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.

218 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 200clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai223Delhi218Jaipur85Chennai79Pune62Raipur47Bangalore43Allahabad39Ahmedabad34Hyderabad33Kolkata33Surat28Chandigarh23Indore16Nagpur14Amritsar10Rajkot10Lucknow7Agra6Guwahati6Panaji6Cuttack5Patna5Dehradun4Visakhapatnam3Jodhpur3Cochin2Ranchi2SC1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)101Addition to Income63Section 6854Section 143(3)49Penalty49Section 143(2)41Section 56(2)(viib)26Section 27424Section 251(1)

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

200% of the taxes sought to be evaded and the learned lower authorities have held the assessee to have "under- reported his taxable income in consequence to misreporting", the latter limb of misreporting containing six "sub-limbs" in clauses (a to f) under sub- section- (9) deserve to be read as an extension of sub-section (8) to section 270A

Showing 1–20 of 218 · Page 1 of 11

...
24
Deduction24
Section 27123
Disallowance18

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

200% of the taxes sought to be evaded and the learned lower authorities have held the assessee to have "under- reported his taxable income in consequence to misreporting", the latter limb of misreporting containing six "sub-limbs" in clauses (a to f) under sub- section- (9) deserve to be read as an extension of sub-section (8) to section 270A

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

200% of the taxes sought to be evaded and the learned lower authorities have held the assessee to have "under- reported his taxable income in consequence to misreporting", the latter limb of misreporting containing six "sub-limbs" in clauses (a to f) under sub- section- (9) deserve to be read as an extension of sub-section (8) to section 270A

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

271(1)(c) of the Act for Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2016-17 are quashed. 10. We further observed that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) Pte. Ltd. vs. ACIT (145 taxmann.com 665) held as under: “2. By way of the impugned order, dated 09th March, 2022, the Petitioner

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

271(1)(c) of the Act for Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2016-17 are quashed. 10. We further observed that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) Pte. Ltd. vs. ACIT (145 taxmann.com 665) held as under: “2. By way of the impugned order, dated 09th March, 2022, the Petitioner

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

271(1)(c) of the Act for Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2016-17 are quashed. 10. We further observed that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) Pte. Ltd. vs. ACIT (145 taxmann.com 665) held as under: “2. By way of the impugned order, dated 09th March, 2022, the Petitioner

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

271(1)(c) of the Act for Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2016-17 are quashed. 10. We further observed that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) Pte. Ltd. vs. ACIT (145 taxmann.com 665) held as under: “2. By way of the impugned order, dated 09th March, 2022, the Petitioner

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

271(1)(c) of the Act for Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2016-17 are quashed. 10. We further observed that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) Pte. Ltd. vs. ACIT (145 taxmann.com 665) held as under: “2. By way of the impugned order, dated 09th March, 2022, the Petitioner

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

271(1)(c) of the Act for Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2016-17 are quashed. 10. We further observed that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) Pte. Ltd. vs. ACIT (145 taxmann.com 665) held as under: “2. By way of the impugned order, dated 09th March, 2022, the Petitioner

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

271(1)(c) of the Act for Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2016-17 are quashed. 10. We further observed that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) Pte. Ltd. vs. ACIT (145 taxmann.com 665) held as under: “2. By way of the impugned order, dated 09th March, 2022, the Petitioner

GEORGE KUTTY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3788/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] George Kutty, Vs Dcit, C/O-M/S. Oasis Tours India (P.) Circle-13(1), Ltd., C-40, Middle Circle, Dwarka New Delhi. Sadan, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aajpk4005H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Manish Malik, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2022

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 276CSection 68

u/s 274. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the penalty could not be deleted merely on the basis of defect pointed by the Ld. AR in the notice and therefore, the legal grounds raised are rejected." 8. DCIT Vs Shah Rukh Khan [2018] 93 taxmann.com 320 (Mumbai - Trib.) Where Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai held as follows

MALOOK NAGAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-15, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5823/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 5821/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year: 2008-09 Ita No. 5822/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Ita No. 5823/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 5824/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Malook Nagar, Vs Acit, D-3/10, Paschimi Marg, Central Circle-15, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adkpn2266L Assessee By : Sh. Akshat Jain, Ca & Sh. Rajat Jain, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Bhavnesh Kulsheshtha, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.05.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Akshat Jain, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Bhavnesh Kulsheshtha, CIT DR
Section 132Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

