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.

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

Sorted by relevance

Delhi463Mumbai333Bangalore134Karnataka124Ahmedabad110Chennai100Jaipur89Raipur88Kolkata70Hyderabad42Indore42Chandigarh25Nagpur23Pune20Amritsar19Rajkot16Visakhapatnam14Cuttack13Dehradun11Cochin11Lucknow10Surat10Panaji9Agra6Jabalpur5Ranchi3SC3Jodhpur3Telangana1Varanasi1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 234E56Section 271(1)(c)56Addition to Income56Section 143(3)48Section 271C42Penalty37Section 69A33TDS33Section 14829

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

Showing 1–20 of 463 · Page 1 of 24

...
Deduction29
Section 153C27
Section 153A27

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

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

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

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

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

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

M/S. VIPUL MEDCORPTPA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4398/DEL/2013[2009-10 (F.Y. 2008-09)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2018

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Arora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr. DR
Section 133Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

201 (IA) and penalty under Section 271 C. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the class of cases of TP As and insurance companies, the Board has decided that no proceedings U/S

M/S. VIPUL MEDCORP TPA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4756/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Arora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr. DR
Section 133Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

201 (IA) and penalty under Section 271 C. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the class of cases of TP As and insurance companies, the Board has decided that no proceedings U/S

M/S. VIPUL MEDCORP TPA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3234/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Arora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr. DR
Section 133Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

201 (IA) and penalty under Section 271 C. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the class of cases of TP As and insurance companies, the Board has decided that no proceedings U/S

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SAHARA INDIA FINANCIAL CORPORATION LTD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the four cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3310/DEL/2009[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2016AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

271(1)(a) are to be applied. It was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in that case that for the purpose of computation of limitation period in connection with imposition of penalty u/s 271D and 271E the provisions of Section 275(1)(c) are applicable and not of the section

M/S. OIL INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4663/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 154Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 36

section 271(l)(c) is cieariy attracted in these cases in all the three years. I am fortified in this view by the ratios cited above by the AO & me and ratio decidendi laid down in the cases reported as Western Automobiles (India) vs. CIT (1978) 112 ITR 1048 (Bom); Durga Timber Works

M/S. OIL INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4662/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 154Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 36

section 271(l)(c) is cieariy attracted in these cases in all the three years. I am fortified in this view by the ratios cited above by the AO & me and ratio decidendi laid down in the cases reported as Western Automobiles (India) vs. CIT (1978) 112 ITR 1048 (Bom); Durga Timber Works

M/S. OIL INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4664/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 154Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 36

section 271(l)(c) is cieariy attracted in these cases in all the three years. I am fortified in this view by the ratios cited above by the AO & me and ratio decidendi laid down in the cases reported as Western Automobiles (India) vs. CIT (1978) 112 ITR 1048 (Bom); Durga Timber Works

M/S. MODIPON LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO (TDS & SURVEY), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No

ITA 829/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 154Section 201(1)

201(1A) was passed by the ITO who is not authorized to levy the penalty u/s 271C and, therefore, the period of limitation for the purpose of levy of penalty is to be considered when the Joint Commissioner issued the notice u/s 271C. 14. We find that this issue has already been considered by the ITAT as well

M/S. MODIPON LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO (TDS & SURVEY), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No

ITA 827/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 154Section 201(1)

201(1A) was passed by the ITO who is not authorized to levy the penalty u/s 271C and, therefore, the period of limitation for the purpose of levy of penalty is to be considered when the Joint Commissioner issued the notice u/s 271C. 14. We find that this issue has already been considered by the ITAT as well

M/S. MODIPON LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No

ITA 1979/DEL/2012[2008-09 (F.Y. 2007-08)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2016

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 154Section 201(1)

201(1A) was passed by the ITO who is not authorized to levy the penalty u/s 271C and, therefore, the period of limitation for the purpose of levy of penalty is to be considered when the Joint Commissioner issued the notice u/s 271C. 14. We find that this issue has already been considered by the ITAT as well

M/S. MODIPON LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No

ITA 1897/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 154Section 201(1)

201(1A) was passed by the ITO who is not authorized to levy the penalty u/s 271C and, therefore, the period of limitation for the purpose of levy of penalty is to be considered when the Joint Commissioner issued the notice u/s 271C. 14. We find that this issue has already been considered by the ITAT as well

M/S. MODIPON LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO (TDS & SURVEY), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No

ITA 828/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 154Section 201(1)

201(1A) was passed by the ITO who is not authorized to levy the penalty u/s 271C and, therefore, the period of limitation for the purpose of levy of penalty is to be considered when the Joint Commissioner issued the notice u/s 271C. 14. We find that this issue has already been considered by the ITAT as well