Search: penalty u/s 271 | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

101 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 50Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai109 Delhi101 Jaipur44 Ahmedabad39 Pune19 Surat12 Chennai12 Indore11 Hyderabad10 Lucknow10 Agra9 Bangalore8 Dehradun7 Kolkata7 Visakhapatnam6 Rajkot5 Chandigarh4 Ranchi3 Nagpur3 Allahabad3 Raipur2 Jodhpur2 Amritsar2 Patna1 Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)85 Section 50C78 Addition to Income62 Penalty38 Section 143(3)27 Section 27123 Section 14821 Section 5418 Section 153A17 Disallowance

SHYAM SUNDER KANSAL,U.P vs. WARD 2(3)(2), U.P

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 139/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 50C

penalty under section 271(1)(c ) from 287.5% to 100% imposed . Original addition was made in the assessment u/s 143(3) under section 50C

KISSAN ENGINEERING WORKS PVT. LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, GHAZIABAD

ITA 6983/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi

Showing 1–20 of 101 · Page 1 of 6

17

Long Term Capital Gains16

09 Jul 2021

AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Farhat Khan, Senior DR

Section 143Section 2Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 50C

u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act in respect of addition on account of surrender of additional income. The penalty for concealment so confirmed by Ld. CIT (A) on this count is unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law.” 2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are : On the basis of assessment framed under section

SHAILENDRA ,MEERUT vs. ITO, WARD- 2(3), MEERUT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6100/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2009-10] Shailendra, Vs Ito, C/O-Vinod Kumar Goel, 282, Ward-2(3), Boundary Road, Civil Lines, Meerut. Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. Pan-Cavps9753D Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Ms. Maimun Alam, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.02.2023

Section 144Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act after obtaining approval of Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range - 2, Meerut, vide F.No. Addl.CIT-MRT/Range-II/Penalty Approval/2017-18/283 dated 19-12-2017. CIT- Finding: In this case, the A.O. has imposed penalty of Rs. 2,84,382/-• since the assessee had, in the opinion of the A.O. concealed particulars of income amounting

JAGAT SINGH,NOIDA vs. ITO, NOIDA

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

ITA 5851/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: SH. C.S. ANAND, ADVFor Respondent: SH. RAKESH KUMAR, SR. DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 23(4)Section 27Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

50C was Rs. 37,96,000/- and the capital gains on transfer of capital asset chargeable to tax was having escaped assessment, the proceedings u/s. 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 were initiated vide notice issued u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 31.3.2014. No return of income was furnished in response to notice u/s

JAGAT SINGH,NOIDA vs. ITO, NOIDA

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

ITA 5852/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: SH. C.S. ANAND, ADVFor Respondent: SH. RAKESH KUMAR, SR. DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 23(4)Section 27Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

50C was Rs. 37,96,000/- and the capital gains on transfer of capital asset chargeable to tax was having escaped assessment, the proceedings u/s. 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 were initiated vide notice issued u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 31.3.2014. No return of income was furnished in response to notice u/s

M/S. DELHI SURGICAL & DRESSING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA No.5058/Del/2016 is allowed and ITA No

ITA 5059/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 50C

penalty of Rs.3,78,030/- levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the AO, in the order passed u/s 147/143(3) dated 10th October, 2013, made an addition of Rs.13,23,400/- by invoking the provisions of section 50C

SMT. RAJESHWARI DEVI,UTTAR PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SHAMLI

In the result, impugned order is quashed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1221/DEL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav SachdevaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

50C of the Act. There is no finding by the Assessing Officer (AO) that the actual sales consideration received by the assessee is at variance with 2 the sale consideration declared by the assessee in the return of income. Since, the addition has been made by AO invoking deeming section, penalty u/s. 271

BABITA KHURANA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 4707/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 274Section 50C

50C was attracted in this case. Therefore, assessee filed revised return of income under section 153A declaring short term capital gain of Rs.8,75,000/- and has shown total income of Rs.14,19,730/-. The assessing officer accepted the return of income. However, the assessing officer mentioned in the assessment order “penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) is initiated

M/S RAJSHREE STEELS PVT. LTD.,,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed, accordingly

ITA 1976/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg:Asstt. Yr: 2007-08 M/S Rajshree Steels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income-Tax Officer, (Now Known As Rajshree Infratech Ward-15(2), New Delhi. (P) Ltd.), 17, Meera Tower (First Floor) Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi-110052. Pan: Aaacr 4386 D ( Appellant ) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Adhir K. Samal Ca Respondent By : Ms. Kesong Y. Sherpa Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05/05/2016. Date Of Order : 10/05/2016. O R D E R Per S.V. Mehrotra, A.M:

For Appellant: Shri Adhir K. Samal CAFor Respondent: Ms. Kesong Y. Sherpa Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 68

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty so sustained by the Ld CIT (A) is bad in law and may please be deleted. 2. That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law while confirming the levy & imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in respect of addition of Rs. 43,75,000/- made u/s

SANDEEP HOODA,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT - 7, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 30

ITA 397/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharmasandeep Hooda, Vs. Pr. Cit-7, C/O. Rra Taxindia, D-28, South New Delhi Extension, Part-I, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aacph5453J

