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.

22 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 149(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi408Mumbai376Kolkata198Jaipur143Karnataka101Ahmedabad89Chennai67Hyderabad58Indore56Pune56Bangalore54Raipur43Calcutta34Rajkot34Chandigarh29Lucknow23Amritsar22Guwahati22Visakhapatnam21Allahabad20Cuttack17Surat14Nagpur14Dehradun12Ranchi12Agra10Cochin8Jodhpur4Patna2Rajasthan1SC1Telangana1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)49Section 153C42Section 153A32Section 27420Section 10(26)14Penalty10Section 2509Section 1448Section 271

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

Showing 1–20 of 22 · Page 1 of 2

8
Addition to Income8
Search & Seizure6
Depreciation5

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

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

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

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 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 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

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

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. The ld. Counsel further brought to our notice that

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

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. The ld. Counsel further brought to our notice that

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

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. The ld. Counsel further brought to our notice that

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

penalty was held as procedurally defective. The provisions laid down u/s. 153D of the Act under consideration in the present case before us, are different as here the prior approval of Joint Commissioner is not required merely for direction for payment of the due amount of tax but overall approval of the assessment framed by the I.T.O. Thus, the cited

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

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. The ld. Counsel further brought to our notice that

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

149 of the Act and thus the reassessment proceedings is liable to be quashed. ITA Nos.: 241 & 242/GTY/2025 AYs: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Toshevi Keditsu Sema. 2. For that the Ld. Assessing Officer was not justified in invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Act and making addition of Rs. 21,72,720.00 in as much as the income

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

149 of the Act and thus the reassessment proceedings is liable to be quashed. ITA Nos.: 241 & 242/GTY/2025 AYs: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Toshevi Keditsu Sema. 2. For that the Ld. Assessing Officer was not justified in invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Act and making addition of Rs. 21,72,720.00 in as much as the income

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