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.

39 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 271(1)(d)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,302Delhi3,344Ahmedabad1,064Kolkata880Jaipur863Bangalore825Chennai659Indore606Pune453Surat431Hyderabad390Raipur189Rajkot183Cochin177Lucknow174Visakhapatnam170Chandigarh160Karnataka151Cuttack140Nagpur119Allahabad97Ranchi78Amritsar76Agra68Patna63Jabalpur53Guwahati39Dehradun37Calcutta36Jodhpur31Panaji28Varanasi21Kerala18SC13Telangana6Rajasthan4

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)62Section 153C42Section 153A41Section 25024Penalty21Addition to Income20Section 10(26)19Section 27118Section 274

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for AY 2014-15 & AY 2015-16 is concerned we find that ld. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty observing as follows (relevant extract): “It has been contended by the Appellant that the impugned penalty has been imposed merely on the basis of estimated addition and that taxes were paid

Showing 1–20 of 39 · Page 1 of 2

18
Section 14418
Search & Seizure10
Depreciation6

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for AY 2014-15 & AY 2015-16 is concerned we find that ld. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty observing as follows (relevant extract): “It has been contended by the Appellant that the impugned penalty has been imposed merely on the basis of estimated addition and that taxes were paid

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for AY 2014-15 & AY 2015-16 is concerned we find that ld. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty observing as follows (relevant extract): “It has been contended by the Appellant that the impugned penalty has been imposed merely on the basis of estimated addition and that taxes were paid

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

D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – Guwahati - 1, (hereinafter the “ld. CIT(A)”) dated 03/03/2020 for Assessment Year 2016-17 against the penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

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

D E R PER: BENCH 1. The present appeals filed by the assessee arise from order dated 26/11/2025 and 24/10/2025, passed 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

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

D E R PER: BENCH 1. The present appeals filed by the assessee arise from order dated 26/11/2025 and 24/10/2025, passed 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

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

D Sector, Papum Pare, Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh – 791111. (PAN: APRPD 4130 Q) Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 19.10.2022 Date of Pronouncement 08.12.2022 For the Appellant Shri S.P. Bhati, FCA For the Respondent Shri Amit Kumar Pandey, JCIT ORDER PER SONJOY SARMA, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-IMPHAL, IMPHAL vs. SHRI LAISHRAM MANI SINGH, IMPHAL

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 31/GTY/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati23 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: The Ld. Ao. It Is Seen That The Ld. Cit(A) Had Access To More

Section 132Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. The present appeal arises from order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”), passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter the Ld. CIT(A)”] vide order dated 29.08.2024 for AY 2018-19. 1.1 Through this appeal

M/S. R.M. SAHA PETROLEUM AGENCY,AGARTALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, AGARTALA

Appeal is allowed

ITA 226/GTY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati21 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Sainiassessment Year :2014-15

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

d) Existence of conditions stipulated in Section 271(1)(c) is a sine qua non for initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271. e) The existence of such conditions should be discernible from the Assessment Order or order of the Appellate Authority or Revisional Authority. f) Even if there is no specific finding regarding the existence

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - TINSUKIA , TINSUKIA vs. RINU SINGH L/R OF JOY PRAKASH SINGH , TINSUKIA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 432/GTY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati22 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessment Year:2014-15 Acit, Circle-Tinsukia Vs. Renu Singh The Legal Heir Of Late Jai Prakash Singh Jasoda Talkies Compound, Digboi-786171 Pan/Gir No. : Ahdps9100M (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

d) Existence of conditions stipulated in Section 271(1)(c) is a sine qua non for initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271. e) The existence of such conditions should be discernible from the Assessment Order or order of the Appellate Authority or Revisional Authority. f) Even if there is no specific finding regarding the existence

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

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

JAY KISHAN MANDAL,NAGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NAGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 52/GTY/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati25 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleita Nos.51 & 52/Gty/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Jay Kishan Mandal Ito, Ward-1, Nagaon C/O. Rahul Raj Jain & Co., H. No. 15, 1St Floor, Bye Lane-2, Vs Shaktigarh Path, Bhangagarh, G.S. Road, Assam-781005. Pan: Ajupm 6794 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri N.T. Sherpa, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 16.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.05.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Two Separate Orders Of Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Both Dated 26.08.2021 In Respect Of Assessment Year 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. The Assessee Has Raised Common Grounds Of Appeal For Each Of The Assessment Years Under Consideration: “I. That The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Was Not Justified While Confirming The Penalty Imposed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Ii. That The Appellant Prays Leave To Add, Amend, Alter, Delete Or Forego Any Of The Grounds Either Before Or During The Course Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N.T. Sherpa, JCIT
Section 144Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

D E R PER SONJOY SARMA, JM: The captioned appeals are filed by the assessee against two separate orders of ld. CIT(A), NFAC both dated 26.08.2021 in respect of assessment year 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. The assessee has raised common grounds of appeal for each of the assessment years under consideration: “i. That the ld. CIT(Appeals

JAY KISHAN MANDAL,NAGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NAGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 51/GTY/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati25 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleita Nos.51 & 52/Gty/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Jay Kishan Mandal Ito, Ward-1, Nagaon C/O. Rahul Raj Jain & Co., H. No. 15, 1St Floor, Bye Lane-2, Vs Shaktigarh Path, Bhangagarh, G.S. Road, Assam-781005. Pan: Ajupm 6794 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri N.T. Sherpa, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 16.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.05.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Two Separate Orders Of Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Both Dated 26.08.2021 In Respect Of Assessment Year 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. The Assessee Has Raised Common Grounds Of Appeal For Each Of The Assessment Years Under Consideration: “I. That The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Was Not Justified While Confirming The Penalty Imposed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Ii. That The Appellant Prays Leave To Add, Amend, Alter, Delete Or Forego Any Of The Grounds Either Before Or During The Course Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N.T. Sherpa, JCIT
Section 144Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

D E R PER SONJOY SARMA, JM: The captioned appeals are filed by the assessee against two separate orders of ld. CIT(A), NFAC both dated 26.08.2021 in respect of assessment year 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. The assessee has raised common grounds of appeal for each of the assessment years under consideration: “i. That the ld. CIT(Appeals