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.

43 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 273Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Bangalore56Indore45Delhi43Cochin40Mumbai35Surat32Chennai30Jaipur28Hyderabad24Kolkata16Amritsar13Rajkot13Visakhapatnam8Pune8Ahmedabad7Allahabad4Jabalpur4Guwahati3Nagpur3Agra2Raipur2Chandigarh2Cuttack2Jodhpur2

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(b)60Penalty43Section 142(1)36Section 271C30Section 27128Section 143(3)27Section 194C25Section 273B19Section 271G17Deduction

ATMA RAM BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED, NEW DELHI,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 3593/DEL/2025[A.Y. 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 269TSection 270ASection 271ESection 69ASection 80G

273B of the Act. I have considered above submission of the assessee. The issue involved in the present case is that as per the ‘Tax Audit Report’ in Form 3CD, in Column 31(c) (particulars of each repayment of loan or deposit or any specified advance in an amount exceeding the limit specified in section 269T made during the previous

Showing 1–20 of 43 · Page 1 of 3

15
TDS14
Addition to Income13

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 u/s 271(1)(b) are examined in detail. 12. The provisions of Section 273B reads as under: "273B. Penalty

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 u/s 271(1)(b) are examined in detail. 12. The provisions of Section 273B reads as under: "273B. Penalty

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 u/s 271(1)(b) are examined in detail. 12. The provisions of Section 273B reads as under: "273B. Penalty

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 u/s 271(1)(b) are examined in detail. 12. The provisions of Section 273B reads as under: "273B. Penalty

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 u/s 271(1)(b) are examined in detail. 12. The provisions of Section 273B reads as under: "273B. Penalty

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 u/s 271(1)(b) are examined in detail. 12. The provisions of Section 273B reads as under: "273B. Penalty

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 u/s 271(1)(b) are examined in detail. 12. The provisions of Section 273B reads as under: "273B. Penalty

PRATIBHA BISHT,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-70(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2318/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Pratibha Bisht, Vs Ito, A-5-4, Plot 5C, Pragatisheel Bairwa, Ward-70(1), Sector-11, Dwarka, Delhi-110075. New Delhi. Pan-Ahspb0980D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Saurav Rohtagi, Ca Respondent By Shri Baldev Singh Negi, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.11.2023 Order

Section 148Section 24Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 148 of the Act, she duly filed her income tax return and disclosed all her income. 10. In our considered view, the levy of penalty is not automatic. If the assessee makes out a case that the default was due to reasonable cause in that case, no penalty would be called for in terms of section 273B

ATEPL RAHEE JOINT VENTURE,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-62(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1570/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 1Section 2Section 271Section 271ASection 92CSection 92D

271-1, section 271J, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub- section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 272BB or] sub-section (1) of section 272BBB or clause (b) of sub-section (1) or clause (b) or clause

LATE JITENDER SAPRA (THROUGH WIFE ANJALI SAPRA),NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 50(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2109/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Sh. V. K. Sabharwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 159Section 162Section 2(31)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 271ASection 271B

271(1)(b) of Income Tax Act in this case. The AO pointed out in the penalty order that the assessee failed to comply with notices as mentioned below: S.No Description of Date of Notice Date of hearing Remarks Notice 1. U/s 143(2) 04.08.2015 17.08.2015 AO filed POA on 12.08.2015 but failed to file any details

TAPI JWIL JV,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-62(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6722/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6722/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 4873/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Tapi Jwil Jv, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O C. S. Anand, Adv., Ward-62(4), 104, Pankaj Tower, 10, L.S.C. New Delhi Savita Vihar, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadat3744J Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Anand, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

For Appellant: Sh. C. S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, CIT-DR
Section 271GSection 40A(2)(b)Section 928BSection 92D

273B. Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of clause (b) of sub- section (1) of section 271, section 271A, section 271AA, section 271B, section 271BA, section 271BB, section 271C, section 271CA, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271FA, section 271FAB, section 271FB, section 271G, section 271GA, section 271GB, section 271H, section 271-I, section 271J, clause (c) or clause

TAPI JWIL JV,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-62(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4873/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6722/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 4873/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Tapi Jwil Jv, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O C. S. Anand, Adv., Ward-62(4), 104, Pankaj Tower, 10, L.S.C. New Delhi Savita Vihar, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadat3744J Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Anand, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

For Appellant: Sh. C. S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, CIT-DR
Section 271GSection 40A(2)(b)Section 928BSection 92D

273B. Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of clause (b) of sub- section (1) of section 271, section 271A, section 271AA, section 271B, section 271BA, section 271BB, section 271C, section 271CA, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271FA, section 271FAB, section 271FB, section 271G, section 271GA, section 271GB, section 271H, section 271-I, section 271J, clause (c) or clause

MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, LTU, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7087/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 7087/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., Vs Dcit, 5Th Floor, Mds, 9, Cgo Complex, Circle-1, Ltu Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0828R Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. B. M. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.02.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. B. M. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271BSection 92E

u/s 92E of the Act. 5. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO holding that as per the mandate of Section 92E, the assessee was to obtain audit report and file it before the due date for filing the return and since, the assessee defaulted the penalty was rightly levied. 6. Heard the arguments of both

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

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 following grounds :- “1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the levy

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

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 following grounds :- “1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the levy

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

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 following grounds :- “1) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

UKG SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-27(1), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7247/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 273B

penalty u/s 271 (1 )(b) of the Act, without appreciating the submission of the appellant that non compliance of notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act, was not deliberate and due to reasonable cause and therefore provisions of section 273B

USHA GOYAL,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-43(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3695/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareekusha Goyal, Vs. Dcit, Circle 43 (1), 134/135, Vaishali, Pitampura, Delhi. Delhi – 110 034. (Pan : Aecpg5220J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.05.2024 Date Of Order : 09.05.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 26.06.2023 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Law & Facts In Confirming Penalty Imposed Of Rs.10,000/- U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Without Appreciating The Facts That There Was No Non- Compliance Of Notice Issued U/S 142(1) Of The Act Dated 06.11.2019 On The Scheduled Date 08.11.2019 As The Appellant Duly Filed Adjournment Before The Ld. Assessing Officer & Later On Filed All Requisite Details & Documents.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 142Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 273BSection 274

penalty imposed of Rs.10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act without appreciating the facts that alleged non-compliance of notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 06.11.2019 if any was not deliberate and due to reasonable cause, therefore provisions of section 273B

DCIT CIRCLE-76(1), NEW DELHI vs. OMAXE LTD. , NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue/Department stands

ITA 9282/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 194CSection 250Section 271C

273B of the Act for not deducting the TDS; and whether the penalty can be levied when the conduct of the appellant is not contumacious, held as under: “ That till date the appellant before this episode (F.Y. 2013- 14) was not required to deduct tax u/s 194C of the Act with regard to payment of External Development Charges to HUDA