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.

702 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Unexplained Investmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi702Mumbai624Jaipur255Ahmedabad233Hyderabad168Indore142Chennai138Pune132Kolkata99Surat79Bangalore77Chandigarh70Rajkot68Calcutta35Amritsar29Raipur27Agra26Nagpur24Visakhapatnam24Allahabad24Cuttack21Cochin19Lucknow18Ranchi12Patna10Dehradun9Jodhpur8Guwahati7Jabalpur7Telangana2Punjab & Haryana1Varanasi1Karnataka1

Key Topics

Addition to Income78Section 6866Section 271(1)(c)63Section 153A46Penalty46Section 143(3)35Section 14727Section 143(2)25Section 148

ASHISH MITTAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 8171/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 153ASection 271Section 271A

u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) also did not tick the exact charge for levy of penalty. 4. Perusal of the above para of the assessment order categorically shows that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings considering the surrendered income as reported in return under section 153A of the act as concealment of income under section 271

AKSHAY GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 8101/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi

Showing 1–20 of 702 · Page 1 of 36

...
21
Section 6921
Search & Seizure16
Unexplained Investment15
23 Mar 2021
AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 153ASection 271Section 271A

u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) also did not tick the exact charge for levy of penalty. 4. Perusal of the above para of the assessment order categorically shows that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings considering the surrendered income as reported in return under section 153A of the act as concealment of income under section 271

AYUSH GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 8165/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 153ASection 271Section 271A

u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) also did not tick the exact charge for levy of penalty. 4. Perusal of the above para of the assessment order categorically shows that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings considering the surrendered income as reported in return under section 153A of the act as concealment of income under section 271

KUNAL GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 8162/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 153ASection 271Section 271A

u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) also did not tick the exact charge for levy of penalty. 4. Perusal of the above para of the assessment order categorically shows that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings considering the surrendered income as reported in return under section 153A of the act as concealment of income under section 271

ASHISH MITTAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 8170/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 153ASection 271Section 271A

u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) also did not tick the exact charge for levy of penalty. 4. Perusal of the above para of the assessment order categorically shows that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings considering the surrendered income as reported in return under section 153A of the act as concealment of income under section 271

ASHISH MITTAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 8167/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 153ASection 271Section 271A

u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) also did not tick the exact charge for levy of penalty. 4. Perusal of the above para of the assessment order categorically shows that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings considering the surrendered income as reported in return under section 153A of the act as concealment of income under section 271

KUNAL GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 8161/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 153ASection 271Section 271A

u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) also did not tick the exact charge for levy of penalty. 4. Perusal of the above para of the assessment order categorically shows that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings considering the surrendered income as reported in return under section 153A of the act as concealment of income under section 271

ASHISH MITTAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 8169/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 153ASection 271Section 271A

u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) also did not tick the exact charge for levy of penalty. 4. Perusal of the above para of the assessment order categorically shows that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings considering the surrendered income as reported in return under section 153A of the act as concealment of income under section 271

ASHISH MITTAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 8172/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 153ASection 271Section 271A

u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) also did not tick the exact charge for levy of penalty. 4. Perusal of the above para of the assessment order categorically shows that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings considering the surrendered income as reported in return under section 153A of the act as concealment of income under section 271

AKSHAY GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 8100/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 153ASection 271Section 271A

u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) also did not tick the exact charge for levy of penalty. 4. Perusal of the above para of the assessment order categorically shows that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings considering the surrendered income as reported in return under section 153A of the act as concealment of income under section 271

AYUSH GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 8164/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 153ASection 271Section 271A

u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) also did not tick the exact charge for levy of penalty. 4. Perusal of the above para of the assessment order categorically shows that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings considering the surrendered income as reported in return under section 153A of the act as concealment of income under section 271

ASHISH MITTAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 8168/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 153ASection 271Section 271A

u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) also did not tick the exact charge for levy of penalty. 4. Perusal of the above para of the assessment order categorically shows that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings considering the surrendered income as reported in return under section 153A of the act as concealment of income under section 271

ASHHISH MITTAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 8166/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 153ASection 271Section 271A

u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) also did not tick the exact charge for levy of penalty. 4. Perusal of the above para of the assessment order categorically shows that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings considering the surrendered income as reported in return under section 153A of the act as concealment of income under section 271

AYUSH GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 7, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 8163/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 153ASection 271Section 271A

u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) also did not tick the exact charge for levy of penalty. 4. Perusal of the above para of the assessment order categorically shows that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings considering the surrendered income as reported in return under section 153A of the act as concealment of income under section 271

AKSHAY GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 8102/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 153ASection 271Section 271A

u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) also did not tick the exact charge for levy of penalty. 4. Perusal of the above para of the assessment order categorically shows that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings considering the surrendered income as reported in return under section 153A of the act as concealment of income under section 271

M/S. SPAZE TOWERS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the application filed under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2045/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountnat Member & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: 1. the Learned CIT(A) has erred in law & facts of the case in sustaining the pen
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 4

unexplained investment purchase of the property amounting to Rs.8 crore), paragraph 10 (undisclosed cash of Rs.5.225 crores) , paragraph 12 ( undisclosed income in respect of the project amounting to Rs.11,56,54,507/-). 11.8 The Assessing Officer issued show cause notice for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of the total amount of Rs.1

DCIT, FARIDABAD vs. M/S. SPAZE TOWER PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the application filed under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2558/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountnat Member & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: 1. the Learned CIT(A) has erred in law & facts of the case in sustaining the pen
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 4

unexplained investment purchase of the property amounting to Rs.8 crore), paragraph 10 (undisclosed cash of Rs.5.225 crores) , paragraph 12 ( undisclosed income in respect of the project amounting to Rs.11,56,54,507/-). 11.8 The Assessing Officer issued show cause notice for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of the total amount of Rs.1

M/S. SPAZE TOWERS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the application filed under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2044/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountnat Member & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: 1. the Learned CIT(A) has erred in law & facts of the case in sustaining the pen
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 4

unexplained investment purchase of the property amounting to Rs.8 crore), paragraph 10 (undisclosed cash of Rs.5.225 crores) , paragraph 12 ( undisclosed income in respect of the project amounting to Rs.11,56,54,507/-). 11.8 The Assessing Officer issued show cause notice for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of the total amount of Rs.1

M/S VEE GEE INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5050/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year : 2007-08

For Respondent: Shri Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr.DR
Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Investment) Rs.20,00,000/- 3 Unexplained Cash Deposit Rs.2,52,648/- 4 Income Surrendered Rs.69,00,000/- 5 Cash seized from Residence of Sh. R.K. Gupta and Sh. Rajesh Gupta Rs.32,50,000/- 6 Cash payment to Bio Made agency Rs.99,000/- 7 Other surrender Rs.38,28,352/- Total 2,47,50,000/- 11. Referring to the copy of acknowledgement

VISHWANATH AGGARWAL ,DELHI vs. THE ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-05, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 611/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

unexplained cash. In this context attention was drawn to following facts in the case of assessee; ● no cash was found or seized during the course of search which is being sought to be explained by the appellant or the alleged counter party by any entries. ● The assessee made no entry in the books of account incorporating the cash loans given