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.

18 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Exemptionclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai443Delhi376Ahmedabad129Jaipur125Hyderabad95Pune92Chennai89Bangalore88Raipur65Kolkata56Rajkot51Chandigarh50Nagpur43Indore39Surat34Lucknow29Cochin26Visakhapatnam21Amritsar20Guwahati18Jodhpur13Allahabad13Patna11Dehradun7Varanasi6Cuttack5Ranchi4Jabalpur2Agra2

Key Topics

Section 10(26)45Section 271(1)(c)26Addition to Income16Penalty11Section 14410Section 69A10Section 14710Section 25010Section 143(3)

ARUNACHAL POLICE HOUSING & WELFARE CORPORATION LIMITED,PAPUMPARE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-ITANAGAR, ITANAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 117/GTY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati25 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mody, FCAFor Respondent: Shri N.T. Sherpa, JCIT, D/R
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs.2,08,48,278/-. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh enterprise engaged in the business of construction of houses for the police department and other government corporations which claimed AY 2016-17 Arunachal Police Housing & Welfare Corp. Ltd. 2 exemption

9
Section 1488
Cash Deposit7
Exemption7

SHREEMATI KENE WELLY,ITANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- NORTH LAKHIMPUR, NORTH LAKHIMPUR

In the result, the both the appeals filed by the assessees in I

ITA 179/GTY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati02 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 10(26)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”) by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Guwahati-1, Guwahati [in short ld. “CIT(A)”] dated 24.09.2020. 2. The assessees are in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds: “1. For that the penalty order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

SHRI TAKING WELLY,ITANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- NORTH LAKHIMPUR, NORTH LAKHIMPUR

In the result, the both the appeals filed by the assessees in I

ITA 175/GTY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati02 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 10(26)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”) by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Guwahati-1, Guwahati [in short ld. “CIT(A)”] dated 24.09.2020. 2. The assessees are in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds: “1. For that the penalty order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

PABITRA BORO,TANGLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-MANGALDAI, MANGALDAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 23/GTY/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati09 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Nahata, FCAFor Respondent: Shri N. T. Sherpa, JCIT
Section 10(26)Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271(1)(c)

exempt income as bogus. Thereafter, penalty proceedings were initiated u/s. 271(1)(c) and a penalty of Rs.3,17,04,016/- was imposed

NYANYA GOLLO,ITANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TEZPUR

In the result, ITA No. 110/Gau/2020 is allowed and ITA No

ITA 110/GTY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 10(26)Section 250Section 251(2)Section 271(1)(c)

exemption claimed u/s. 10(26) of the Act whereas the Ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed the addition only in respect of that work receipt which was evidenced by work order issued by Govt. of Arunacahal Pradesh and thus sustained the addition of Rs.29,08,124/- by deleting Rs.14,44,929/-. We observe from the rival contentions and records available

NYANYA GOLLO,ITANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TEZPUR

In the result, ITA No. 110/Gau/2020 is allowed and ITA No

ITA 167/GTY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 10(26)Section 250Section 251(2)Section 271(1)(c)

exemption claimed u/s. 10(26) of the Act whereas the Ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed the addition only in respect of that work receipt which was evidenced by work order issued by Govt. of Arunacahal Pradesh and thus sustained the addition of Rs.29,08,124/- by deleting Rs.14,44,929/-. We observe from the rival contentions and records available

TOSHEVI KEDITSU SEMA,KOHIMA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, DIMAPUR, DIMAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 241/GTY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati11 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10(26)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 149Section 250Section 69A

u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act at the total income of ₹37,11,116/- and also initiated penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b), and 271F of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide the order dated 14/05/2024 partly allowed the appeal

TOSHEVI KEDITSU SEMA,KOHIMA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, DIMAPUR, DIMAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 242/GTY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati11 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10(26)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 149Section 250Section 69A

u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act at the total income of ₹37,11,116/- and also initiated penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b), and 271F of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide the order dated 14/05/2024 partly allowed the appeal

LALTHANGVELI PACHUAU,AIZAWL vs. ITO W-1 SILCHAR, SILCHAR

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 312/GTY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati16 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Against The Assessment Order & Penalty Orders As Under:

Section 10(26)Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

271(1)(c) 18.08.25 42 days Penalty of Rs. 50,88,576/- A.Y. 2015-16 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that as per the information with the income tax department the assessee has deposited substantial amount of cash in his savings bank accounts in SBI Madame Cama Road, Mumbai but did not file return of income

LALTHANGVELI PACHUAU,AIZAWL vs. ITO W-1 SILCHAR , SILCHAR

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 313/GTY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati16 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Against The Assessment Order & Penalty Orders As Under:

Section 10(26)Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

271(1)(c) 18.08.25 42 days Penalty of Rs. 50,88,576/- A.Y. 2015-16 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that as per the information with the income tax department the assessee has deposited substantial amount of cash in his savings bank accounts in SBI Madame Cama Road, Mumbai but did not file return of income

LALTHANGVELI PACHUAU,AIZAWL vs. ITO W-1 SILCHAR, SILCHAR

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 311/GTY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati16 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Against The Assessment Order & Penalty Orders As Under:

Section 10(26)Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

271(1)(c) 18.08.25 42 days Penalty of Rs. 50,88,576/- A.Y. 2015-16 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that as per the information with the income tax department the assessee has deposited substantial amount of cash in his savings bank accounts in SBI Madame Cama Road, Mumbai but did not file return of income

LALTHANGVELI PACHUAU,AIZAWL vs. ITO W-1 SILCHAR, SILCHAR

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 314/GTY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati16 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Against The Assessment Order & Penalty Orders As Under:

Section 10(26)Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

271(1)(c) 18.08.25 42 days Penalty of Rs. 50,88,576/- A.Y. 2015-16 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that as per the information with the income tax department the assessee has deposited substantial amount of cash in his savings bank accounts in SBI Madame Cama Road, Mumbai but did not file return of income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 38/GTY/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

u/s 250 of the Act dated 27.07.2022 running into 1017 pages allowing the deduction claimed u/s.80IA of the Act and the crux of his finding is summarized as under: “(i) That, in respect of an assessment year whose proceedings had abated, a Return of Income filed in compliance to the Notice issued u/s 153A of the Act, substitutes the prior/earlier

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 37/GTY/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

u/s 250 of the Act dated 27.07.2022 running into 1017 pages allowing the deduction claimed u/s.80IA of the Act and the crux of his finding is summarized as under: “(i) That, in respect of an assessment year whose proceedings had abated, a Return of Income filed in compliance to the Notice issued u/s 153A of the Act, substitutes the prior/earlier

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 2/GTY/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

u/s 250 of the Act dated 27.07.2022 running into 1017 pages allowing the deduction claimed u/s.80IA of the Act and the crux of his finding is summarized as under: “(i) That, in respect of an assessment year whose proceedings had abated, a Return of Income filed in compliance to the Notice issued u/s 153A of the Act, substitutes the prior/earlier

ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 43/GTY/2022[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

u/s 250 of the Act dated 27.07.2022 running into 1017 pages allowing the deduction claimed u/s.80IA of the Act and the crux of his finding is summarized as under: “(i) That, in respect of an assessment year whose proceedings had abated, a Return of Income filed in compliance to the Notice issued u/s 153A of the Act, substitutes the prior/earlier

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 39/GTY/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

u/s 250 of the Act dated 27.07.2022 running into 1017 pages allowing the deduction claimed u/s.80IA of the Act and the crux of his finding is summarized as under: “(i) That, in respect of an assessment year whose proceedings had abated, a Return of Income filed in compliance to the Notice issued u/s 153A of the Act, substitutes the prior/earlier

KENNETH BLAH,SHILLONG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 135/GTY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati20 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.135/Gty/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Gupta, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Kaushik Roy, JCIT
Section 10(26)Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 25Section 250Section 269SSection 271D

u/s 10(26) on his income, he cannot claim that provisions of the Income Tax Act do not apply to him. In fact the Income Tax Act itself contains a provision that his income is exempted from tax. However, such exemption from tax cannot render his exempt from the consequences of infraction of the other provisions of the Income