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.

40 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 10(14)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi3,107Mumbai2,390Ahmedabad705Bangalore601Jaipur601Kolkata543Pune449Indore399Chennai399Hyderabad331Surat296Chandigarh214Raipur186Karnataka146Rajkot123Amritsar121Lucknow108Visakhapatnam108Nagpur96Cochin95Cuttack82Allahabad64Ranchi46Agra45Dehradun43Guwahati40Calcutta36Panaji32Patna28Jodhpur17Kerala14Jabalpur14SC12Telangana7Varanasi5Rajasthan4Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)56Section 153C42Section 25031Section 10(26)30Section 27127Section 153A27Section 27421Addition to Income21Penalty

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

10 of 23 I.T.A. Nos.: 133, 134 & 135/GTY/2020 AYs: 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 M/s. Hitech Construction. of Ahmedabad in the case of Guruprasad Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT [2019 (7) TMI 1549-ITAT Ahmedabad] where the head note of this decision considering similar issues reads as follows: “Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - income returned & accepted

Showing 1–20 of 40 · Page 1 of 2

20
Section 271A17
Search & Seizure11
Disallowance7

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

10 of 23 I.T.A. Nos.: 133, 134 & 135/GTY/2020 AYs: 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 M/s. Hitech Construction. of Ahmedabad in the case of Guruprasad Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT [2019 (7) TMI 1549-ITAT Ahmedabad] where the head note of this decision considering similar issues reads as follows: “Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - income returned & accepted

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

10 of 23 I.T.A. Nos.: 133, 134 & 135/GTY/2020 AYs: 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 M/s. Hitech Construction. of Ahmedabad in the case of Guruprasad Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT [2019 (7) TMI 1549-ITAT Ahmedabad] where the head note of this decision considering similar issues reads as follows: “Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - income returned & accepted

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

14-03-2019 for the AY 2015-16, confirming the penalty levied u/s. 271B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). 2. Ground nos. 2,3 and 7of the grounds of appeal are taken first, which reads as under:- “2. For that the penalty notice dated 15.05.2018 issued under section 274 r.w.s 271B being vague

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

10% as per the provisions of clause (a) to sub-section (1A) of section 271AAB of the Act was leviable. The assessee has argued that it is not the ‘specified previous year’. If it is so, clause (b) of sub-section (1A) of section 271AAB of the Act is applicable if the case is not covered under the provisions

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

10% as per the provisions of clause (a) to sub-section (1A) of section 271AAB of the Act was leviable. The assessee has argued that it is not the ‘specified previous year’. If it is so, clause (b) of sub-section (1A) of section 271AAB of the Act is applicable if the case is not covered under the provisions

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

10. In the case of Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation (supra), the ITAT Mumbai did not follow the decision rendered in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra) for the reason that penalty in that case was deleted for so many reasons and not solely on the basis of defect in show cause notice u/s.274 of the Act. This

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

10. In the case of Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation (supra), the ITAT Mumbai did not follow the decision rendered in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra) for the reason that penalty in that case was deleted for so many reasons and not solely on the basis of defect in show cause notice u/s.274 of the Act. This

RAJESWAR YADAV ,NAGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NAGAON

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 323/GTY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati05 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

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

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

10. In the case of Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation (supra), the ITAT Mumbai did not follow the decision rendered in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra) for the reason that penalty in that case was deleted for so many reasons and not solely on the basis of defect in show cause notice u/s.274 of the Act. This

ABHISHEK SINGHAL,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3((1), GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 144/GTY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 Jun 2020AY 2014-15

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

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

10. In the case of Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation (supra), the ITAT Mumbai did not follow the decision rendered in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra) for the reason that penalty in that case was deleted for so many reasons and not solely on the basis of defect in show cause notice u/s.274 of the Act. This

M/S. JOYRAM TRADERS,AGARTALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, AGARTALA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 248/GTY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati05 Jun 2020AY 2014-15

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

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

10. In the case of Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation (supra), the ITAT Mumbai did not follow the decision rendered in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra) for the reason that penalty in that case was deleted for so many reasons and not solely on the basis of defect in show cause notice u/s.274 of the Act. This

BENI MADHAB PAUL,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 97/GTY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati12 Jun 2020AY 2014-15

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

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

10. In the case of Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation (supra), the ITAT Mumbai did not follow the decision rendered in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra) for the reason that penalty in that case was deleted for so many reasons and not solely on the basis of defect in show cause notice u/s.274 of the Act. This

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)

14,44,929/- (8% of Rs.1,80,61,610/-) is allowed as exempted income under section 10(26) of the Act. Therefore, addition made by the AO, to the tune of Rs. 14.44,929/- is deleted and the balance addition of Rs. 29,08,124/- is confirmed. Apart from the above, as noted above, the Appellant has grossly failed

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)

14,44,929/- (8% of Rs.1,80,61,610/-) is allowed as exempted income under section 10(26) of the Act. Therefore, addition made by the AO, to the tune of Rs. 14.44,929/- is deleted and the balance addition of Rs. 29,08,124/- is confirmed. Apart from the above, as noted above, the Appellant has grossly failed

M/S. ASSAM TEA CORPORATION LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 85/GTY/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati20 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Sri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 150(1)Section 150(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

14. In view of the above, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Now, we take up I.T.A. No.: 85/GTY/2020. 15. The present appeal is a penalty appeal. The grievance of the assessee is that ld. CIT(A) has erred in initiating the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Sub-Section 3 of Section 271

M/S. ASSAM TEA CORPORATION LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 216/GTY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati20 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Sri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 150(1)Section 150(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

14. In view of the above, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Now, we take up I.T.A. No.: 85/GTY/2020. 15. The present appeal is a penalty appeal. The grievance of the assessee is that ld. CIT(A) has erred in initiating the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Sub-Section 3 of Section 271

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

14,436.00 under the head Income from Other Sources in as much as the income of the appellant is exempt u/s 10(26) of the Act. 4. For that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in not accepting the claim of exemption of the appellant u/s 10(26) of the Act.” 3. We shall first take up 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 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

14,436.00 under the head Income from Other Sources in as much as the income of the appellant is exempt u/s 10(26) of the Act. 4. For that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in not accepting the claim of exemption of the appellant u/s 10(26) of the Act.” 3. We shall first take up the appeal