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.

5 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 80Lclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi5Pune3Mumbai2Ahmedabad1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)8Section 2715Section 271(1)(c)5Section 1484Addition to Income3Section 153A2Section 143(1)2Section 2632Capital Gains2Long Term Capital Gains2Bogus Purchases2Survey u/s 133A2

M/S ALP OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6140/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

80L was erroneously claimed and granted to the partner of a firm, it was held that the assessee had honestly disclosed the income and had not concealed anything deliberately and his action did not suffer from any mens rea. Therefore, the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were not warranted. The proposal in the assessment order for initiating penalty proceedings

SUSHIL KUMAR BHATI,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 2(4), FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2819/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed
ITAT Delhi
08 May 2020
AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambledr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2819/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Sushil Kumar Bhati, Vs Income Tax Officer, H.No. 591, Sector-21B, Ward-2(4), Faridabad, Haryana Faridabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahfpb0420P Assessee By : Ms. Vanshika Taneja, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.02.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.05.2020

For Appellant: Ms. Vanshika Taneja, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 17(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 27(1)(c)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

80L. Therefore, initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not applicable as the Hon. AO was convinced with the facts, of the situation at the time of assessment. As mentioned in your notice, wherein A) "Such person fails to offer an explanation or offers an explanation which is found by the Assessing Officer to be false" Ans:- Question

MISS MAMTA SINGH,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, FARIDABAD

In the result both the appeals of both the assesses are allowed

ITA 2407/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddyay: 2005-06 Smt. Mamta Singh Vs. Ito, Ward 1(3) H.No. D 207, Sector 11 Faridabad Faridabad Pan: Attps 0634 C Ay: 2005-06 Ms. Himshika Vs. Ito, Ward 1(3) H.No. D 207, Sector 11 Faridabad Faridabad

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, C.A. &For Respondent: Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr.D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(C) of the IT Act has been initiated separately. In view of above, net income of the assessee is computed as under:- 1. Income from business Rs.1,29,851/- 2. Income from other Rs. 2,45,978/- sources as per return Rs.19,05,722/- Add: Additions made as discussed in para 8 above Additions made

MISS HIMSHIKA,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, FARIDABAD

In the result both the appeals of both the assesses are allowed

ITA 2408/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddyay: 2005-06 Smt. Mamta Singh Vs. Ito, Ward 1(3) H.No. D 207, Sector 11 Faridabad Faridabad Pan: Attps 0634 C Ay: 2005-06 Ms. Himshika Vs. Ito, Ward 1(3) H.No. D 207, Sector 11 Faridabad Faridabad

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, C.A. &For Respondent: Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr.D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(C) of the IT Act has been initiated separately. In view of above, net income of the assessee is computed as under:- 1. Income from business Rs.1,29,851/- 2. Income from other Rs. 2,45,978/- sources as per return Rs.19,05,722/- Add: Additions made as discussed in para 8 above Additions made

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SURESH JAIN, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 369/DEL/2012[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2017AY 2000-01

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 369/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2000-01 Ita No. 370/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2001-02 Ita No. 374/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Acit Vs Suresh Jain Circle-38(1), C-29, Panchsheel Enclave New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acxpj6507G Assessee By : Sh. Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Sumit Goyal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.02.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.04.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: These Appeals By The Department Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Each Dated 29.11.2001 Of The Ld. Cit(A)- Xxviii, New Delhi For The Assessment Year 2000-01, 2001-02 & 2006-2007. Since The Appeals Pertain To The Same Assessee, So These Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

For Appellant: Sh. Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 153A

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(C) are initiated separately. 4. Subject to above discussions, the income of the assessee is computed as under:- 1. Income profit from (Amount in Rs.) contractorship as discussed in para I above 72,15,818 2. Loss claimed at Rs. 19,34,285/- in respect of Ridge Court Bowling Centre as discussed in para