BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

409 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 70clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai451Delhi409Jaipur127Raipur108Ahmedabad89Bangalore87Hyderabad84Chennai71Indore63Chandigarh59Kolkata43Rajkot41Allahabad29Pune29Surat24Amritsar15Nagpur15Cuttack14Visakhapatnam13Guwahati9Lucknow9Patna8Jodhpur6Ranchi4Panaji3Dehradun2Jabalpur1Cochin1Agra1

Key Topics

Addition to Income60Penalty47Section 153A44Section 143(3)43Section 271(1)(c)34Section 6828Section 27121Section 14821Section 14721

AMIT BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3664/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

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

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 153C, assessee disclosed substantially higher income adding other sources, i.e. rent from house property and income from other sources. It was held that conduct of assessees in filing returns without full particulars fell within mischief of section 271(1)(c) and they would also not Amit Bansal and Suresh Chand Bansal vs. ACIT be entitled to claim benefit

SURESH CHAND BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16 , DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Showing 1–20 of 409 · Page 1 of 21

...
Section 143(2)17
Transfer Pricing16
Natural Justice15
ITA 3666/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed
ITAT Delhi
26 Jun 2024
AY 2014-15

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

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 153C, assessee disclosed substantially higher income adding other sources, i.e. rent from house property and income from other sources. It was held that conduct of assessees in filing returns without full particulars fell within mischief of section 271(1)(c) and they would also not Amit Bansal and Suresh Chand Bansal vs. ACIT be entitled to claim benefit

AMIT BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3665/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

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

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 153C, assessee disclosed substantially higher income adding other sources, i.e. rent from house property and income from other sources. It was held that conduct of assessees in filing returns without full particulars fell within mischief of section 271(1)(c) and they would also not Amit Bansal and Suresh Chand Bansal vs. ACIT be entitled to claim benefit

BRIJ GOPAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4800/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 1Section 143Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(2)(a)

u/s 270A of the Act are highly vague in as much as they do not state as to which clause of section 270A(2) of the Act, appellant is alleged to have under-reported income. Infact, even the amount of alleged under-reporting of income has neither been specified and, nor determined in the notice. Also, in the alternative, section

UNITECH REALITY PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-27(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2911/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.2911/Del/2019, A.Y. 2015-16 M/S. Unitech Realty Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Basement , 6, Circle - 27(1), Community Centre, Saket New Delhi Delhi-110017 New Delhi Pan : Aaacr4290E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

70,258 us/ 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the order passed by the Ld. AO levying penalty is bad in alw and liable to be set aside as the notice issued under section 271(1)(c) was ambiguous as it did nto specify the offence alleged to be committed

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

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 3217/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

70,590/- and Rs.11,96,610/- respectively, for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2011-12. Subsequently, a search and seizure operation was conducted on the Assessee on 09.10.2013. In pursuance to the search and seizure operation, proceedings u/s. 153A were initiated against the Assessee. In response to the notices issued u/s. 153A of the Income Tax Act, the Assessee

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

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 3218/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

70,590/- and Rs.11,96,610/- respectively, for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2011-12. Subsequently, a search and seizure operation was conducted on the Assessee on 09.10.2013. In pursuance to the search and seizure operation, proceedings u/s. 153A were initiated against the Assessee. In response to the notices issued u/s. 153A of the Income Tax Act, the Assessee

TAPI JWIL JV,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-62(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6722/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6722/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 4873/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Tapi Jwil Jv, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O C. S. Anand, Adv., Ward-62(4), 104, Pankaj Tower, 10, L.S.C. New Delhi Savita Vihar, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadat3744J Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Anand, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

For Appellant: Sh. C. S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, CIT-DR
Section 271GSection 40A(2)(b)Section 928BSection 92D

u/s 271G: 11. Facts of the case are as under: The assessee M/s TAPI Prestressed Products Ltd. ('TPPL') and M/s JITF Water Infrastructure Ltd. ('JWIL') had entered into an 7 Tapi JWIL JV agreement to form a Joint Venture (JV) with the specific purpose of bidding for construction of 318 MLD 70 MGD Sewage Pumping Station etc. on design, build

TAPI JWIL JV,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-62(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4873/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6722/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 4873/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Tapi Jwil Jv, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O C. S. Anand, Adv., Ward-62(4), 104, Pankaj Tower, 10, L.S.C. New Delhi Savita Vihar, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadat3744J Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Anand, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

For Appellant: Sh. C. S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, CIT-DR
Section 271GSection 40A(2)(b)Section 928BSection 92D

u/s 271G: 11. Facts of the case are as under: The assessee M/s TAPI Prestressed Products Ltd. ('TPPL') and M/s JITF Water Infrastructure Ltd. ('JWIL') had entered into an 7 Tapi JWIL JV agreement to form a Joint Venture (JV) with the specific purpose of bidding for construction of 318 MLD 70 MGD Sewage Pumping Station etc. on design, build

