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.

15 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 27lclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi15Bangalore9Mumbai5Chandigarh2Raipur2Kolkata1Patna1Rajkot1

Key Topics

Section 275(1)(c)26Section 143(3)16Section 271D16Section 271E16Penalty15Addition to Income12Section 27l10Section 269S10Limitation/Time-bar10

MAX LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1138/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Max Life Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Acit, Plot No.90A, Sector-18, Udyog Vihar, Circle-1, Ltu, Gurgaon, Haryana-122018. New Delhi. Pan-Aaccm3201E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Himanshu Sinha, Adv. & Shri Bhuvan Dhoopar, Adv. Respondent By Shri Jeetender Chand, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 18.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.10.2022 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-22, New Delhi, Dated 29.11.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. “That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Upholding Penalty Levied By The Ao Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Without Considering The Material Available On Record. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)/Ao Has Failed To Appreciate That The Penalty Proceedings Are Separate & Distinct From Assessment Proceedings & Mere Disallowance Of A Claim Made By The Appellant Does Not Automatically Lead To Imposition Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C). 3. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)/Ao Has Failed To Appreciate That The Issue Involved In Appellant’S Case Is Purely A Legal Issue To Be Decided On Interpretation Of The Provisions Of The Act & Merely Because Ld. Ao Adopts A View

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

27l(1)(c) do not exist as such he is not liable to pay penalty. The practice of the Department sending a printed form where all the grounds mentioned in section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy the requirement of law when the consequences of the assessee not rebutting the initial presumption is serious in nature

Section 274(2)8
Section 271(1)(c)7
TDS3

SANJEEV JAI NARAIN AEREN,DELHI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee arising out of penalty u/s 271D for AYs 2015-16 & 2018-19 are allowed

ITA 2922/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajeshwar Prasad Painuly, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 274(2)Section 275(1)(c)Section 27l

penalty proceedings u/s, 271(1)(c) for concealment of income & 27l(1)(b) for non-compliance of statutory notices, & 271 D for violating the provisions of Section

SANJEEV JAI NARAIN AEREN,DELHI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL RANGE-4,, DELHI

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee arising out of penalty u/s 271D for AYs 2015-16 & 2018-19 are allowed

ITA 2920/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajeshwar Prasad Painuly, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 274(2)Section 275(1)(c)Section 27l

penalty proceedings u/s, 271(1)(c) for concealment of income & 27l(1)(b) for non-compliance of statutory notices, & 271 D for violating the provisions of Section

SANJEEV JAI NARAIN AEREN,DELHI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL RANGE-4, DELHI

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee arising out of penalty u/s 271D for AYs 2015-16 & 2018-19 are allowed

ITA 2921/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajeshwar Prasad Painuly, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 274(2)Section 275(1)(c)Section 27l

penalty proceedings u/s, 271(1)(c) for concealment of income & 27l(1)(b) for non-compliance of statutory notices, & 271 D for violating the provisions of Section

SANJEEV JAI NARAIN AEREN,DELHI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL RANGE-4, DELHI

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee arising out of penalty u/s 271D for AYs 2015-16 & 2018-19 are allowed

ITA 2923/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajeshwar Prasad Painuly, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 274(2)Section 275(1)(c)Section 27l

penalty proceedings u/s, 271(1)(c) for concealment of income & 27l(1)(b) for non-compliance of statutory notices, & 271 D for violating the provisions of Section

SANJEEV JAI NARAIN AEREN,DELHI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL RANGE-4,, DELHI

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee arising out of penalty u/s 271D for AYs 2015-16 & 2018-19 are allowed

ITA 2924/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajeshwar Prasad Painuly, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 274(2)Section 275(1)(c)Section 27l

penalty proceedings u/s, 271(1)(c) for concealment of income & 27l(1)(b) for non-compliance of statutory notices, & 271 D for violating the provisions of Section

SANJEEV JAI NARAIN AEREN,DELHI vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE - 04,, DELHI

