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.

1,769 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 35clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,769Mumbai1,464Ahmedabad439Jaipur386Bangalore351Kolkata222Indore217Chennai204Pune176Hyderabad160Chandigarh142Raipur139Karnataka130Surat116Rajkot78Amritsar50Lucknow49Visakhapatnam48Nagpur39Calcutta35Agra34Cuttack31Patna30Allahabad30Cochin18Guwahati17Kerala14Dehradun14Ranchi11Jodhpur11Panaji10SC9Jabalpur9Varanasi5Telangana4Rajasthan2

Key Topics

Addition to Income67Section 271(1)(c)66Section 143(3)47Section 153A47Penalty46Section 234E42Section 6820Section 69A19Section 13219

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

section 271(1)(c) what is required to be examined is the record which the officer imposing the penalty had before him and if that record can sustain the finding there had been concealment, that would be sufficient to sustain the penalty. It means that each case is to be seen from the independent fact of that case

INFRA ENGINEERS LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CC-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Showing 1–20 of 1,769 · Page 1 of 89

...
Disallowance17
Deduction16
Section 271(1)15
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

35. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. I.T.As No.2631/Del/2018 & 811, 812, 939, 940, 941, 942, 943/Del/2019 19 ITA No.812/Del/2019 Assessment Year 2012-13 36. As per its grounds of appeal, the Revenue has challenged the order of the CIT(A) towards deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act imposed on the assessee

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

35. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. I.T.As No.2631/Del/2018 & 811, 812, 939, 940, 941, 942, 943/Del/2019 19 ITA No.812/Del/2019 Assessment Year 2012-13 36. As per its grounds of appeal, the Revenue has challenged the order of the CIT(A) towards deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act imposed on the assessee

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

35. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. I.T.As No.2631/Del/2018 & 811, 812, 939, 940, 941, 942, 943/Del/2019 19 ITA No.812/Del/2019 Assessment Year 2012-13 36. As per its grounds of appeal, the Revenue has challenged the order of the CIT(A) towards deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act imposed on the assessee

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

35. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. I.T.As No.2631/Del/2018 & 811, 812, 939, 940, 941, 942, 943/Del/2019 19 ITA No.812/Del/2019 Assessment Year 2012-13 36. As per its grounds of appeal, the Revenue has challenged the order of the CIT(A) towards deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act imposed on the assessee

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

35. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. I.T.As No.2631/Del/2018 & 811, 812, 939, 940, 941, 942, 943/Del/2019 19 ITA No.812/Del/2019 Assessment Year 2012-13 36. As per its grounds of appeal, the Revenue has challenged the order of the CIT(A) towards deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act imposed on the assessee

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

35. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. I.T.As No.2631/Del/2018 & 811, 812, 939, 940, 941, 942, 943/Del/2019 19 ITA No.812/Del/2019 Assessment Year 2012-13 36. As per its grounds of appeal, the Revenue has challenged the order of the CIT(A) towards deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act imposed on the assessee

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

35. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. I.T.As No.2631/Del/2018 & 811, 812, 939, 940, 941, 942, 943/Del/2019 19 ITA No.812/Del/2019 Assessment Year 2012-13 36. As per its grounds of appeal, the Revenue has challenged the order of the CIT(A) towards deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act imposed on the assessee

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

35. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. I.T.As No.2631/Del/2018 & 811, 812, 939, 940, 941, 942, 943/Del/2019 19 ITA No.812/Del/2019 Assessment Year 2012-13 36. As per its grounds of appeal, the Revenue has challenged the order of the CIT(A) towards deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act imposed on the assessee

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

35 filed by the Appellant before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the Appellant had challenged the action of the Ld. AO in levying penalty @300% (of INR 28,93,600) of the amount of tax sought to be evaded in computation of tax, while in the impugned order itself, the Ld. AO stated to levy penalty

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

35 filed by the Appellant before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the Appellant had challenged the action of the Ld. AO in levying penalty @300% (of INR 28,93,600) of the amount of tax sought to be evaded in computation of tax, while in the impugned order itself, the Ld. AO stated to levy penalty

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

35 filed by the Appellant before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the Appellant had challenged the action of the Ld. AO in levying penalty @300% (of INR 28,93,600) of the amount of tax sought to be evaded in computation of tax, while in the impugned order itself, the Ld. AO stated to levy penalty

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

35 filed by the Appellant before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the Appellant had challenged the action of the Ld. AO in levying penalty @300% (of INR 28,93,600) of the amount of tax sought to be evaded in computation of tax, while in the impugned order itself, the Ld. AO stated to levy penalty

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

35 filed by the Appellant before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the Appellant had challenged the action of the Ld. AO in levying penalty @300% (of INR 28,93,600) of the amount of tax sought to be evaded in computation of tax, while in the impugned order itself, the Ld. AO stated to levy penalty

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

35 filed by the Appellant before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the Appellant had challenged the action of the Ld. AO in levying penalty @300% (of INR 28,93,600) of the amount of tax sought to be evaded in computation of tax, while in the impugned order itself, the Ld. AO stated to levy penalty

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

35 filed by the Appellant before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the Appellant had challenged the action of the Ld. AO in levying penalty @300% (of INR 28,93,600) of the amount of tax sought to be evaded in computation of tax, while in the impugned order itself, the Ld. AO stated to levy penalty

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

35 filed by the Appellant before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the Appellant had challenged the action of the Ld. AO in levying penalty @300% (of INR 28,93,600) of the amount of tax sought to be evaded in computation of tax, while in the impugned order itself, the Ld. AO stated to levy penalty

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

u/s 271(1)(c). 2. It is contended that the Appellant Board had neither concealed nor furnished any inaccurate particular so as to attract provisions of section 271(l)(c) of the IT Act. hence the impugned penalty order is wrong and bad in law. 3. It is contended that the claim of benefit of weighted deduction under section 35

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

u/s 271(1)(c). 2. It is contended that the Appellant Board had neither concealed nor furnished any inaccurate particular so as to attract provisions of section 271(l)(c) of the IT Act. hence the impugned penalty order is wrong and bad in law. 3. It is contended that the claim of benefit of weighted deduction under section 35

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

u/s 271(1)(c). 2. It is contended that the Appellant Board had neither concealed nor furnished any inaccurate particular so as to attract provisions of section 271(l)(c) of the IT Act. hence the impugned penalty order is wrong and bad in law. 3. It is contended that the claim of benefit of weighted deduction under section 35