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.

167 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 201clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi167Mumbai137Raipur85Bangalore59Chennai42Jaipur40Hyderabad28Ahmedabad26Nagpur23Indore18Kolkata16Rajkot15Amritsar14Chandigarh9Pune9Surat7Visakhapatnam6Jabalpur5Agra4Jodhpur3Panaji3Cuttack2Dehradun2Ranchi1Cochin1Varanasi1Lucknow1

Key Topics

Addition to Income62Section 271(1)(c)54Section 194C39Penalty39Section 271C38Deduction37Section 153C36Section 201(1)36Section 69A33

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 941/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance. 5.3.3 In the case of DCIT v/s Shree Ram Electrocast (P) Ltd [2017] 84 taxmann.com 63 (Kolkata-Trib), Hon'ble ITAT has held that merely because losses were not allowed to be set off against normal business income and was treated as speculative loss, it was only a change

Showing 1–20 of 167 · Page 1 of 9

...
TDS30
Section 143(3)29
Section 153A28

DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD vs. A2Z INFRA ENGINEERS LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 812/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance. 5.3.3 In the case of DCIT v/s Shree Ram Electrocast (P) Ltd [2017] 84 taxmann.com 63 (Kolkata-Trib), Hon'ble ITAT has held that merely because losses were not allowed to be set off against normal business income and was treated as speculative loss, it was only a change

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-2 , FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 939/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance. 5.3.3 In the case of DCIT v/s Shree Ram Electrocast (P) Ltd [2017] 84 taxmann.com 63 (Kolkata-Trib), Hon'ble ITAT has held that merely because losses were not allowed to be set off against normal business income and was treated as speculative loss, it was only a change

A2Z MAINTENANCE & ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2631/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance. 5.3.3 In the case of DCIT v/s Shree Ram Electrocast (P) Ltd [2017] 84 taxmann.com 63 (Kolkata-Trib), Hon'ble ITAT has held that merely because losses were not allowed to be set off against normal business income and was treated as speculative loss, it was only a change

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. CCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 940/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance. 5.3.3 In the case of DCIT v/s Shree Ram Electrocast (P) Ltd [2017] 84 taxmann.com 63 (Kolkata-Trib), Hon'ble ITAT has held that merely because losses were not allowed to be set off against normal business income and was treated as speculative loss, it was only a change

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 943/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance. 5.3.3 In the case of DCIT v/s Shree Ram Electrocast (P) Ltd [2017] 84 taxmann.com 63 (Kolkata-Trib), Hon'ble ITAT has held that merely because losses were not allowed to be set off against normal business income and was treated as speculative loss, it was only a change

DCIT CC-2 , FARIDABAD vs. A2Z MAINTENANCE AND ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 811/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance. 5.3.3 In the case of DCIT v/s Shree Ram Electrocast (P) Ltd [2017] 84 taxmann.com 63 (Kolkata-Trib), Hon'ble ITAT has held that merely because losses were not allowed to be set off against normal business income and was treated as speculative loss, it was only a change

INFRA ENGINEERS LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CC-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 942/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance. 5.3.3 In the case of DCIT v/s Shree Ram Electrocast (P) Ltd [2017] 84 taxmann.com 63 (Kolkata-Trib), Hon'ble ITAT has held that merely because losses were not allowed to be set off against normal business income and was treated as speculative loss, it was only a change

DHANKOT FILLING STATION ,GURGAON vs. PR.CIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1030/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshdhankot Filling Station, Vs. Pr. Cit, Sultanpur Road, Village Faridabad Dhankot, Gurgaon, Haryana- 122505 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaefd7291A Assessee By : Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Ca Revenue By: Sh. T. James Singson, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 20/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24/04/2023

For Appellant: Sh. Sandeep Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. T. James Singson, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 270ASection 271ASection 275Section 69A

u/s 139(4) of I.T. Act? 2. Briefly stated, the facts necessary for adjudication of the instant appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. The assessee derives income from real estate business. On 11.12.2008, search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act was conducted at the premises of the assessee. Notice under Section 153A

TATA TELESERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-76(1), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1057/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Tata Vs. Assistant Commissioner Teleserviceslimited New Of Income Tax Circle 76(1) Delhi Districtcentral Laxmi Taxation Department Nagar New Delhi 110092 M/S Tata Teleservices Limited 2A, Old Ishwar Nahar Mathura Road New Delhi 110065 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 191Section 194Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 9. GROUND 9: That the Ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in not considering the contentions and grounds raised by the Appellant Each of the grounds or sub-grounds are in the alternative and is without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw

ACIT, CIRCLE-77(1), DELHI, DELHI vs. SHREE VARDHMAN DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is Allowed

ITA 2366/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Delhi21 Dec 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: the Hon’ble Tribunal was penalty order u/s 271C of the I.T. Act, 1961, while in this case subject matter of appeal is order u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the I.T. Act passed by AO.