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee arising out of penalty u/s 271D for AYs 2015-16 & 2018-19 are allowed

ITA 2925/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajeshwar Prasad Painuly, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 274(2)Section 275(1)(c)Section 27l

penalty proceedings u/s, 271(1)(c) for concealment of income & 27l(1)(b) for non-compliance of statutory notices, & 271 D for violating the provisions of Section

SANJEEV JAI NARAIN AEREN,DELHI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE-4,, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee arising out of penalty u/s 271D for AYs 2015-16 & 2018-19 are allowed

ITA 2926/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajeshwar Prasad Painuly, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 274(2)Section 275(1)(c)Section 27l

penalty proceedings u/s, 271(1)(c) for concealment of income & 27l(1)(b) for non-compliance of statutory notices, & 271 D for violating the provisions of Section

SANJEEV JAI NARAIN AEREN,DELHI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL RANGE-4,, DELHI

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee arising out of penalty u/s 271D for AYs 2015-16 & 2018-19 are allowed

ITA 2919/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajeshwar Prasad Painuly, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 274(2)Section 275(1)(c)Section 27l

penalty proceedings u/s, 271(1)(c) for concealment of income & 27l(1)(b) for non-compliance of statutory notices, & 271 D for violating the provisions of Section

CENTRAL NEWS AGENCY PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-5(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, this appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 1684/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing & All The Above Grounds Are Without Prejudice To Each Other.”

Section 143(3)Section 156Section 234ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 27l

section 27l(l)(c) of the Act by furnishing inaccurate particulars of its income, for which penalty proceedings u/s 271

PARAMOUNT VILLAS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, RANGE-76, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3446/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshparamount Villas Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Jcit, 208, Second Floor, Sikkha Range-76, Mansion Lsc, Savita New Delhi Vihar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aagcm6447E

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 272(2)(g)Section 272A(2)(g)Section 275(1)

penalty proceedings u/s, 271(1)(c) for concealment of income & 27l(1)(b) for non-compliance of statutory notices, & 271 D for violating the provisions of Section

RIVET ELECTRICALS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), FARIDABAD

Appeal are allowed

ITA 775/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). Delhi. The Ld. CIT (A)/(NFAC) confirmed the penalty order u/s. 271(1 )(b) of IT Act, 1961 in respect of the penalty levied by the National Faceless Assessment Centre on account of non-compliance of notice dated 06.08.2021 issued u/s

SUNIL DANDRAYAL,DEHRADUN vs. JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE, MEERUT

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 8069/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 246Section 246ASection 253Section 263Section 264Section 269SSection 271DSection 275(1)

penalty proceedings u/s, 271(1)(c) for concealment of income & 27l(1)(b) for non-compliance of statutory notices, & 271 D for violating the provisions of Section

SUNIL DANDRIYAL,DEHRADUN vs. JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE, MEERUT

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 8070/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 246Section 246ASection 253Section 263Section 264Section 269SSection 271DSection 275(1)

penalty proceedings u/s, 271(1)(c) for concealment of income & 27l(1)(b) for non-compliance of statutory notices, & 271 D for violating the provisions of Section

GREAT VALUE INFRA PROMOTERS PVT. LTD.,MEERUT vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MEERUT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed, for statistical purposes

ITA 2782/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yayhaa N D Shri Anubhav Sharmaआ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No.2782/Del/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Great Value Infra Promoters Dcit, Pvt. Ltd., बनाम C/O. Ravindra Agarwal & Co.,Cas. Central Circle, Vs. 53 – Naval Vihar, Baghpat Road, Meerut – 250 002 [U.P.] Meerut. Pan No. Aadcg4364R अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Tufail Tahir, Sr. D. R
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 27l

Section 271(1)(c ) of the Act was also levied amounting to Rs.1,65,74,706/-. Assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT (Appeals). Grounds raised by the assessee and noted by the ld. CIT (Appeals) read as under:- “1. That the order under appeal is illegal and unlawful and the impugned penalty imposed vide order under appeal is unjust