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.

21 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 6(1)(iii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,322Mumbai1,876Ahmedabad513Kolkata482Jaipur446Bangalore431Indore309Chennai292Pune272Hyderabad238Chandigarh196Surat153Karnataka144Raipur96Rajkot90Amritsar82Cochin81Visakhapatnam67Lucknow61Allahabad53Nagpur46Calcutta37Cuttack35Ranchi33Agra29Patna28Guwahati21Dehradun16Kerala14Panaji13Jodhpur13Jabalpur12Varanasi11SC10Telangana6Rajasthan3Gauhati1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)41Section 27420Penalty14Addition to Income13Section 25010Section 27110Section 143(3)9Section 271A8Disallowance

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

6. It was also submitted that there are several other judgements which state that the penalty may not be imposed in certain situations, i.e., it is discretionary and not mandatory to levy penalty in every such I.T.A. Nos.: 256 & 257/GTY/2024 Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22 Bhagya Kalita. case and the Ld. AO had not considered the facts and circumstances

Showing 1–20 of 21 · Page 1 of 2

7
Section 153D6
Section 271(1)6
Depreciation5

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

6. It was also submitted that there are several other judgements which state that the penalty may not be imposed in certain situations, i.e., it is discretionary and not mandatory to levy penalty in every such I.T.A. Nos.: 256 & 257/GTY/2024 Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22 Bhagya Kalita. case and the Ld. AO had not considered the facts and circumstances

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

iii. The appellant craves the leave to take additional grounds at the time of hearing of appeal.” 3. At the time of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in the instant case notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) dated 12.06.2019 of the Act by the A.O. is vague having not mentioned any limb of the penalty

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

iii) Mahesh M.Gandhi Vs. ACIT Vs. ACIT ITA No.2976/Mum/2016 dated 27.2.2017. Reliance was placed on two decisions of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court viz., (i) CIT Vs. Kaushalya 216 ITR 660(Bom) and (ii) M/S.Maharaj Garage & Co. Vs. CIT dated 22.8.2017. This decision was referred to in the written note given by the learned DR. This is an unreported

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

iii) Mahesh M.Gandhi Vs. ACIT Vs. ACIT ITA No.2976/Mum/2016 dated 27.2.2017. Reliance was placed on two decisions of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court viz., (i) CIT Vs. Kaushalya 216 ITR 660(Bom) and (ii) M/S.Maharaj Garage & Co. Vs. CIT dated 22.8.2017. This decision was referred to in the written note given by the learned DR. This is an unreported

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

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

iii) Mahesh M.Gandhi Vs. ACIT Vs. ACIT ITA No.2976/Mum/2016 dated 27.2.2017. Reliance was placed on two decisions of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court viz., (i) CIT Vs. Kaushalya 216 ITR 660(Bom) and (ii) M/S.Maharaj Garage & Co. Vs. CIT dated 22.8.2017. This decision was referred to in the written note given by the learned DR. This is an unreported

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

iii) for direction for payment of penalty was held as procedurally defective. The provisions laid down u/s. 153D of the Act under consideration in the present case before us, are different as here the prior approval of Joint Commissioner is not required merely for direction for payment of the due amount of tax but overall approval of the assessment framed

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

iii) Mahesh M.Gandhi Vs. ACIT Vs. ACIT ITA No.2976/Mum/2016 dated 27.2.2017. Reliance was placed on two decisions of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court viz., (i) CIT Vs. Kaushalya 216 ITR 660(Bom) and (ii) M/S.Maharaj Garage & Co. Vs. CIT dated 22.8.2017. This decision was referred to in the written note given by the learned DR. This is an unreported

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

iii) Mahesh M.Gandhi Vs. ACIT Vs. ACIT ITA No.2976/Mum/2016 dated 27.2.2017. Reliance was placed on two decisions of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court viz., (i) CIT Vs. Kaushalya 216 ITR 660(Bom) and (ii) M/S.Maharaj Garage & Co. Vs. CIT dated 22.8.2017. This decision was referred to in the written note given by the learned DR. This is an unreported