For Appellant: Ms. Gunjan Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 194ASection 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

penalty order u/s 271C of the I.T. Act, 1961, while in this case subject matter of appeal is order u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the I.T. Act passed by AO. 3. That the order of the CIT (A) being erroneous in law and on facts and needs to be vacated.” 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused

ACIT, CIRCLE-77(1), DELHI, DELHI vs. SHREE VARDHMAN DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is Allowed

ITA 2367/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Delhi21 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: the Hon’ble Tribunal was penalty order u/s 271C of the I.T. Act, 1961, while in this case subject matter of appeal is order u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the I.T. Act passed by AO.

For Appellant: Ms. Gunjan Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 194ASection 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

penalty order u/s 271C of the I.T. Act, 1961, while in this case subject matter of appeal is order u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the I.T. Act passed by AO. 3. That the order of the CIT (A) being erroneous in law and on facts and needs to be vacated.” 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused

M/S. UNITECH WIRELESS (TAMILNADU) PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2355/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Chopra, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 194HSection 201(1)

section 201(1A) of the Act till the date of payment of taxes by the deductee-assessee or the liability for penalty u/s 271

ACIT, DELHI vs. M/S. UNITECH WIRELESS TAMILNADU PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2925/DEL/2015[2011-12 (F.Y. 2010-11)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2022

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Chopra, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 194HSection 201(1)

section 201(1A) of the Act till the date of payment of taxes by the deductee-assessee or the liability for penalty u/s 271

ACIT, DELHI vs. M/S. UNITECH WIRELESS TAMILNADU PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2926/DEL/2015[2012-13 (F.Y. 2011-12)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2022

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Chopra, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 194HSection 201(1)

section 201(1A) of the Act till the date of payment of taxes by the deductee-assessee or the liability for penalty u/s 271

M/S. UNITECH WIRELESS (TAMILNADU) PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2356/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Chopra, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 194HSection 201(1)

section 201(1A) of the Act till the date of payment of taxes by the deductee-assessee or the liability for penalty u/s 271

VATIKA SOVEREIGN PARK PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-26(1), NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed

ITA 7252/DEL/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.7251 & 7252/Del/2019 (Assessment Year : 2016-17 & 2017-18) Vatika Sovereign Park Private Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, 621A, 6Th Floor, Devika Towers Circle-26(1) 6-Nehru Place New Delhi New Delhi-110019 Pan No. Aafcp9383D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133ASection 194CSection 271C

section 271C of the Act as there was no contumacious conduct by the assessee. Our view is fully supported from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of income tax vs. Bank of Nova Scotia, 380 ITR 550, wherein the Hon’ble Court has held as under : “2. The matter was pursued

VATIKA SOVEREIGN PARK PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-26(1), NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed

ITA 7251/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.7251 & 7252/Del/2019 (Assessment Year : 2016-17 & 2017-18) Vatika Sovereign Park Private Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, 621A, 6Th Floor, Devika Towers Circle-26(1) 6-Nehru Place New Delhi New Delhi-110019 Pan No. Aafcp9383D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133ASection 194CSection 271C

section 271C of the Act as there was no contumacious conduct by the assessee. Our view is fully supported from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of income tax vs. Bank of Nova Scotia, 380 ITR 550, wherein the Hon’ble Court has held as under : “2. The matter was pursued

PIVOTAL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,GURGAON vs. ADDI. CIT SPL. RANGE 76, NEW DELHI

The appeal are allowed

ITA 6261/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 6261/Del/2019, A.Y. 2014-15

Section 133ASection 194CSection 271C

201(1)/201(1A) is Pivotal Infrastructure Ltd. not necessary. Since there was no reasonable cause within the meaning of section 273B for non deduction of TDS on EDC, the Ld. AO imposed penalty and aggrieved assessee had filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed. 3. Now before the Tribunal the assessee has come in appeal raising

MASS AWASH PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. ADDI. CIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NOIDA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 165/DEL/2021[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 156Section 195Section 201(1)Section 271C(1)(a)Section 275(1)(C)Section 275(1)(c)

201(1)/201(1A) and 271C of the Act is having jurisdiction over the appellant assessee to pass such orders. Ground of appeal also fails on this issue. 4.8 It is further gathered that notice u/s 271C(1)(a) was issued on 03.05.2016 & 29.08.2016. The appellant has received these notices and a submission dated 03.06.2016 was also filed before