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.

374 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 191clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi374Mumbai226Karnataka100Chennai69Surat48Jaipur41Raipur36Bangalore32Indore31Kolkata27Pune22Nagpur17Hyderabad17Lucknow16Chandigarh16Ahmedabad14Rajkot13Cuttack9Amritsar9Panaji8Dehradun7Guwahati6Allahabad6Agra3Rajasthan2Ranchi2Cochin1Telangana1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)165Section 27474Penalty60Addition to Income55Section 143(3)49Section 27140Disallowance31Section 271(1)24Section 270A

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GRANITE GATE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 2239/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadi N Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Sapra, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT (DR)
Section 271

penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of I.T. Act. However, facts of this case are quite distinguishable from facts of the Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. (supra). In that case, no information given in the returns was found to 31 \ ITA Nos. 2239, 2240/Del/2014 be incorrect or inaccurate. In the cases before us, however, the claim made by assessee u/s 80IB

ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PHI SEEDS PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and both the Rule 27 application of the assessee are allowed for A

ITA 3083/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi

Showing 1–20 of 374 · Page 1 of 19

...
24
Natural Justice21
Section 40A(3)20
Section 115J19
31 Oct 2025
AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 1Section 10(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. However, even in such a situation also the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT-04 vs M/s Gragerious Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Ors(supra) agreed with the view of Hon’ble Bombay High Court (Full Bench

ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PHI SEEDS PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and both the Rule 27 application of the assessee are allowed for A

ITA 3084/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 1Section 10(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. However, even in such a situation also the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT-04 vs M/s Gragerious Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Ors(supra) agreed with the view of Hon’ble Bombay High Court (Full Bench

M/S. PADMINI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1002/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri K.N. Chary & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, FCA and Shri Somil Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

u/s 271(l)(c) and the AO is fully justified in imposing the penalty. 6.2 After distinguishing the decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 where Hon'ble Apex court decision was rendered because two views were possible in that case, Hon'ble Delhi High Court vs. Zoom Communication (P) Ltd. (2010) 191 TAXMAN

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

The appeal is allowed

ITA 9695/DEL/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated. In this regard, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT-04 vs M/s Gragerious Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Ors(supra) has agreed with the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court (Full Bench at Goa) in Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. 2021 Hon'ble Supreme Court

HARISH KUMAR HUF,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-34(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1469/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Dr. B.R.R. Kumara.Y. : 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Naveen ND Gupta, CA & Sh. AshuFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 288ASection 94(7)

u/s 271 (1 )(c) of I.T.Act: 1. Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors 22 [(2007) 295 ITR 244] (CopyEnclosed) Where Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Penalty under section 271 (1 )(c) is a civil liability for which willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting the civil liability as is the case in the matter of proceedings

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

u/s 270A of the Act suffers from the vice of non-application of mind as well as violates principles of natural justice. And therefore, the penalty levied on addition of sustained quantum addition of Rs.67,970/- cannot survive. And therefore, it is directed to be deleted. 11. The Pune Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No. 54 & 55/Pune/2023 Kishore Digambar

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

u/s 270A of the Act suffers from the vice of non-application of mind as well as violates principles of natural justice. And therefore, the penalty levied on addition of sustained quantum addition of Rs.67,970/- cannot survive. And therefore, it is directed to be deleted. 11. The Pune Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No. 54 & 55/Pune/2023 Kishore Digambar

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

u/s 270A of the Act suffers from the vice of non-application of mind as well as violates principles of natural justice. And therefore, the penalty levied on addition of sustained quantum addition of Rs.67,970/- cannot survive. And therefore, it is directed to be deleted. 11. The Pune Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No. 54 & 55/Pune/2023 Kishore Digambar

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PODDAR PIGMENTS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2219/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/S. Poddar Pigments Ltd., A- Dcit, Circle-14(1), New Delhi 283, Ground Floor, Okhla Indl. Area-1, New Delhi. Pan : Aaacp1125E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.Dr Respondent By Sh. P.C. Parwal, Fca Date Of Hearing 08.08.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 05.10.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15/01/2014 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) For Assessment Year 2007-08, Wherein He Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against Order Of The Assessing Officer Dated 29/03/2012 Levying Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Under: I. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Deleting The Penalty Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On Account Of Additions Under The Head Of U/S 40(A)(I) Amounting To Rs.9,14,191/- & Ltcg Amounting To Rs.41,62,154/- Holding That The Assessee Has Not Furnished Any Inaccurate Particulars Or Has Made Any Deliberate Attempt To Conceal Income. Ii. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Deleting The Above

