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.

1,694 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 40clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,694Mumbai1,513Ahmedabad437Jaipur373Bangalore322Hyderabad206Kolkata193Pune172Chennai170Indore163Raipur127Surat127Karnataka127Chandigarh101Rajkot81Amritsar74Visakhapatnam47Cochin44Allahabad43Lucknow42Nagpur37Calcutta36Cuttack18Patna16Ranchi16Dehradun16Kerala14Agra14Jabalpur12Panaji11Guwahati8SC6Jodhpur6Telangana4Varanasi4Rajasthan2Gauhati1

Key Topics

Addition to Income77Section 271(1)(c)54Section 143(3)50Penalty43Section 6833Section 153A33Disallowance21Section 27120Section 69A17

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) of the Act if the assesse fails to offer any explanation which is bonafide. Similar is the situation with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P.Madhusudanan vs CIT (2001) 251 ITR 99 (SC). 8.7 In the present case before us, the assesse has explanation which is supported by the documentary

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-2 , FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Showing 1–20 of 1,694 · Page 1 of 85

...
Section 153D14
Section 69C13
Transfer Pricing13
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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance. 5.3.4 In the case of DCIT v/s Shree Ram Electrocast (P) Ltd (20171 84 taxmann.com 63 (Kolkata-Trib), Hon'ble ITAT has held that merely because losses were not allowed to be set off against normal business income and was treated as speculative loss, it was only a change

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance. 5.3.4 In the case of DCIT v/s Shree Ram Electrocast (P) Ltd (20171 84 taxmann.com 63 (Kolkata-Trib), Hon'ble ITAT has held that merely because losses were not allowed to be set off against normal business income and was treated as speculative loss, it was only a change

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance. 5.3.4 In the case of DCIT v/s Shree Ram Electrocast (P) Ltd (20171 84 taxmann.com 63 (Kolkata-Trib), Hon'ble ITAT has held that merely because losses were not allowed to be set off against normal business income and was treated as speculative loss, it was only a change

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance. 5.3.4 In the case of DCIT v/s Shree Ram Electrocast (P) Ltd (20171 84 taxmann.com 63 (Kolkata-Trib), Hon'ble ITAT has held that merely because losses were not allowed to be set off against normal business income and was treated as speculative loss, it was only a change

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance. 5.3.4 In the case of DCIT v/s Shree Ram Electrocast (P) Ltd (20171 84 taxmann.com 63 (Kolkata-Trib), Hon'ble ITAT has held that merely because losses were not allowed to be set off against normal business income and was treated as speculative loss, it was only a change

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance. 5.3.4 In the case of DCIT v/s Shree Ram Electrocast (P) Ltd (20171 84 taxmann.com 63 (Kolkata-Trib), Hon'ble ITAT has held that merely because losses were not allowed to be set off against normal business income and was treated as speculative loss, it was only a change

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance. 5.3.4 In the case of DCIT v/s Shree Ram Electrocast (P) Ltd (20171 84 taxmann.com 63 (Kolkata-Trib), Hon'ble ITAT has held that merely because losses were not allowed to be set off against normal business income and was treated as speculative loss, it was only a change

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance. 5.3.4 In the case of DCIT v/s Shree Ram Electrocast (P) Ltd (20171 84 taxmann.com 63 (Kolkata-Trib), Hon'ble ITAT has held that merely because losses were not allowed to be set off against normal business income and was treated as speculative loss, it was only a change

SMT. SUMAN LAKHANI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the penalty amounting to Rs

ITA 857/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Madan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Janardan Das, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36

271(l)(c) of the Act on the addition made in the assessment order. Ld. CIT(A) partly confirmed the additions/ sustained in appeal. Ld. CIT(A), therefore, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee and cancelled the part penalty. The assessee is in appeal challenging the penalty order. The Revenue is in appeal challenging the deletion of penalty because

M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

ITA 3137/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Khare, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Chopra, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

40,000. In this manner, according to the appellant, all the 3 conditions provided in sub-section (2) of section 271 AAA were met in respect of Rs 8,00,000 as well. 8. The submissions of the appellant are considered. 8.1 The appellant has sought to claim that sub-section (1) of section 271AAA was not applicable

NIRALA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

ITA 3155/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Khare, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Chopra, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

40,000. In this manner, according to the appellant, all the 3 conditions provided in sub-section (2) of section 271 AAA were met in respect of Rs 8,00,000 as well. 8. The submissions of the appellant are considered. 8.1 The appellant has sought to claim that sub-section (1) of section 271AAA was not applicable

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

ITA 3531/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Khare, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Chopra, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

40,000. In this manner, according to the appellant, all the 3 conditions provided in sub-section (2) of section 271 AAA were met in respect of Rs 8,00,000 as well. 8. The submissions of the appellant are considered. 8.1 The appellant has sought to claim that sub-section (1) of section 271AAA was not applicable

M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

ITA 3135/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Khare, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Chopra, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

40,000. In this manner, according to the appellant, all the 3 conditions provided in sub-section (2) of section 271 AAA were met in respect of Rs 8,00,000 as well. 8. The submissions of the appellant are considered. 8.1 The appellant has sought to claim that sub-section (1) of section 271AAA was not applicable

M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

ITA 3136/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Khare, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Chopra, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

40,000. In this manner, according to the appellant, all the 3 conditions provided in sub-section (2) of section 271 AAA were met in respect of Rs 8,00,000 as well. 8. The submissions of the appellant are considered. 8.1 The appellant has sought to claim that sub-section (1) of section 271AAA was not applicable

HINDUSTAN COCA COLA MARKETING COMPANY PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-11(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal is partly allowed and the stay

ITA 7900/DEL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Aparna Karan, CIT(DR)
Section 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40Section 44A

271(1)(c) of IT Act. The penalty has been levied in respect of disallowances of Rs. 13,97,08,721/- and Rs. 15,07,658/- U/s 40A(i)(a) of IT Act, totaling Rs. 14,12,16,379/-. 3. Aggrieved, the Assessee filed appeal against the aforesaid order dated 23.03.2016, before the Ld. CIT(A). Vide order dated

SH. VISHAL SETHI,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 865/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhua.Y. : 2011-12 Vishal Sethi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, S/O Sh. Tilak Raj Sethi, Ward 58(1), 246, 1St Floor, New Layalpur, New Delhi Chander Nagar, Delhi – 110 051 (Pan: Askps5232L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Shahank Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 271BSection 274

40,00,000/- during survey. Thus, the appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. The facts of the case clearly reveal that the 12 appellant tried to evade payment of taxes by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, I hold that the AO was fully justified in levying the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The penalty

M/S. PADMINI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1002/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri K.N. Chary & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, FCA and Shri Somil Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

section 271(1)(c) has introduced a deeming provision which makes an assessee liable for penalty in respect of any amount which is added or disallowed, if the explanation offered by the assessee is either false or which he/it is not able to substantiate. In the present case, assessee was not able to substantiate its claim. Rather the fact

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

40,00,000/- during survey. Thus, the appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. The facts of the case clearly reveal that the appellant tried to evade payment of taxes by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, I hold that the AO was fully justified in levying the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The penalty levied

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

40,00,000/- during survey. Thus, the appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. The facts of the case clearly reveal that the appellant tried to evade payment of taxes by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, I hold that the AO was fully justified in levying the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The penalty levied