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 50C(1)clear

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

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

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

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

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

u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act by observing that as per Explanation-1 of Section 271(1) of the Act the assessee has failed to offer any explanation vide his order dated 29.9.2015. Aggrieved by order of the AO, the Assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 15.9.2016 has upheld

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

u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act by observing that as per Explanation-1 of Section 271(1) of the Act the assessee has failed to offer any explanation vide his order dated 29.9.2015. Aggrieved by order of the AO, the Assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 15.9.2016 has upheld

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(1

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

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

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

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

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

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(1

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

PRADEEP WIG,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-5, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 406/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

271 (SC), it was held that where there is failure or inability of authorities to frame a regular assessment after earlier assessment is set aside or nullified, tax deposited by an assessee by way of advance tax or self-assessment tax, or tax deducted at source is not liable to be refunded to assessee, since its retention by revenue would

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

VIKAS SINGHAL,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD 35(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1480/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Vikas Singhal, Vs Ito, B-2323, 2Nd Floor, Dsidc Indl.Area, Ward-35(5), Narela, New Delhi-110040. New Delhi. Pan-Fcsps5487J Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Gaurav Pahuja, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10.10.2023

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

271(1)(c) of the Act by AO ignoring the show cause reply as well as the bona-fide disclosure made by the assessee. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in holding that the assessee did not seek protection under Section 50C

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI NAVNEET GUPTA, DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 445/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: None PresentFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) by ignoring the fact that the assessee should have offered the income under the provisions of section 50C of the I.T. Act, 1961. 1 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) erred in observing in para 3.4 of his order that no penalty

DCM SHRIIRAM LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 3 , NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7362/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, C. A.; &For Respondent: Shri Surendra Pal [CIT] – DR

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 92C

271 (1) © of the act. Assessee cannot be aggrieved with the above ground that it is merely an initiation of the penalty proceedings and the assessee would be given a proper opportunity for raising all its contention before the penalty is levied. In view of this ground number 1 and 7 of the appeal of the assessee are dismissed