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.

80 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 2clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi5,483Mumbai4,861Ahmedabad1,291Kolkata1,141Jaipur958Bangalore878Pune858Chennai685Indore674Surat544Hyderabad503Chandigarh407Rajkot268Amritsar239Raipur237Cochin177Visakhapatnam176Lucknow175Karnataka161Nagpur145Cuttack144Agra114Patna101Allahabad97Ranchi90Dehradun86Guwahati80Jabalpur65Jodhpur52Panaji44Calcutta39Varanasi21Kerala18SC13Telangana9Rajasthan4Punjab & Haryana2Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 153A131Section 271(1)(c)118Section 10(26)49Addition to Income46Penalty45Section 27443Section 153C42Section 25037Section 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 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

2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld CIT (A) erred in deleting the penalty of Rs 75,56,113/-imposed u/s 271(l)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 hereby disregarding the provision contained in explanation 5A to clause (c) of sub-section

Showing 1–20 of 80 · Page 1 of 4

36
Section 27133
Search & Seizure26
Cash Deposit12

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

2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld CIT (A) erred in deleting the penalty of Rs 75,56,113/-imposed u/s 271(l)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 hereby disregarding the provision contained in explanation 5A to clause (c) of sub-section

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

2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld CIT (A) erred in deleting the penalty of Rs 75,56,113/-imposed u/s 271(l)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 hereby disregarding the provision contained in explanation 5A to clause (c) of sub-section

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

section 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

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

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 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 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 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 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

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

2) No penalty under the provisions of section 270A or clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 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

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

2) No penalty under the provisions of section 270A or clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 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

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

2), Dibrugarh before levying of penalty dated 15-05- 2018 is vague and therefore, bad in law. According to him, the penalty notice does not specify the fault/charge against the assessee, for which the proposed penalty is intended to be levied, so according to him since the fault for which the penalty is proposed to be levied is not clear

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

2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the penalty notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(C) is bad in law and invalid inspite the amendment of Section 271(1)(B) with retrospective effect and by virtue of the amendment, the assessing officer has initiated

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

2% of Rs. 24,10,000/-) 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

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

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