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.

3 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 54Eclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai23Pune6Agra5Delhi3Jaipur2Indore2Patna1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)8Section 115J5Section 14A4Section 143(3)3Section 453Penalty3Section 402Long Term Capital Gains2Deduction2Disallowance2Addition to Income2Capital Gains2

M/S. SHOURIE DUPLICATORS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1871/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Shourie Duplicators Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Pvt. Ltd., 16A, Palam Marg, 8(2), New Delhi F-1, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi Gir/Pan :Aaacs0541B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. K.V.S.R. Krishna, Advocate Respondent By Smt. Anima Barnwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.06.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19/12/2011 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xi, New Delhi For Assessment Year 2006-07. In The Impugned Order, Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Has Sustained The Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act By The Assessing Officer. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Hrave Deleted The Penalty Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of Rs.28,46,000/- As There Is No Concealment Of Income Or Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Income. 2. The Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate That The Appellant Has Disclosed The Complete Transaction In The Audited

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 45
Section 54D
Section 54E

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record including the paper book filed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer as well as the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has held that there appeared to be deliberate attempt on the part of the assessee to conceal

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ONKARESHWAR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 6049/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Paramita M. Biswas, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 40

271(1)(c) of I.T. Act, and allowed the appeal of the assessee. The present appeal before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“ITAT”, for short) has been filed by Revenue against the aforesaid order dated 26.09.2016 wherein Ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty. At the time of hearing before us, the learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”, for short) for assessee submitted

M/S RATNA COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 280/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 45

271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. In appeal, learned CIT(A) deleted the penalty in relation to the addition made on account of the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. Learned CIT(A), however, sustained the penalty on account of inclusion of capital gain on sale of shares of Dabur Pharma in the profit and loss account