BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

5 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 251(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi160Mumbai133Raipur71Jaipur55Bangalore45Indore44Chandigarh37Hyderabad31Pune26Ahmedabad24Allahabad20Chennai20Kolkata20Rajkot17Lucknow14Patna11Nagpur11Surat10Guwahati5Jabalpur5Jodhpur4Dehradun3Varanasi1Cochin1Ranchi1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 10(26)14Section 271A8Section 271(1)(c)7Section 153A6Section 2505Addition to Income4Penalty3Section 251(2)2Section 139(1)

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

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 u/s 271AAB of the Act is not included in section 273B of the Act, once the facts are on record that the case

2
Section 132(1)2
Exemption2
House Property2

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

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 u/s 271AAB of the Act is not included in section 273B of the Act, once the facts are on record that the case

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 7. For that the assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings stand on different footing and the reasonings for the purpose of the making addition cannot be a ground for imposition of penalty. 8. For that the penalty equal to 100% of the tax alleged to have been evaded amounting

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)

271(1)(c) of the Act respectively. 2. First we take up ITA No. 110/Gau/2020. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in upholding addition of Rs.29,08,124/- out of total addition of Rs.43,53,053/- made by assessing officer. 2. For that

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)

271(1)(c) of the Act respectively. 2. First we take up ITA No. 110/Gau/2020. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in upholding addition of Rs.29,08,124/- out of total addition of Rs.43,53,053/- made by assessing officer. 2. For that