M/S. ASSAM TEA CORPORATION LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 216/GTY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati20 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Sri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 150(1)Section 150(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

6 31.03.2009 124,10,35,109 7 31.03.2010 130,32,47,966 8 31.03.2011 136,01,89,749 9 31.03.2012 141,38,93,166 4.1 Despite showing high amount as sundry creditors in its Balance Sheet over the years, the assessee has not even furnished details of same. Even the garden-wise details of sundry creditors has not been furnished

M/S. ASSAM TEA CORPORATION LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 85/GTY/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati20 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Sri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 150(1)Section 150(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

6 31.03.2009 124,10,35,109 7 31.03.2010 130,32,47,966 8 31.03.2011 136,01,89,749 9 31.03.2012 141,38,93,166 4.1 Despite showing high amount as sundry creditors in its Balance Sheet over the years, the assessee has not even furnished details of same. Even the garden-wise details of sundry creditors has not been furnished

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

iii) Mahesh M.Gandhi Vs. ACIT Vs. ACIT ITA No.2976/Mum/2016 dated 27.2.2017. Reliance was placed on two decisions of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court viz., (i) CIT Vs. Kaushalya 216 ITR 660(Bom) and (ii) M/S.Maharaj Garage & Co. Vs. CIT dated 22.8.2017. This decision was referred to in the written note given by the learned DR. This is an unreported

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)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and imposed penalty of Rs. 40,346/- on the assessee vide penalty order dated 29.06.2017. Aggrieved by the penalty order, assessee had filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). However, the assessee could not succeed before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) upheld the order passed

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)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and imposed penalty of Rs. 40,346/- on the assessee vide penalty order dated 29.06.2017. Aggrieved by the penalty order, assessee had filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). However, the assessee could not succeed before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) upheld the order passed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- JORHAT, JORHAT vs. M/S. TOOR FINANCE COMPANY LTD,, JORHAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 305/GTY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati20 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c0 have been initiated separately by issue of notice u/s 274. (B.V. GERANGAL) Income Tax Officer, Ward-25(3), New Delhi”. 4 M/s. Toor Finance Company Limited 5. We find that the ld. Assessing Officer has made two additions, namely Rs.8,94,55,000/- as unexplained credits with the aid of section 68 and Rs.26

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 39/GTY/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

u/s 250 of the Act dated 27.07.2022 running into 1017 pages allowing the deduction claimed u/s.80IA of the Act and the crux of his finding is summarized as under: “(i) That, in respect of an assessment year whose proceedings had abated, a Return of Income filed in compliance to the Notice issued u/s 153A of the Act, substitutes the prior/earlier

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 38/GTY/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

u/s 250 of the Act dated 27.07.2022 running into 1017 pages allowing the deduction claimed u/s.80IA of the Act and the crux of his finding is summarized as under: “(i) That, in respect of an assessment year whose proceedings had abated, a Return of Income filed in compliance to the Notice issued u/s 153A of the Act, substitutes the prior/earlier

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 37/GTY/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

u/s 250 of the Act dated 27.07.2022 running into 1017 pages allowing the deduction claimed u/s.80IA of the Act and the crux of his finding is summarized as under: “(i) That, in respect of an assessment year whose proceedings had abated, a Return of Income filed in compliance to the Notice issued u/s 153A of the Act, substitutes the prior/earlier

ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 43/GTY/2022[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

u/s 250 of the Act dated 27.07.2022 running into 1017 pages allowing the deduction claimed u/s.80IA of the Act and the crux of his finding is summarized as under: “(i) That, in respect of an assessment year whose proceedings had abated, a Return of Income filed in compliance to the Notice issued u/s 153A of the Act, substitutes the prior/earlier