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.

158 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 254(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai213Delhi158Surat117Jaipur42Chandigarh38Raipur37Pune30Chennai28Bangalore25Hyderabad24Rajkot23Indore22Ahmedabad22Kolkata18Varanasi6Lucknow6Guwahati6Patna6Allahabad5Nagpur4Visakhapatnam3Panaji2Amritsar2Jodhpur1Jabalpur1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)108Section 143(3)106Addition to Income77Penalty49Section 153A42Section 26325Limitation/Time-bar25Disallowance20Section 153D

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4438/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Act on account of alleged non-compliance in proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A I of the Act, is illegal and bad in law.” 5. Admission of the additional ground has been opposed in principle by the ld. DR. Keeping in view, the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court

Showing 1–20 of 158 · Page 1 of 8

...
16
Section 92C16
Section 115J15
Section 80I14

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4439/DEL/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Act on account of alleged non-compliance in proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A I of the Act, is illegal and bad in law.” 5. Admission of the additional ground has been opposed in principle by the ld. DR. Keeping in view, the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4434/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Act on account of alleged non-compliance in proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A I of the Act, is illegal and bad in law.” 5. Admission of the additional ground has been opposed in principle by the ld. DR. Keeping in view, the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4436/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Act on account of alleged non-compliance in proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A I of the Act, is illegal and bad in law.” 5. Admission of the additional ground has been opposed in principle by the ld. DR. Keeping in view, the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4433/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Act on account of alleged non-compliance in proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A I of the Act, is illegal and bad in law.” 5. Admission of the additional ground has been opposed in principle by the ld. DR. Keeping in view, the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4435/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Act on account of alleged non-compliance in proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A I of the Act, is illegal and bad in law.” 5. Admission of the additional ground has been opposed in principle by the ld. DR. Keeping in view, the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4437/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Act on account of alleged non-compliance in proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A I of the Act, is illegal and bad in law.” 5. Admission of the additional ground has been opposed in principle by the ld. DR. Keeping in view, the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court

MANOJ MITTAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2412/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2412/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Manoj Mittal, Dcit H-1, Phase-1, Ashok Vihar, Vs. Central Circle-8, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. Aaipm7274J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 254Section 271(1)(c)

section 254 of the Act was passed by the Assessing Officer making an addition of Rs.4,73,526/- u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. Subsequently the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1

KRISHNA ENTERPRISES,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 34(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5654/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2013-14] Krishna Enterprises, Assistant Commissioner Of 202, Bhagirathi Apartment, Income Tax, Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi- Vs Circle 34(1), 110085. Delhi. Pan- Aahfk4892P Assessee Revenue

Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

254/-, which comes to Rs. 37,06,420/-. Since, the assessee has already shown net profit of Rs. 61,950/- in the return filed on 14.09.2021, therefore, remaining amount which comes at Rs. 36,44,470/- Since, the assessee has concealed particulars of his income, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is being initiated separately for concealment

BRIGHT ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED MBD HOUSE, GULAB BHAWAN BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG NEW DELHI,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 5(1) NEW DELHI, JAO DCIT 4(2), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4792/DEL/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalbright Enterprises Private Acit, Limited, Circle-5(1), Mbd House, Gulab Vs. New Delhi. Bhawan, Bahadur Shah Zagar Marg, Jao Dcit, 4(2), New Delhi-110002 New Delhi.

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

section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In view of the above, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that above penalty cannot survive. 10. On the other hand, the Ld. Sr. DR could not controvert the above factual situation

EBRO INDIA PVT.LTD. ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI

In the result, the ground no 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1291/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Delhi09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 68

penalty proceedings, if any, to the 15 assessee, alongwith the demand notice, specifying the sum payable by, or refund of any amount due to, the assessee on the basis of such assessment;” 30. On perusal of the aforesaid, it will kindly be appreciated that section 144B clearly mandates that notwithstanding the provisions of section 143, NFAC shall pass the final

GAUTAM CHADHA L/H MRS. RATNA CHADHA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 28(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 6910/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Narender Kumar Choudhry & Dr. Brr Kumar

Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 37(1)Section 4Section 40A

u/s 274 of the Act and ultimately levied the penalty to the tune of Rs. 61,06,254/- @ of 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. 4. The Assessee being aggrieved by the penalty order dated 29.11.2016 passed by the Assessing Officer, preferred first appeal before the learned Commissioner, who by impugned order dismissed the appeal of the Assessee

METRO TYRES LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1873/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv & ShFor Respondent: Sh. Anshul, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

Section 271(1)(c) have not been met in the instant case. 7. That in view of the facts and circumstances, the AO/CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that this is a simple case of disallowance made in the assessment due to differences of opinion between the AO and Assessee. Hence, no penalty should

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOFTWARE AND SERVICE COMPANIES (NASSCOM),NEW DELHI vs. DDIT (E), INV. CIRCLE-II, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7787/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jain, Vice-Dr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 7787/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 National Association Of Software & Vs Ddit(Exemption) Inv., Service Companies (Nasscom), Circle-Ii, Ground Floor, Iete Building, New Delhi Property No. 2, Institutional Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatn2595F Assessee By : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Sweta Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.03.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sweta Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 254Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275Section 275(1)(a)

271(1)(c) have not been met in the instant case. Ground 10: That the said additions made by the AO are based on difference of opinion on account of allowability of the claim of the Assessee, and as such no penalty can be levied in such cases.” 4. Admission of the additional ground has been opposed in principle

HIMANSHU MALHOTRA (THROUGH LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SH. ASHOK MALHOTRA),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE -14, NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1033/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Imposing Penalty. Page 2 Of 15

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 253Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act have been initiated against Sh. Ashok Malhotra by issuing show cause notice dated 14/03/2012 it is also undisputed fact that on 30/06/2016 Sh. Ashok Malhotra passed away. The order of penalty came to be passed against a dead person on 31/03/2017. It is the specific case of the Department that the Department

HIMANSHU MALHOTRA (THROUGH LEGAL HEIR OF LATE. SH. ASHOK MALHOTRA),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1028/DEL/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Imposing Penalty. Page 2 Of 15

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 253Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act have been initiated against Sh. Ashok Malhotra by issuing show cause notice dated 14/03/2012 it is also undisputed fact that on 30/06/2016 Sh. Ashok Malhotra passed away. The order of penalty came to be passed against a dead person on 31/03/2017. It is the specific case of the Department that the Department

HIMANSHU MALHOTRA (THROUGH LEGAL HEIR OF LATE (SH. ASHOK MALHOTRA),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1029/DEL/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Imposing Penalty. Page 2 Of 15

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 253Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act have been initiated against Sh. Ashok Malhotra by issuing show cause notice dated 14/03/2012 it is also undisputed fact that on 30/06/2016 Sh. Ashok Malhotra passed away. The order of penalty came to be passed against a dead person on 31/03/2017. It is the specific case of the Department that the Department

HIMANSHU MALHOTRA (THROUGH LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SH. ASHOK MALHOTRA),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1031/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Imposing Penalty. Page 2 Of 15

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 253Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act have been initiated against Sh. Ashok Malhotra by issuing show cause notice dated 14/03/2012 it is also undisputed fact that on 30/06/2016 Sh. Ashok Malhotra passed away. The order of penalty came to be passed against a dead person on 31/03/2017. It is the specific case of the Department that the Department

HIMANSHU MALHOTRA (THROUGH LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SH. ASHOK MALHOTRA),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1026/DEL/2023[20005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2023

Bench: Imposing Penalty. Page 2 Of 15

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 253Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act have been initiated against Sh. Ashok Malhotra by issuing show cause notice dated 14/03/2012 it is also undisputed fact that on 30/06/2016 Sh. Ashok Malhotra passed away. The order of penalty came to be passed against a dead person on 31/03/2017. It is the specific case of the Department that the Department

HIMANSHU MALHOTRA (THROUGH LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SH. ASHOK MALHOTRA),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1025/DEL/2023[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Imposing Penalty. Page 2 Of 15

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 253Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act have been initiated against Sh. Ashok Malhotra by issuing show cause notice dated 14/03/2012 it is also undisputed fact that on 30/06/2016 Sh. Ashok Malhotra passed away. The order of penalty came to be passed against a dead person on 31/03/2017. It is the specific case of the Department that the Department