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.

37 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 13clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi3,437Mumbai2,843Ahmedabad762Kolkata675Jaipur664Bangalore662Pune467Indore435Chennai396Hyderabad372Surat343Chandigarh209Raipur201Rajkot157Karnataka146Amritsar132Visakhapatnam118Lucknow105Nagpur97Cochin94Cuttack90Allahabad67Ranchi54Agra53Dehradun46Patna38Calcutta37Guwahati37Panaji33Jabalpur28Kerala15Jodhpur15SC12Telangana9Varanasi6Rajasthan4Gauhati1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)56Section 153C42Section 25027Section 27127Section 153A27Section 27421Penalty19Addition to Income18Section 271A

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

271(1)(c) of the Act for AY 2014-15 & AY 2015-16, respectively. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue in ITA Nos. 133 & 134/GTY/2020 are dismissed. 13. Now, we take up ITA No. 135/GTY/2020 relating to the penalty u/s 271AAB(1)(a) of the Act. Ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty observing as follows (relevant extract

Showing 1–20 of 37 · Page 1 of 2

17
Search & Seizure11
Section 143(3)9
Disallowance8

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

271(1)(c) of the Act for AY 2014-15 & AY 2015-16, respectively. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue in ITA Nos. 133 & 134/GTY/2020 are dismissed. 13. Now, we take up ITA No. 135/GTY/2020 relating to the penalty u/s 271AAB(1)(a) of the Act. Ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty observing as follows (relevant extract

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

271(1)(c) of the Act for AY 2014-15 & AY 2015-16, respectively. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue in ITA Nos. 133 & 134/GTY/2020 are dismissed. 13. Now, we take up ITA No. 135/GTY/2020 relating to the penalty u/s 271AAB(1)(a) of the Act. Ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty observing as follows (relevant extract

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

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

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

section 271(1)( c) of the Act] in the case of CIT vs. SSA’s Emerald Meadows in ITA No.380 of 2015 dated 23.11.2015 wherein the Hon’ble High Court following its own decision in the case of CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 has held that if the penalty notice is vague, then

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

13. Although the decision is rendered in the context of section u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act but the principle enunciated is equally applicable to section 271AAB of the Act as well as the nature of the default is not only similar but also more severe. Since penalty

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

13. Although the decision is rendered in the context of section u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act but the principle enunciated is equally applicable to section 271AAB of the Act as well as the nature of the default is not only similar but also more severe. Since 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

Section 271(1)(c) in the printed form without specifically mentioning whether the proceedings are initiated on the ground of concealment of income or on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars is valid and legal? 2. Whether the proceedings initiated by the Assessing Authority was legal and valid? The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court held in the negative and against

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

Section 271(1)(c) in the printed form without specifically mentioning whether the proceedings are initiated on the ground of concealment of income or on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars is valid and legal? 2. Whether the proceedings initiated by the 5 Shri Bishnu Chandra Dutta, AY- 2014-15 Assessing Authority was legal and valid? The Hon’ble Karnataka

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

Section 271(1)(c) in the printed form without specifically mentioning whether the proceedings are initiated on the ground of concealment of income or on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars is valid and legal? 2. Whether the proceedings initiated by the Assessing Authority was legal and valid? The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court held in the negative and against

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

Section 271(1)(c) in the printed form without specifically mentioning whether the proceedings are initiated on the ground of concealment of income or on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars is valid and legal? 2. Whether the proceedings initiated by the Assessing Authority was legal and valid? The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court held in the negative and against

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

Section 271(1)(c) in the printed form without specifically mentioning whether the proceedings are initiated on the ground of concealment of income or on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars is valid and legal? 2. Whether the proceedings initiated by the Assessing Authority was legal and valid? The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court held in the negative and against

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

Section 271(1)(c) in the printed form without specifically mentioning whether the proceedings are initiated on the ground of concealment of income or on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars is valid and legal? 2. Whether the proceedings initiated by the Assessing Authority was legal and valid? The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court held in the negative and against

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)

penalty is hereby initiated u/s 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. [Addition: Rs. 1,96,07,621/-]” 4. On appeal, ld. first Appellate Authority not only confirmed the view point of ld. AO rather enhanced the addition. Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of total sundry creditors shown by the assessee on the ground that liability

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)

penalty is hereby initiated u/s 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. [Addition: Rs. 1,96,07,621/-]” 4. On appeal, ld. first Appellate Authority not only confirmed the view point of ld. AO rather enhanced the addition. Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of total sundry creditors shown by the assessee on the ground that liability

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - AGARTALA , AGARTALA vs. SHRI SUBHAJIT PAUL, AGARTALA

In the result, cross-objection nos

ITA 116/GTY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati31 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.116/Gau/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Rockein Saikia, JCIT, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Modi, FCA
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153D

271(1)(c)/271AAB is to be initiated after careful consideration. Keep proper note, i.e. your satisfaction for initiation of penalty quoting proper section under which penalty proceedings are initiated. Penalty notice is to be issued specifying proper section & served upon the assessee. 4. Sentence regarding approval u/s. 153D is to be mentioned in “note not for the assessee

SHYAMASHREE FINVEST (P) LTD,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD7(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

ITA 106/GTY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati16 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 124Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271Section 68

penalty of Rs. 1,16,71,115/- made by the assessing officer U/s 271 (1)(c) on account of unverifiable investment. 2. That your appellant craves leave of your honour to take additional ground or grounds of appeal or to modify any grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.” 3. First we take up the quantum appeal

SHYAMASHREE FINVEST (P) LTD,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD7(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

ITA 105/GTY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati16 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 124Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271Section 68

penalty of Rs. 1,16,71,115/- made by the assessing officer U/s 271 (1)(c) on account of unverifiable investment. 2. That your appellant craves leave of your honour to take additional ground or grounds of appeal or to modify any grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.” 3. First we take up the quantum appeal

DEBEN THAOSEN,HAFLONG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SILCHAR

Appeal is allowed

ITA 247/GTY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Sainiassessment Year :2014-15 Deben Thaosen V/S. Income Tax Officer Sengya Sombudhan Raji Ward-1, Silchar Room Sarkari Bagan, Halflong, No.21 Aayakar N.C. Hills, Assam Bhawan, Pwd Road, [Pan No.Aedpt 9417 R] Silchar-788001 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent None अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri M.C Omi Ningshen, Jcit Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 09-12-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 13-12-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Bemch:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Shillong’S Order Dated 25.06.2018 Passed In Case No.Cit(A)/Shillolng/10040/2017-18 Involving Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Case Called Twice. None Appears At The Assessee’S Behest. Heard Learned Departmental Representative. 2. For The Reasons Stated In Assessee’S Condonation Petition / Affidavit Dated 15.04.2019 Coupled With His Medical History & On Account Of The Revenue’S No Objection, We Condone The Impugned Seventeen Days Delay In Filing Of The Taxpayer’S Appeal. The Same Is Now Taken Up For Adjudication On Merits.

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

13-12-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R PER BEMCH:- This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Shillong’s order dated 25.06.2018 passed in case No.CIT(A)/Shillolng/10040/2017-18 involving penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income