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are as under: i. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in deleting the penalty made by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of additions under

VINOD JINDAL,FARIDABAD, HARYANA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD, HARYANA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1919/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1918, 1919, 1920, 1921 & 1923/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 To 2017-18 बनाम Shri Vinod Jindal, Dcit, H.No.1203A, Tower C-3, Vs. Central Circle-2, Srs Pearl Heights, Faridabad. Sector-87, Faridabad. Pan No.Aenpj1202Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 250Section 270ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was bad in law as it did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Against this decision the Revenue filed SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court

VINOD JINDAL,FARIDABAD, HARYANA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD, HARYANA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1918/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1918, 1919, 1920, 1921 & 1923/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 To 2017-18 बनाम Shri Vinod Jindal, Dcit, H.No.1203A, Tower C-3, Vs. Central Circle-2, Srs Pearl Heights, Faridabad. Sector-87, Faridabad. Pan No.Aenpj1202Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 250Section 270ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was bad in law as it did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Against this decision the Revenue filed SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court

VINOD JINDAL,FARIDABAD, HARYANA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD, HARYANA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1921/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1918, 1919, 1920, 1921 & 1923/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 To 2017-18 बनाम Shri Vinod Jindal, Dcit, H.No.1203A, Tower C-3, Vs. Central Circle-2, Srs Pearl Heights, Faridabad. Sector-87, Faridabad. Pan No.Aenpj1202Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 250Section 270ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was bad in law as it did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Against this decision the Revenue filed SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court

VINOD JINDAL,FARIDABAD, HARYANA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD, HARYANA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1920/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1918, 1919, 1920, 1921 & 1923/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 To 2017-18 बनाम Shri Vinod Jindal, Dcit, H.No.1203A, Tower C-3, Vs. Central Circle-2, Srs Pearl Heights, Faridabad. Sector-87, Faridabad. Pan No.Aenpj1202Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 250Section 270ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was bad in law as it did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Against this decision the Revenue filed SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court

VINOD JINDAL,FARIDABAD, HARYANA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD, HARYANA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1923/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1918, 1919, 1920, 1921 & 1923/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 To 2017-18 बनाम Shri Vinod Jindal, Dcit, H.No.1203A, Tower C-3, Vs. Central Circle-2, Srs Pearl Heights, Faridabad. Sector-87, Faridabad. Pan No.Aenpj1202Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 250Section 270ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was bad in law as it did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Against this decision the Revenue filed SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court

SOREGAM SA ,BELGIUM vs. ACIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION TAX GURGAON, GURGAON

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1919/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1918, 1919, 1920, 1921 & 1923/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 To 2017-18 बनाम Shri Vinod Jindal, Dcit, H.No.1203A, Tower C-3, Vs. Central Circle-2, Srs Pearl Heights, Faridabad. Sector-87, Faridabad. Pan No.Aenpj1202Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 250Section 270ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was bad in law as it did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Against this decision the Revenue filed SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court

SOREGAM SA,BELGIUM vs. ACIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATIONTAX GURGAON, GURGAON

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1918/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1918, 1919, 1920, 1921 & 1923/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 To 2017-18 बनाम Shri Vinod Jindal, Dcit, H.No.1203A, Tower C-3, Vs. Central Circle-2, Srs Pearl Heights, Faridabad. Sector-87, Faridabad. Pan No.Aenpj1202Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 250Section 270ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was bad in law as it did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Against this decision the Revenue filed SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court

M/S NICOTRA INDIA PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3953/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadi N Mishra

For Appellant: Ms. Vandna Gopal Sharda, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Chander Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(5)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80I

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act. However, facts of this (supra). In that case, no information given in the returns was found to be incorrect or inaccurate. In the cases before us, however, the claim made by assessee u/s 80IB of I.T. Act in original returns of income for asstt. year 2005-06 and 2006-07 were incorrect

M/S NICOTRA INDIA PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3954/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadi N Mishra

For Appellant: Ms. Vandna Gopal Sharda, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Chander Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(5)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80I

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act. However, facts of this (supra). In that case, no information given in the returns was found to be incorrect or inaccurate. In the cases before us, however, the claim made by assessee u/s 80IB of I.T. Act in original returns of income for asstt. year 2005-06 and 2006-07 were incorrect

MOHD. JAMAL,DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 62(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8927/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Jain, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. D. R
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275

u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act, Assessing Officer did not strike off irrelevant limb in the notice specifying the charge for which notice was issued. 9. We observe that an identical issue came up before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court (full bench at Goa) in the case of Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh