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.

101 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 50C(5)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi101Mumbai97Jaipur43Ahmedabad38Pune19Surat12Chennai12Indore11Hyderabad10Lucknow10Agra9Dehradun7Kolkata7Bangalore7Visakhapatnam6Rajkot5Chandigarh4Ranchi3Nagpur3Allahabad3Raipur2Jodhpur2Amritsar2Patna1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)85Section 50C78Addition to Income62Penalty38Section 143(3)27Section 27123Section 14821Section 5418Section 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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are not satisfied in that event no penalty would be leviable. 9. In the case in hand the Assessing Officer levied penalty, firstly, on the addition made by taking sale consideration on the basis of value prescribed under 10 Shyam Sunder Kansal Vs. ITO the Stamp Valuation Act by invoking the provisions

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

Showing 1–20 of 101 · Page 1 of 6

Disallowance17
Section 14716
Long Term Capital Gains16
ITA 6983/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: Disposed
ITAT Delhi
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

5. Aggrieved against the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before this Tribunal. 6. The assessee has made following written submissions:- PAN: CAVPS9753D Reg.: Sh. Shailendra Vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Village & Post - Chindauri Khas, Meerut Meerut Ref: Appeal in ITA No. 61 00lOell2018 for the A.Y. 2009-10 against the penalty order U/s 271

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

5. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(b) is liable to be deleted, because no specific date of non compliance was mentioned. 6. That on the facts o f the case and under the law, the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(b) is liable to be deleted, because

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

5. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(b) is liable to be deleted, because no specific date of non compliance was mentioned. 6. That on the facts o f the case and under the law, the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(b) is liable to be deleted, because

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

section 50C of the IT Act. In appeal, the ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs.13,23,400/- made by the AO. Subsequently, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) and levied penalty of Rs.3,78,030/- being 100% of tax sought to be evaded. In appeal, the ld.CIT(A) confirmed the penalty so levied. 5

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

5. Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. The AO has initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of addition made by AO invoking provisions of section 50C

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

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

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

5. Ld. DR relied on the orders of lower revenue authorities. 6. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that in quantum appeal the ITAT has deleted the addition of Rs. 43,75,000/-, made on account of undisclosed consideration of properties (land), inter alia, holding that provisions of section 50C were

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

50C does not ipso facto attract the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case the ld. CIT(A)_ has erred in law in upholding penalty under section 271(1)(c) on the amount of Rs. 41,087/- inadvertently claimed by the appellant on account of free hold expenses

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

50C does not ipso facto attract the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case the ld. CIT(A)_ has erred in law in upholding penalty under section 271(1)(c) on the amount of Rs. 41,087/- inadvertently claimed by the appellant on account of free hold expenses

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 of the Act. In all three adjustments, full facts were disclosed

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has been passed by imposing penalty of Rs. 57,38,358/-. 4 AND C.O. No. 5/Del/2020 DCIT Vs. Divine Infracon Pvt. Ltd.,ND 4. Aggrieved by the penalty order dated 30/11/2018, the assessee has preferred an Appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) vide order dated 31/10/2019 allowed the Appeal filed

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

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

5 of 55 5.4 The Ld. DRP has erred in observing that reference to valuation officer at the fag end of the limitation was not possible. 5.5 It is prayed before Hon’ble ITAT that addition u/s 50C of the Act made by the Ld AO may kindly be deleted. Addition to Books profits u/s 115JB

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

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

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)

5. Because the Counsel for the reason of his old age on a gesture though to the addition and computation u/s 50C but subject to the assurance that interest and penalty shall not be levied. However, in the assessment order itself interest u/s 234A amounting to Rs.7,026/- and u/s 234B Rs.96,022/- totaling