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.

442 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 275clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi442Mumbai236Jaipur128Karnataka100Raipur82Chennai79Ahmedabad77Kolkata70Bangalore60Indore57Hyderabad45Pune44Lucknow36Visakhapatnam28Cochin22Chandigarh21Cuttack19Amritsar14Kerala14Nagpur14Ranchi9Patna8Guwahati7Agra6Surat6Rajkot4Jabalpur4Dehradun3Jodhpur2Rajasthan2Telangana2SC1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)97Addition to Income58Section 143(3)57Penalty57Section 27145Section 271E40Section 271D39Section 271A35Section 269S

DCIT, CIRCLE 22(2), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. SAHIL VACHANI, DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2604/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice Presdient (), Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shriavdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.2604/िद"ी/2023(िन.व. 2016-17)

For Appellant: S/Shri Anuj Garg & Narpat Singh, Sr.DRFor Respondent: S/Shri Rohan Khare & Priyam
Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Hon’ble Supreme Court further noted that if the contention of the Revenue is accepted then in case of every return where the claim made is not accepted by the AO for any reason, the 31 assessee will invite penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. That is not the intendment

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Showing 1–20 of 442 · Page 1 of 23

...
32
Section 275(1)(c)32
Limitation/Time-bar27
Disallowance20
ITA 1162/DEL/2011[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2019AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41

275 of the Act. (vii) the proceedings for initiation of penalty proceeding cannot be set aside only on the ground that the assessment order states penalty proceedings are initiated separately' if otherwise, it conforms to the parameters set out hereinabove are met." 6.8. Applying the propositions laid down to the facts of the case, we are of the considered opinion

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1160/DEL/2011[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2019AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41

275 of the Act. (vii) the proceedings for initiation of penalty proceeding cannot be set aside only on the ground that the assessment order states penalty proceedings are initiated separately' if otherwise, it conforms to the parameters set out hereinabove are met." 6.8. Applying the propositions laid down to the facts of the case, we are of the considered opinion

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1161/DEL/2011[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2019AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41

275 of the Act. (vii) the proceedings for initiation of penalty proceeding cannot be set aside only on the ground that the assessment order states penalty proceedings are initiated separately' if otherwise, it conforms to the parameters set out hereinabove are met." 6.8. Applying the propositions laid down to the facts of the case, we are of the considered opinion

HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5234/DEL/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41

275 of the Act. (vii) the proceedings for initiation of penalty proceeding cannot be set aside only on the ground that the assessment order states penalty proceedings are initiated separately' if otherwise, it conforms to the parameters set out hereinabove are met." 6.8. Applying the propositions laid down to the facts of the case, we are of the considered opinion

GE JENBACHER GMBH & CO. OHG,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(3)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , NEW DELHI

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

ITA 692/DEL/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

275(1)(a) of the Act. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the initiation of penalty by way of issue of penalty notice under Section 274 of the Act without specifying whether the penalty is initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars

ADIT, NEW DELHI vs. GE JENBACHER GMBH & CO., GURGAON

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

ITA 754/DEL/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

275(1)(a) of the Act. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the initiation of penalty by way of issue of penalty notice under Section 274 of the Act without specifying whether the penalty is initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars

GENERAL ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEMS INC.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(3)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

ITA 693/DEL/2019[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

275(1)(a) of the Act. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the initiation of penalty by way of issue of penalty notice under Section 274 of the Act without specifying whether the penalty is initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars

GE JENBACHER GMBH & CO.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(3)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , NEW DELHI

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

ITA 756/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

275(1)(a) of the Act. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the initiation of penalty by way of issue of penalty notice under Section 274 of the Act without specifying whether the penalty is initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars

GE PACKAGED POWER INC.,GURGAON vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1(3)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

ITA 765/DEL/2019[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

275(1)(a) of the Act. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the initiation of penalty by way of issue of penalty notice under Section 274 of the Act without specifying whether the penalty is initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars

GE JENBACHER GMBH & CO. OHG,GURGAON vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

ITA 755/DEL/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

275(1)(a) of the Act. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the initiation of penalty by way of issue of penalty notice under Section 274 of the Act without specifying whether the penalty is initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars

GE PACKAGED POWER INC.,GURGAON vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1(3)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

ITA 758/DEL/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

275(1)(a) of the Act. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the initiation of penalty by way of issue of penalty notice under Section 274 of the Act without specifying whether the penalty is initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars

GE JENBACHER GMBH & CO. OHG,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(3)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , NEW DELHI

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

ITA 757/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

275(1)(a) of the Act. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the initiation of penalty by way of issue of penalty notice under Section 274 of the Act without specifying whether the penalty is initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars

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

u/s 271D and 271E and the issue before the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan was as to whether for the purpose of working out the limitation period for imposition of penalty under those two sections, the provisions of Section 275(1)(c) are applicable or the provisions of section 271

SMT. MANJEET KAUR SRAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 2641/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Ms. Ashisha Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Verma, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

275 CTR 291 (Delhi) where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held as follows: “Coming to the question of penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c), it was held in quantum proceedings that the assessee was wrong in not offering the whole or entire amount of the technical fee for tax in the year of receipt. But, it does not follow

SMT. MANJEET KAUR SRAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 2642/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Ms. Ashisha Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Verma, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

275 CTR 291 (Delhi) where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held as follows: “Coming to the question of penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c), it was held in quantum proceedings that the assessee was wrong in not offering the whole or entire amount of the technical fee for tax in the year of receipt. But, it does not follow

SMT. MANJEET KAUR SRAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 2640/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Ms. Ashisha Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Verma, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

275 CTR 291 (Delhi) where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held as follows: “Coming to the question of penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c), it was held in quantum proceedings that the assessee was wrong in not offering the whole or entire amount of the technical fee for tax in the year of receipt. But, it does not follow

SMT. MANJEET KAUR SRAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 2639/DEL/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Ms. Ashisha Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Verma, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

275 CTR 291 (Delhi) where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held as follows: “Coming to the question of penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c), it was held in quantum proceedings that the assessee was wrong in not offering the whole or entire amount of the technical fee for tax in the year of receipt. But, it does not follow

SMT. MANJEET KAUR SRAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 2643/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Ms. Ashisha Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Verma, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

275 CTR 291 (Delhi) where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held as follows: “Coming to the question of penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c), it was held in quantum proceedings that the assessee was wrong in not offering the whole or entire amount of the technical fee for tax in the year of receipt. But, it does not follow

JAYANTI DALMIA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3926/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar BindalFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)

275 (1) © of the act hence, they are not barred by limitation of time. 34. Lastly, the revenue has relied upon the decision of Mr. Sanjay Dalmia ITA No. 3795 to 3801/Del/2014 (Assessment Year: 2006- 07 to 2012-13 Sanjay Dalamia wherein in the course of same search, same alleged bank accounts the penalty under section 271