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.

25 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 274clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,513Mumbai1,213Kolkata514Jaipur353Bangalore280Pune274Ahmedabad245Chennai180Surat178Indore177Hyderabad138Karnataka112Amritsar83Chandigarh82Ranchi74Cuttack67Rajkot64Raipur64Cochin60Visakhapatnam58Allahabad56Lucknow29Guwahati25Patna24Nagpur24Dehradun24Agra24Kerala14Jodhpur14Panaji6Jabalpur4Telangana3Varanasi3SC2Rajasthan2Calcutta2

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)74Section 27443Section 153A35Section 271(1)30Section 27129Penalty24Section 271A17Addition to Income9Section 139(1)8

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 uses the word "may' and not "shall". The word "may" cannot be equated with "shall" especially in penalty proceedings. Using the word "may', which is discretionary in nature, gives a discretion to the assessing officer to levy or not to levy the penalty even if the assessee had made some default under the said provision. Whether any penalty should

Showing 1–20 of 25 · Page 1 of 2

Section 2507
Cash Deposit5
Search & Seizure5

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 uses the word "may' and not "shall". The word "may" cannot be equated with "shall" especially in penalty proceedings. Using the word "may', which is discretionary in nature, gives a discretion to the assessing officer to levy or not to levy the penalty even if the assessee had made some default under the said provision. Whether any penalty should

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 uses the word "may' and not "shall". The word "may" cannot be equated with "shall" especially in penalty proceedings. Using the word "may', which is discretionary in nature, gives a discretion to the assessing officer to levy or not to levy the penalty even if the assessee had made some default under the said provision. Whether any penalty should

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

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

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

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

penalty notice was adjudicated by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court [though in a different context i.e notice issued u/s. 274 read with section 271

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without specifying the limb of the penalty and finally imposed by the penalty for concealment of inaccurate particulars of income. However, the assessee has challenged the imposition of penalty mainly on the basis of notice itself, therefore, we deem it proper to decide the legal issue involved in the instant case, instead

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

penalty levied u/s. 271(1) ( c) read with section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). 2. None

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

u/s. 274 of the Act should specifically state as to whether penalty is being proposed to be imposed for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Hon’ble High court has further laid down that certain printed form where all the grounds given in section 271

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

u/s. 274 of the Act should specifically state as to whether penalty is being proposed to be imposed for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Hon’ble High court has further laid down that certain printed form where all the grounds given in section 271

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 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 to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section,- (a) “specified date” means

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 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 to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section,- (a) “specified date” means

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

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

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is defective in nature, since it had not spelt out the specific fault/charge as to whether ‘assessee had concealed the particulars of his income’ or ‘furnished inaccurate particulars of such income’ and drew our attention to the notice dated 14.12.2016 issued by the AO u/s. 274 read with section

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

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is defective in nature since it had not spelt out the specific fault/charge as to whether ‘assessee had concealed the particulars of his income’ or ‘furnished inaccurate particulars of such income’ and drew our attention to the notice dated 29.04.2016 issued by the AO u/s. 274 read with section

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

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is defective in nature, since it had not spelt out the specific fault/charge as to whether ‘assessee had concealed the particulars of his income’ or ‘furnished inaccurate particulars of such income’ and drew our attention to the notice dated 28.12.2016 issued by the AO u/s. 274 read with section

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

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is defective in nature, since it had not spelt out the specific fault/charge as to whether ‘assessee had concealed the particulars of his income’ or ‘furnished inaccurate particulars of such income’ and drew our attention to the notice dated 22.12.2016 issued by the AO u/s. 274 read with section

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