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 69clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,180Mumbai897Jaipur334Ahmedabad329Kolkata319Bangalore183Pune177Chennai169Indore158Hyderabad152Karnataka128Raipur122Chandigarh90Rajkot78Surat64Amritsar37Calcutta34Lucknow33Nagpur32Allahabad31Visakhapatnam28Ranchi25Cochin23Guwahati21Dehradun19Agra14Patna11Cuttack7Jodhpur7SC4Varanasi4Jabalpur3Telangana3Panaji3Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)40Section 27418Penalty15Section 25012Section 27112Addition to Income12Section 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 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

Showing 1–20 of 21 · Page 1 of 2

7
Section 143(2)6
Section 153A6
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 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

69 of the Act. In the assessment order, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of particulars of income to the extent as discussed above. Thereafter show cause notice was issued to the assessee on various dates calling for his explanation as to why an order imposing penalty u/s 271

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

u/s 274 of the Act 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. Further we note that as against the 3 Sikha Mittal decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, the revenue preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court

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

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. We also note that as against the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court the revenue preferred an appeal

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

u/s 274 of the Act 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. The ld. Counsel further brought to our notice that as against the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court the revenue preferred an appeal

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

u/s 274 of the Act 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. The ld. Counsel further brought to our notice that as against the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court the revenue preferred an appeal

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

u/s 274 of the Act 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. The ld. Counsel further brought to our notice that as against the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court the revenue preferred an appeal

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

u/s 274 of the Act 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. The ld. Counsel further brought to our notice that as against the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court the revenue preferred an appeal

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)

penalty is hereby initiated u/s 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. [Addition: Rs. 1,96,07,621/-]” 4. On appeal, ld. first Appellate Authority not only confirmed the view point of ld. AO rather enhanced the addition. Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of total sundry creditors shown by the assessee on the ground that liability

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)

penalty is hereby initiated u/s 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. [Addition: Rs. 1,96,07,621/-]” 4. On appeal, ld. first Appellate Authority not only confirmed the view point of ld. AO rather enhanced the addition. Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of total sundry creditors shown by the assessee on the ground that liability

SHYAMASHREE FINVEST (P) LTD,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD7(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

ITA 106/GTY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati16 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 124Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271Section 68

penalty of Rs. 1,16,71,115/- made by the assessing officer U/s 271 (1)(c) on account of unverifiable investment. 2. That your appellant craves leave of your honour to take additional ground or grounds of appeal or to modify any grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.” 3. First we take up the quantum appeal

SHYAMASHREE FINVEST (P) LTD,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD7(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

ITA 105/GTY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati16 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 124Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271Section 68

penalty of Rs. 1,16,71,115/- made by the assessing officer U/s 271 (1)(c) on account of unverifiable investment. 2. That your appellant craves leave of your honour to take additional ground or grounds of appeal or to modify any grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.” 3. First we take up the quantum appeal

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)

69,450/-. During A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14 the assessment proceeding, the ld. AO asked the assessee to explain the reasons for difference of salary income as per original return of income filed by the assessee and return filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. In response to such query made by the AO, the assessee submitted

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)

69,450/-. During A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14 the assessment proceeding, the ld. AO asked the assessee to explain the reasons for difference of salary income as per original return of income filed by the assessee and return filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. In response to such query made by the AO, the assessee submitted

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

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 by the I.T.O. Thus, the cited

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 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

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

ASSISTANT 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 2/GTY/2023[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