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.

79 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 5clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi5,355Mumbai4,702Ahmedabad1,278Kolkata1,132Jaipur943Bangalore854Pune852Chennai668Indore606Surat536Hyderabad484Chandigarh399Rajkot260Amritsar239Raipur237Cochin179Lucknow174Visakhapatnam172Karnataka154Nagpur143Cuttack139Agra110Patna95Ranchi90Allahabad86Guwahati79Dehradun78Jabalpur65Jodhpur51Panaji44Calcutta39Varanasi21Kerala15SC12Telangana7Rajasthan4Punjab & Haryana2Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 153A131Section 271(1)(c)115Section 10(26)49Addition to Income46Penalty44Section 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

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 on the same

Showing 1–20 of 79 · 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

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 on the same

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 on the same

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued and served to the assessee fixing the date of hearing on 03/01/2019 at 11:30 AM. However, no response was received from the assessee.” 4.2. Ld. Counsel also referred to provisions of Section 271(1) of the Act, and submitted that sub-section very categorically mentions about Assessing

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

5 months in getting accounts audited for year under consideration which was reasonable period for getting accounts audited, Assessing Officer was not justified in levying penalty under section 271B on assessee - Held, yes 8. Therefore, the ld. AR urged us to delete the impugned penalty levied u/s. 271B of the Act on both aforesaid grounds. He also pointed out that

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

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

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act without specifying the limb under which the penalty proceedings have been initiated and proceeded with, apparently goes to prove that notice in this case has been issued in a stereotyped manner without applying mind which is bad in law, hence cannot be considered a valid notice sufficient to impose penalty u/s 271

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

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 are given would not satisfy the requirement

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

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

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, the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the impugned penalty on the basis of detailed finding given

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

Section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. r) The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, principles of natural justice is offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed to the assessee. s) Taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another

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

Section 271(1)(c) in the printed form without specifically mentioning whether the proceedings are initiated on the ground of concealment of income or on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars is valid and legal? 2. Whether the proceedings initiated by the Assessing Authority was legal and valid? The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court held in the negative and against

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

Section 271(1)(c) in the printed form without specifically mentioning whether the proceedings are initiated on the ground of concealment of income or on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars is valid and legal? 2. Whether the proceedings initiated by the 5 Shri Bishnu Chandra Dutta, AY- 2014-15 Assessing Authority was legal and valid? The Hon’ble Karnataka

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- AGARTALA , AGARTALA vs. RAJARSHI MOTORS PVT. LTD., AGARTALA

In the result, all the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 118/GTY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.117 To 123/Gty/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2014-15 Dcit, Rajarshi Motors Pvt. Ltd., Circle Agartala A.A. Road, Chandrapur, Vs. Agartala, Tripura Pan : Aaccr8033P अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mody, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Kaushik Ray, JCIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

section 68 as undisclosed income. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(i)(c) is being separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate details and concealment of income. Addition u/s 68............................................................................Rs. 78,967/- Voluntary Disclosure 11. In course of search proceedings, Shri Swapan Kumar paul, Key person of the Swapan Kumar Paul group disclosed voluntarily Rs. 19,55,75,000/- as undisclosed income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- AGARTALA , AGARTALA vs. RAJARSHI MOTORS PVT. LTD., AGARTALA

In the result, all the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 119/GTY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.117 To 123/Gty/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2014-15 Dcit, Rajarshi Motors Pvt. Ltd., Circle Agartala A.A. Road, Chandrapur, Vs. Agartala, Tripura Pan : Aaccr8033P अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mody, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Kaushik Ray, JCIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

section 68 as undisclosed income. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(i)(c) is being separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate details and concealment of income. Addition u/s 68............................................................................Rs. 78,967/- Voluntary Disclosure 11. In course of search proceedings, Shri Swapan Kumar paul, Key person of the Swapan Kumar Paul group disclosed voluntarily Rs. 19,55,75,000/- as undisclosed income