200/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, without appreciating the fact that AO explicitly fails to specify in the show cause notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act that under which limb of section 271 (1)(c), penalty

MALOOK NAGAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-15, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5821/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 5821/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year: 2008-09 Ita No. 5822/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Ita No. 5823/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 5824/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Malook Nagar, Vs Acit, D-3/10, Paschimi Marg, Central Circle-15, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adkpn2266L Assessee By : Sh. Akshat Jain, Ca & Sh. Rajat Jain, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Bhavnesh Kulsheshtha, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.05.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Akshat Jain, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Bhavnesh Kulsheshtha, CIT DR
Section 132Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

200/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, without appreciating the fact that AO explicitly fails to specify in the show cause notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act that under which limb of section 271 (1)(c), penalty

MALOOK NAGAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-15, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5824/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 5821/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year: 2008-09 Ita No. 5822/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Ita No. 5823/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 5824/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Malook Nagar, Vs Acit, D-3/10, Paschimi Marg, Central Circle-15, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adkpn2266L Assessee By : Sh. Akshat Jain, Ca & Sh. Rajat Jain, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Bhavnesh Kulsheshtha, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.05.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Akshat Jain, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Bhavnesh Kulsheshtha, CIT DR
Section 132Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

200/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, without appreciating the fact that AO explicitly fails to specify in the show cause notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act that under which limb of section 271 (1)(c), penalty

MALOOK NAGAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-15, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5822/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 5821/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year: 2008-09 Ita No. 5822/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Ita No. 5823/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 5824/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Malook Nagar, Vs Acit, D-3/10, Paschimi Marg, Central Circle-15, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adkpn2266L Assessee By : Sh. Akshat Jain, Ca & Sh. Rajat Jain, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Bhavnesh Kulsheshtha, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.05.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Akshat Jain, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Bhavnesh Kulsheshtha, CIT DR
Section 132Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

200/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, without appreciating the fact that AO explicitly fails to specify in the show cause notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act that under which limb of section 271 (1)(c), penalty

JET LITE (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6 (NOW CC-1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 839/DEL/2019[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2024AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmajet Lite (India) Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 13, Community Central Circle-6, Centre, Yusuf Sarai, (Now Cc-1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aadcs4480L

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT DR
Section 156Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

271(1)(c) of the IT Act under which the penalty is proposed to be levied/enhanced, and consequently the enhancement of penalty is bad in law. 10) Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in issuing a penalty enhancement notice dated 28.06.2018 even

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)

section 36(1)(va) iii) Deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) 5,12,200/- iv) Bogus creditors 12,97,079/- v) Surrender on account of unverifiable creditors 100,00,000/- 4. On the aforesaid additions, penalty proceedings u/s 271

DCIT, CIRCLE- 20(1), NEW DELHI vs. POLYPLEX CORPORATION LIMITED., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 701/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M.Balaganesh[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Dcit, Vs Polyplex Corporation Limited, Circle-20(1), 40, New Mandakini, Greater New Delhi Kailash, New Delhi-110092. Pan-Aaacp0278J Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr.Dr Respondent By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. & Shri Aman Garg, Ca Date Of Hearing 04.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.04.2024

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 35(2)(AB)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 90

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Ant the penalty was levied on the disallowance of deduction claimed by the assessee under section 35(2AB) of the Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing of plastic film and polyester chips and have in-house research

CHIRANJEEV KUMAR VINAYAK,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-47(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 6644/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292BSection 68Section 69C

u/s 274. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the penalty could not be deleted merely on the basis of defect pointed by the Ld. AR in the notice and therefore, the legal grounds raised are rejected.” 7. DCIT Vs Shah Rukh Khan [2018| 93 taxmann.com 320 (Mumbai - Trib.) Where Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai held as follows

DHARAM PAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD -42(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5811/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Department by: Shri Avikal Manu, Sr. D. RFor Respondent: Shri Avikal Manu, Sr. D. R
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 54B

200/-, on account of unexplained gift of Rs. 50,00,000/- and on account of deduction of 80C of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Consequent to the passing of assessment order, the penalty proceedings have been initiated against the assessee and an order of penalty came to be passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by order dated 30/07/2017