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 27Section 48Section 50Section 500(1)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 50c(2)

penalty proceedings u/s 271. 15. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corpn. of India Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 688/[1990] 53 Taxman 85 held as under:- "5. In CIT v Kanpur Coal Syndicate, a three Judge bench of this Court discussed the scope of section 31(3)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 which

ARUN KUMAR AGARWAL,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4741/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: SH. RAJAT JAIN, CA &For Respondent: SH. RAKESH KUMAR, SR. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 49Section 50C

271(1)(c) imposed on the addition / surrender made merely by virtue of deeming provisions of section 50C without appreciating the law that the deeming provisions of section 50C does not ipso facto attract the penalty u/s

ANIL KUMAR AGARWAL,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4740/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: SH. RAJAT JAIN, CA &For Respondent: SH. RAKESH KUMAR, SR. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 49Section 50C

271(1)(c) imposed on the addition / surrender made merely by virtue of deeming provisions of section 50C without appreciating the law that the deeming provisions of section 50C does not ipso facto attract the penalty u/s

SH. RAVI DUTT SHARMA,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5300/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiravi Dutt Sharma, Ito, C/O. L. M. Agarwal & Co., Ward-2(2), Vs. Chartered Accountant, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad Pan:Acqps6788M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. K. K. Jaiswal, DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the act. 4. Before us ld AR submitted that claim of the exemption of agricultural land u/s 2(14)(iii) and claim of deduction of interest are rejected and further, sales value has been adopted as per circle rate by invoking section 50C

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI vs. DIVINE IFRACON PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 9201/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Md. Gayasuddin Ansari

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 43C

Section 50C on the basis of deemed sale consideration being higher than the sale value, in the absence of any iota of evidence that assessee has received more amount than that shown by it, penalty u/s 271

SIGMA PARADISE,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, WARD 2(2)(1), GHAZIABAD

The appeal is allowed

ITA 823/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2013-14 Sigma Paradise, Vs Dcit, Km-78, Kavi Nagar, Ward 2(2)(1), Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh – 201 002. Pan:Aazfs9643L (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, Ca; & Shri Gagan R. Khandelwal & Shri Jaind Kumar Jaiswal, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, CA; &For Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 4Section 50CSection 6

u/s. 148 of the Act dated 25.03.2021 was issued and response filed by the assessee as reproduced by AO is reproduced below; “1. The land (sold Property) was gone under compulsory Provisions of Section 50C of the Act as state Government initiated acquisition proceedings on 16.10.2004 under section 4/17 of land acquisition Act 1894 vide extraordinary gazette No 2679/9-A-3-2004-90

SH. RAJESH KAKKAR,KARNAL vs. PR. CIT, KARNAL

The appeal is allowed

ITA 823/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2013-14 Sigma Paradise, Vs Dcit, Km-78, Kavi Nagar, Ward 2(2)(1), Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh – 201 002. Pan:Aazfs9643L (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, Ca; & Shri Gagan R. Khandelwal & Shri Jaind Kumar Jaiswal, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, CA; &For Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 4Section 50CSection 6

u/s. 148 of the Act dated 25.03.2021 was issued and response filed by the assessee as reproduced by AO is reproduced below; “1. The land (sold Property) was gone under compulsory Provisions of Section 50C of the Act as state Government initiated acquisition proceedings on 16.10.2004 under section 4/17 of land acquisition Act 1894 vide extraordinary gazette No 2679/9-A-3-2004-90

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JHANDEWALAN, DELHI vs. TANYA JAISWAL, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2148/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Anand, Sr. DR

Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 271ASection 50CSection 69C

271 AAB of the Act of amounting to Rs.1,64,03,339/-. 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, tile Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in ignoring the facts that the penalty u/s 271AAB of amounting to Rs. 1,64,03,339/- levying on based on incriminating material found during the course

MANJEET SINGH BALI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 5384/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Manjeet Singh Bali, Vs Ito, C/O-Ravi Kumar & Co., Cas, Ward-1(4), House No.64, Sector-9, Ghaziabad. Ghaziabad-201001. Pan-Acepb5753B Appellant Respondent Appellant By S/Shri Gagan Kumar & Vivek Kumar, Advocate Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 11.05.2022

Section 234ASection 234BSection 271Section 50CSection 50C(2)

Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for considering the value assessed by stamp duty authority as deemed consideration for computation of capital gain on sale of property are subjective to the facts and merits of the case. That the Assessing Authority could have referred the matter to the valuation officer u/s 50C(2) of the Income

ACIT, MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. SH. TEJ PAL SINGH, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, the quantum appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 4628/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: None (written submissions)For Respondent: Shri Umesh Chander Dubey, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called `the Act’). 2. The first issue raised by the Revenue in its appeal is against the deletion of addition of Rs.1,82,34,261/- made by the AO by invoking the provisions of section 50C

SH. TEJ PAL SINGH,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. ACIT, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, the quantum appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 293/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: None (written submissions)For Respondent: Shri Umesh Chander Dubey, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called `the Act’). 2. The first issue raised by the Revenue in its appeal is against the deletion of addition of Rs.1,82,34,261/- made by the AO by invoking the provisions of section 50C