Section 250

Penalty Order order dated under section 17.03.2020 271(1)(c) w.r.s 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ITA Nos. 2352 & 2353/Del/2024 2 Montreaux Resorts Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO A.Y. 2007-08 2. To begin with, we shall first take up ITA No.2352/Del/2024 for Assessment Year 2007-08. ITA No.2352/Del/2024 Assessment Year 2007-08 : 3. As per the grounds

MONTREAUX RESORTS PVT. LTD.,,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-17(1), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2352/DEL/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Respondent: Ms. Smita Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 151Section 17Section 250

Penalty Order order dated under section 17.03.2020 271(1)(c) w.r.s 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ITA Nos. 2352 & 2353/Del/2024 2 Montreaux Resorts Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO A.Y. 2007-08 2. To begin with, we shall first take up ITA No.2352/Del/2024 for Assessment Year 2007-08. ITA No.2352/Del/2024 Assessment Year 2007-08 : 3. As per the grounds

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, DELHI, DELHI vs. DEEPA TALWAR, DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2203/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanacit, Vs. Deepa Talwar, Central Circle-19, 6/14, Shanti Niketan, Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaupt4464F

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

271(1)(c)(iii) only require prior approval of the IAC for direction for payment of penalty and not for the initiation of proceedings. 3.5 The assessee has to positively prove that there is a case of non- application of mind in light of the submission that the approval u/s 153D is an administrative approval. Here, it would

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, DELHI, DELHI vs. YASMIN KAPOOR, DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2221/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanacit, Vs. Deepa Talwar, Central Circle-19, 6/14, Shanti Niketan, Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaupt4464F

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

271(1)(c)(iii) only require prior approval of the IAC for direction for payment of penalty and not for the initiation of proceedings. 3.5 The assessee has to positively prove that there is a case of non- application of mind in light of the submission that the approval u/s 153D is an administrative approval. Here, it would

SURIENDER JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. PRCIT-13, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3037/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3036 To 3038/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12 बनाम Suriender Jain, Pr. Cit-13, 133-2-F, Pocket-12, Sector-24, Vs. Room No.901, 9Th Floor, E-2 Block, Rohini, New Delhi. Pan No.Acypj9387K Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Minto Road, New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 273Section 44A

u/s 273 or 271(1)(c) of the Act. While holding so the Hon’ble High Court observed as under: “Turning now to the case of penalty which is covered by the second question, the Tribunal held that the matter was outside the jurisdiction of the Commissioner. On this part of the case, the decision of this court in Addl

SURIENDER JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. PRCIT-13, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3036/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3036 To 3038/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12 बनाम Suriender Jain, Pr. Cit-13, 133-2-F, Pocket-12, Sector-24, Vs. Room No.901, 9Th Floor, E-2 Block, Rohini, New Delhi. Pan No.Acypj9387K Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Minto Road, New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 273Section 44A

u/s 273 or 271(1)(c) of the Act. While holding so the Hon’ble High Court observed as under: “Turning now to the case of penalty which is covered by the second question, the Tribunal held that the matter was outside the jurisdiction of the Commissioner. On this part of the case, the decision of this court in Addl