MR. NIKHIL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1249/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarmr. Nikhil Sawhney, Vs. Dcit, 17, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, New Delhi-11003 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaups0222Q

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur hansra, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

penalty u/s 271 (1) ( c) of the income tax act , but dealing with the controversy and also referring to the decision of the coordinate bench referred to above , in Asia Pacific Performance SICAV (supra) held as under :— We shall first discuss the assessee's explanation on the merits. The issue, as would be apparent from the foregoing, is the validity

ACIT CIRCLE-12(1), NEW DELHI vs. INDIAN DRUGS & PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, GURGAON

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 497/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act against which the assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who deleted the penalty. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have perused the Ld. AO’s order of penalty and the appellate order of the Ld. CIT(A) and proceeded to decide the appeal taking into

MAWANA SUGARS LIMITED.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA

ITA 4519/DEL/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2001-02

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

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT DR
Section 43B

70 of the paper book which is the submissions made by the assessee before AO and he brought to our notice the details of agreements entered by the assessee with ITC, he brought to our notice preamble to the agreement. Finally, he brought to our notice the relevant clause, which says now, when the agreement of sale and purchase

DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAWANA SUGAR LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA

ITA 3498/DEL/2013[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2001-02

Bench: him in the Memorandum of Appeal. 4.1 That on facts and in law the AO erred in ado tin the figure of Taxable Capital Gains at Rs.6,98,80,603/- instead of Rs.6,90,79,603/-.

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT DR
Section 43B

70 of the paper book which is the submissions made by the assessee before AO and he brought to our notice the details of agreements entered by the assessee with ITC, he brought to our notice preamble to the agreement. Finally, he brought to our notice the relevant clause, which says now, when the agreement of sale and purchase

UMANATH FINVEST PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-27(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2988/DEL/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek K. Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

70,68,600/- under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That the levy of penalty confirmed by the Ld CIT (A)-28, New Delhi u/s

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GURUGRAM vs. PLATINUM TOWERS P.LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1307/DEL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 269SSection 271D

70,67,358/- Since, the cash is spent out of available cash in hand generated out of additional income offered for tax, which has been duly recorded in Cash Flow statement submitted at page No. 27-30 of SOF, and the cash expenses so incurred have not been claimed as expenses in computing additional income offered before Hon'ble Bench

ACIT, CIRCLE- 21(2), NEW DELHI vs. ROCKWELL AUTOMATION INDIA PVT. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 712/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Acit, Vs Rockwell Automation India Circle-21(2), Pvt. Ltd., 131, Functional New Delhi. Industrial Area, Patparganj, East Delhi, New Delhi-11091. Pan-Aaccr3791A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ravi Sharma, Adv. & Ms. Shruti & Ms. Saloni, Ar Respondent By Shri Toufel Tahir, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 27.07.2022

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

70,00,00/- was made on account of provision for interest on excise duty thereby, the AO assessed the total income at Rs.50,22,92,319/-. The AO also initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thereafter, vide order dated 18.03.2019, the AO imposed penalty of Rs.56,47,400/- u/s 271

PUSHPA RANI,DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-9, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 355/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 153Section 153A

70 taxmann.com 175 (SC), has held that even if the assessee voluntarily disclosed a sum subsequent to search and offered said sum to tax, penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) was justified. Accordingly, the AO is directed to compute penalty u/s 271(1)(c) without giving any set off for the income from school as disclosed by the assessee after

PUSHPA RANI,DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-9, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 356/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 153Section 153A

70 taxmann.com 175 (SC), has held that even if the assessee voluntarily disclosed a sum subsequent to search and offered said sum to tax, penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) was justified. Accordingly, the AO is directed to compute penalty u/s 271(1)(c) without giving any set off for the income from school as disclosed by the assessee after

PUSHPA RANI ,DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 , DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 359/DEL/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 153Section 153A

70 taxmann.com 175 (SC), has held that even if the assessee voluntarily disclosed a sum subsequent to search and offered said sum to tax, penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) was justified. Accordingly, the AO is directed to compute penalty u/s 271(1)(c) without giving any set off for the income from school as disclosed by the assessee after

PUSHPA RANI,DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-9, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 364/DEL/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 153Section 153A

70 taxmann.com 175 (SC), has held that even if the assessee voluntarily disclosed a sum subsequent to search and offered said sum to tax, penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) was justified. Accordingly, the AO is directed to compute penalty u/s 271(1)(c) without giving any set off for the income from school as disclosed by the assessee after