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.

72 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 10clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi4,365Mumbai3,589Ahmedabad1,035Kolkata838Jaipur810Bangalore788Pune688Chennai550Indore546Surat430Hyderabad423Chandigarh340Rajkot214Raipur209Amritsar180Visakhapatnam154Karnataka149Lucknow140Cochin134Cuttack131Nagpur121Ranchi84Allahabad78Guwahati72Agra71Patna55Dehradun53Panaji41Jabalpur38Jodhpur37Calcutta37Varanasi17Kerala14SC12Telangana7Rajasthan4Punjab & Haryana1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 153A131Section 271(1)(c)106Section 10(26)49Addition to Income46Section 153C42Section 27439Penalty37Section 25036Section 143(2)

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. HITECH CONSTRUCTION, DHUBRI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 135/GTY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for AY 2014-15 & AY 2015-16 is concerned we find that ld. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty observing as follows (relevant extract): “It has been contended by the Appellant that the impugned penalty has been imposed merely on the basis of estimated addition and that taxes were paid on the same

Showing 1–20 of 72 · Page 1 of 4

36
Section 27133
Search & Seizure25
Exemption9

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. HITECH CONSTRUCTION, DHUBRI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 134/GTY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for AY 2014-15 & AY 2015-16 is concerned we find that ld. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty observing as follows (relevant extract): “It has been contended by the Appellant that the impugned penalty has been imposed merely on the basis of estimated addition and that taxes were paid on the same

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. HITECH CONSTRUCTION, DHUBRI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 133/GTY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for AY 2014-15 & AY 2015-16 is concerned we find that ld. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty observing as follows (relevant extract): “It has been contended by the Appellant that the impugned penalty has been imposed merely on the basis of estimated addition and that taxes were paid on the same

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

10(26B). Assessee paid the demand raised thereon of Rs.45,27,145/-. 2.2. Penalty proceedings were subsequently initiated by issuing notice u/s 274 rws 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 12/12/2018. Penalty of Rs. 2,08,48,278/- was imposed by passing the impugned order under section

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

10(26) of the Act and in such circumstances, imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by the ld. CIT(A) is travesty of justice. The same may kindly be deleted in its entirety. 13. For the impugned order having been passed by the ld. CIT(A) in utter disregard to the principles of natural justice

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

10(26) of the Act and in such circumstances, imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by the ld. CIT(A) is travesty of justice. The same may kindly be deleted in its entirety. 13. For the impugned order having been passed by the ld. CIT(A) in utter disregard to the principles of natural justice

NORTH EASTERN CONSTRUCTIONS,DIBRUGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), DIBRUGARH

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 184/GTY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 Jun 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 271Section 271BSection 273BSection 274Section 44A

271 B the assessee came. Even in the penalty order, the Assessing Officer had not stated under which situation the assessee had been caught. He had simply stated that the assessee had no objection for the proposed penal action. Before a penalty is imposed, the assessee must be apprised of the precise charge brought against him. In the absence

BHAGYA KALITA,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 257/GTY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati29 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 271A

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A). (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section,- (a) “specified date” means

BHAGYA KALITA,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 256/GTY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati29 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 271A

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A). (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section,- (a) “specified date” means

SHRI MEDHI RAM DODUM,ITANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, TINSUKIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 112/GTY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati08 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma] Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Medi Ram Dodum Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Tinsukia S/O. Arung Dodum, H. No. 26, D Sector, Papum Pare

Section 2Section 271(1)(B)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

section 271(1)(c) of the Act without specifying the limb under which the penalty proceedings have been initiated and proceeded with, apparently goes to prove that notice in this case has been issued in a stereotyped manner without applying mind which is bad in law, hence cannot be considered a valid notice sufficient to impose penalty u/s 271

SANDEEP JALAN,GUWAHATI vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR-1, GUWAHATI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 157/GTY/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati19 Nov 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A), Dated 08.12.2023, Under The Income Tax Act, 1961. 1. Period Of Delay: There Is A Delay Of 494 Days In Filing The Said Appeal

Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69Section 69C

10,000/-) was added u/s 69C as unexplained expenditure on account of charges paid to earn accommodation entry and an amount of Rs. 1,16,400/- was also added u/s 69 of the Act. In the assessment order, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of particulars of income to the extent

ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 419/GTY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (In short, “the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In short, “the Ld. CIT(A)] for the A.Y. 2015-16 and 2016- 17 respectively. Since these appeals relating to same assessee and are involving common issues, therefore, these are being disposed of by this

ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 418/GTY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (In short, “the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In short, “the Ld. CIT(A)] for the A.Y. 2015-16 and 2016- 17 respectively. Since these appeals relating to same assessee and are involving common issues, therefore, these are being disposed of by this

M/S. R.M. SAHA PETROLEUM AGENCY,AGARTALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, AGARTALA

Appeal is allowed

ITA 226/GTY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati21 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Sainiassessment Year :2014-15

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

10-02-2016 has deleted an identical penalty on this count alone as under:- “9. We have considered the rival submissions. The argument of the learned counsel for the Assessee was that the show cause notice u/s.274 of the Act which is in a printed form and the AO has indicated in the said notice as to whether the penalty

SIKHA MITTAL,TINSUKIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, TINSUKIA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 135/GTY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati10 Jun 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reason that the show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Further we note that as against the 3 Sikha

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - TINSUKIA , TINSUKIA vs. RINU SINGH L/R OF JOY PRAKASH SINGH , TINSUKIA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 432/GTY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati22 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessment Year:2014-15 Acit, Circle-Tinsukia Vs. Renu Singh The Legal Heir Of Late Jai Prakash Singh Jasoda Talkies Compound, Digboi-786171 Pan/Gir No. : Ahdps9100M (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

271(1)(c) of the Act. It emerges from the relevant penalty notice that the Assessing Officer did not specify as to whether the assessee is accused of concealment of particulars of any taxable income or it had furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. This tribunal’s co-ordinate bench’s decision in Nishith Kumar Jain Vs. ACIT

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - NORTH LAKHIMPUR, NORTH LAKHIMPUR vs. TAMCHI KUSUK, ITANAGAR

In the result, the appeal as well as Cross Objection both are dismissed

ITA 176/GTY/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati02 Nov 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 10(26)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) initiated separately. Copy of order to the assessee. 30.12.2009 (Mrinal K. Das) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir.-Tezpur 5. Dissatisfied with the above computation of income, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. CIT(Appeals) held that the assessee is entitled for exemption under section 10

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

SHRI BISHNU CHANDRA DUTTA,TRIPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-UDAIPUR, AGARTALA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 262/GTY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati05 Jun 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reason that the show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act 3 Shri Bishnu Chandra Dutta, AY- 2014-15 does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income

RAJARSHI MOTORS PVT. LTD.,AGARTALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- AGARTALA , AGARTALA

In the result, all the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 181/GTY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.117 To 123/Gty/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2014-15 Dcit, Rajarshi Motors Pvt. Ltd., Circle Agartala A.A. Road, Chandrapur, Vs. Agartala, Tripura Pan : Aaccr8033P अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mody, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Kaushik Ray, JCIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

section 68" as undisclosed income. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is being separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate details and concealment of income. Addition u/s 68..................................................................Rs. 1,08,26,724/- Undisclosed investment 10