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.

20 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 10(34)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,503Mumbai1,279Ahmedabad378Jaipur336Bangalore224Indore192Kolkata185Hyderabad156Pune155Chennai145Raipur130Surat129Karnataka126Chandigarh105Rajkot79Amritsar62Lucknow60Allahabad46Nagpur40Visakhapatnam39Calcutta35Cochin33Cuttack26Panaji21Guwahati20Agra19Dehradun14Kerala14Jodhpur13SC9Varanasi8Jabalpur8Ranchi7Patna5Telangana4Rajasthan4

Key Topics

Section 153C42Section 271(1)(c)20Section 10(26)18Section 153A18Section 25011Addition to Income11Section 143(3)9Section 1449Section 271A

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

34,03,098/- in the instant case works out to Rs. 11,46,037/- and therefore, the levy of penalty at Rs. 11,46,037/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and liable to be deleted. 10. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned penalty order being passed

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

8
Penalty8
Search & Seizure8
Disallowance7
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

34,03,098/- in the instant case works out to Rs. 11,46,037/- and therefore, the levy of penalty at Rs. 11,46,037/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and liable to be deleted. 10. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned penalty order being passed

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

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

34,537/- but claimed it exempt under section 10(26) of the Income Tax Act. An assessment order was passed under section 143(3) on 31.03.2006 rejecting the claim of exemption in respect of income arose to the assessee from execution of contract works at Tripura. This order was set aside by the ld. Commissioner by exercising powers under section

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)

34,49,657 3 31.03.2006 103,11,81,682 4 31.03.2007 105,93,25,728 5 31.03.2008 113,71,78,703 6 31.03.2009 124,10,35,109 7 31.03.2010 130,32,47,966 8 31.03.2011 136,01,89,749 9 31.03.2012 141,38,93,166 4.1 Despite showing high amount as sundry creditors in its Balance Sheet over the years

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)

34,49,657 3 31.03.2006 103,11,81,682 4 31.03.2007 105,93,25,728 5 31.03.2008 113,71,78,703 6 31.03.2009 124,10,35,109 7 31.03.2010 130,32,47,966 8 31.03.2011 136,01,89,749 9 31.03.2012 141,38,93,166 4.1 Despite showing high amount as sundry creditors in its Balance Sheet over the years

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

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 by holding as under: “5.5 Appellate Decision: On considering the entire factual and legal canvas of the case, it transpires

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

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 by holding as under: “5.5 Appellate Decision: On considering the entire factual and legal canvas of the case, it transpires

SHRI SUBRATA KUMAR SAHA,AGARTALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-AGARTALA, AGARTALA

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 22/GTY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati02 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 144Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) in appeal ITA No.300/Gau/2018; respectively. 2. Learned counsel’s first and foremost plea during the course of hearing is that the assessee’s appeal(s) ITA No.20-24/Gau/2019 raise identical legal issue challenging initiation of sec. 153C proceedings on account of lack of Assessing Officer’s “satisfaction” as prescribed under the law. We make it clear that

SHRI SUBRATA KUMAR SAHA,AGARTALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-AGARTALA, AGARTALA

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 23/GTY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati02 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 144Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) in appeal ITA No.300/Gau/2018; respectively. 2. Learned counsel’s first and foremost plea during the course of hearing is that the assessee’s appeal(s) ITA No.20-24/Gau/2019 raise identical legal issue challenging initiation of sec. 153C proceedings on account of lack of Assessing Officer’s “satisfaction” as prescribed under the law. We make it clear that

SHRI SUBRATA KUMAR SAHA,AGARTALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-AGARTALA, AGARTALA

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 24/GTY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati02 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 144Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) in appeal ITA No.300/Gau/2018; respectively. 2. Learned counsel’s first and foremost plea during the course of hearing is that the assessee’s appeal(s) ITA No.20-24/Gau/2019 raise identical legal issue challenging initiation of sec. 153C proceedings on account of lack of Assessing Officer’s “satisfaction” as prescribed under the law. We make it clear that

SHRI SUBRATA KUMAR SAHA,AGARTALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-AGARTALA, AGARTALA

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 25/GTY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati02 Aug 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 144Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) in appeal ITA No.300/Gau/2018; respectively. 2. Learned counsel’s first and foremost plea during the course of hearing is that the assessee’s appeal(s) ITA No.20-24/Gau/2019 raise identical legal issue challenging initiation of sec. 153C proceedings on account of lack of Assessing Officer’s “satisfaction” as prescribed under the law. We make it clear that

SHRI SUBRATA KUMAR SAHA,AGARTALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-AGARTALA, AGARTALA

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 20/GTY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati02 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 144Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) in appeal ITA No.300/Gau/2018; respectively. 2. Learned counsel’s first and foremost plea during the course of hearing is that the assessee’s appeal(s) ITA No.20-24/Gau/2019 raise identical legal issue challenging initiation of sec. 153C proceedings on account of lack of Assessing Officer’s “satisfaction” as prescribed under the law. We make it clear that

SHRI SUBRATA KUMAR SAHA,AGARTALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-AGARTALA, AGARTALA

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 21/GTY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati02 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 144Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) in appeal ITA No.300/Gau/2018; respectively. 2. Learned counsel’s first and foremost plea during the course of hearing is that the assessee’s appeal(s) ITA No.20-24/Gau/2019 raise identical legal issue challenging initiation of sec. 153C proceedings on account of lack of Assessing Officer’s “satisfaction” as prescribed under the law. We make it clear that

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

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 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

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 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