BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

13 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 156clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi172Mumbai105Raipur87Jaipur76Chennai57Ahmedabad44Bangalore33Kolkata20Ranchi17Pune14Indore13Hyderabad12Visakhapatnam11Panaji10Lucknow10Allahabad8Rajkot7Patna7Surat6Chandigarh5Cuttack3Cochin1Jodhpur1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)47Section 27417Penalty12Section 1478Section 143(3)8Addition to Income8Section 1326Section 153A6Section 271

SANJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL,BURHANPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CENTRAL-1, INDORE

ITA 714/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Sept 2025AY 2012-13
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s Section 274 sets in motion the penalty-\nproceeding. According to Ld. AR, the aforesaid notice issued by AO is very\nmuch vague in as much it contains stereotype language of section 271(1)(c).\nThe Ld. AR contended that by mentioning that the assessee has “concealed\nthe particulars of income” or “furnished inaccurate particulars of income\",\nthe

RADHESHYAM AGARWAL,BHOPAL vs. THE PCIT, CENTRAL, BHOPAL , BHOPAL

ITA 417/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore
6
Section 1485
Condonation of Delay4
Deduction3
16 Jan 2026
AY 2018-19
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 253Section 263

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has\nrendered, the assessment order erroneous in so far as prejudicial\nto the interest of the Revenue. The relevant finding of the Hon'ble\nAllahabad High Court is reproduced as under:\n\"5. We have heard Shri A.N. Mahajan, the learned Standing\nCounsel for the Revenue and Shri Rishi Raj Kapoor, leamed\ncounsel

KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI,INDORE vs. DCIT-1(1), INDORE, INDORE

Accordingly, we are inclined to reject the condonation request and\nwe do so. Consequently, the appeal of AY 2010-11 is dismissed in\nlimine as being time-barred

ITA 161/IND/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Nov 2025AY 2012-13
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 271(1)(c) is clearly mentioned\nin respective additions.\n\n10. We have considered rival submissions of both sides and perused the\ncase-records including the show-cause notice and order of penalty made by\nAO in the light of decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. On perusal\nof the show-cause notice

KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI,INDORE vs. DCIT-1(1), INDORE, INDORE

Accordingly, we are inclined to reject the condonation request and\nwe do so. Consequently, the appeal of AY 2010-11 is dismissed in\nlimine as being time-barred

ITA 137/IND/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Nov 2025AY 2010-11
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 271(1)(c) is clearly mentioned\nin respective additions.\n\n10. We have considered rival submissions of both sides and perused the\ncase-records including the show-cause notice and order of penalty made by\nAO in the light of decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. On perusal\nof the show-cause notice

KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI,INDORE vs. DCIT-1(1), INDORE, INDORE

Accordingly, we are inclined to reject the condonation request and\nwe do so. Consequently, the appeal of AY 2010-11 is dismissed in\nlimine as being time-barred

ITA 162/IND/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Nov 2025AY 2009-10
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 271(1)(c) is clearly mentioned\nin respective additions.\n\n10. We have considered rival submissions of both sides and perused the\ncase-records including the show-cause notice and order of penalty made by\nAO in the light of decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. On perusal\nof the show-cause notice

SMT. KAVITA SACHDEV,INDORE vs. ITO-3(4), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 255/IND/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2011-12 Smt. Kavita Sachdev, Income-Tax Officer, 112,Jairampur Colony, 3(4), बनाम/ Indore. Indore. Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan : Arcps6793D Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.05.2024

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

section 143(3). Further, as per Explanation 4(c), when the assessee has already paid self- assessment tax and nothing was outstanding, then penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not leviable. He has referred to the computation of income and penalty by the AO as well as the demand u/s 156

SANJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL,BURHANUPUR vs. JOINT COMMISIIONER OF INCOME TAX -OSD, CENTRAL-1, INDORE , INDORE

ITA 715/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Sept 2025AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 274 sets in motion the penalty-\nproceeding. According to Ld. AR, the aforesaid notice issued by AO is very\nmuch vague in as much it contains stereotype language of section 271(1)(c).\nThe Ld. AR contended that by mentioning that the assessee has \"concealed\nthe particulars of income\" or \"furnished inaccurate particulars of income\",\nthe AO is himself

SANJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL ,BURHANPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -OSD, CENTRAL-1, INDORE , INDORE

ITA 716/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Sept 2025AY 2014-15
Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 274 sets in motion the penalty-\nproceeding. According to Ld. AR, the aforesaid notice issued by AO is very\nmuch vague in as much it contains stereotype language of section 271(1)(c).\nThe Ld. AR contended that by mentioning that the assessee has \"concealed\nthe particulars of income\" or \"furnished inaccurate particulars of income\",\nthe AO is himself

BALKISHAN KOUSHAL ,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

Appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 72/IND/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Indore12 Jul 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniay: 2013-14 Shri Balkishan Koshal, Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 31, Bhagirathpura, Nfac, Vs. Indore. Delhi (Pan: Bkipk5435L) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Ay: 2013-14 Shri Balkishan Koshal, Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 31, Bhagirathpura, Nfac, Vs. Indore. Delhi (Pan: Bkipk5435L) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68Section 69

271(1)(c) and ultimately passed penalty-order dated 03.02.2022 imposing a penalty of Rs. 4,20,000/- qua the addition of Rs. 14,00,000/-. Aggrieved by both orders, namely assessment-order and penalty-order, the assessee filed two separate appeals to CIT(A) but the CIT(A) noted that the appeals filed by assessee were belated

BALKISHAN KOSHAL ,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW DELHI

Appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 69/IND/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Indore12 Jul 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniay: 2013-14 Shri Balkishan Koshal, Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 31, Bhagirathpura, Nfac, Vs. Indore. Delhi (Pan: Bkipk5435L) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Ay: 2013-14 Shri Balkishan Koshal, Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 31, Bhagirathpura, Nfac, Vs. Indore. Delhi (Pan: Bkipk5435L) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68Section 69

271(1)(c) and ultimately passed penalty-order dated 03.02.2022 imposing a penalty of Rs. 4,20,000/- qua the addition of Rs. 14,00,000/-. Aggrieved by both orders, namely assessment-order and penalty-order, the assessee filed two separate appeals to CIT(A) but the CIT(A) noted that the appeals filed by assessee were belated

C.I. FINLEASE PRIVATE LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-1(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 396/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Jun 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: C.I. Finlease Private Limited, Bhopal (PAN: AABCC6164B)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) and consulted with a different\ncounsel for filing of appeals in penalty matters that the assessee came to know\nthat the counsel had not filed appeals against impugned orders. Immediately\nthereafter, the assessee arranged to file these appeals on 03.07.2023 alongwith\nappeals in penalty matters. Thus, there is no lethargy or negligence on the part of\nassessee

M/S C.I. BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 248/IND/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) and consulted with a different counsel for filing of appeals in penalty matters that the assessee came to know that the counsel had not filed appeals against impugned orders. Immediately thereafter, the assessee Page 6 of 16 C.I. Builders Private Limited, Bhopal ITA Nos. 247 & 248/Ind/2023 A.Y.2010-11 & 2012-13 arranged to file these appeals

M/S C.I. BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT, 1(2), BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 247/IND/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Jan 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) and consulted with a different counsel for filing of appeals in penalty matters that the assessee came to know that the counsel had not filed appeals against impugned orders. Immediately thereafter, the assessee Page 6 of 16 C.I. Builders Private Limited, Bhopal ITA Nos. 247 & 248/Ind/2023 A.Y.2010-11 & 2012-13 arranged to file these appeals