Search: penalty u/s 271 | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

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

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,127 Mumbai1,780 Ahmedabad536 Jaipur526 Chennai380 Indore361 Surat334 Kolkata329 Pune308 Hyderabad304 Bangalore295 Rajkot204 Chandigarh202 Raipur191 Amritsar125 Nagpur108 Patna92 Cochin91 Visakhapatnam88 Lucknow83 Allahabad81 Agra68 Guwahati60 Dehradun60 Ranchi49 Cuttack49 Jodhpur42 Jabalpur41 Panaji20 Varanasi13

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)42 Penalty35 Addition to Income33 Section 143(3)30 Section 271(1)(b)26 Section 27125 Section 25023 Section 271C22 Section 14721

SHRI PANKAJ KUMAR RAI,KATNI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2 , KATNI

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 96/JAB/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. K P Dewani, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ravi Mehrotra, JCIT-DR

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Section 271(1)(c): Penalty-Concealment-Non-striking off of the irrelevant part while issuing notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income

J.P TOBACCO PRODUCT PVT. LTD.,DAMOH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Showing 1–20 of 41 · Page 1 of 3

ITA 155/JAB/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Sept 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. J.P.Tobacco Products Vs Acit, Pvt. Ltd., Patharia Phatak, Circle-Sagar. Damoh (M.P.). (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj7141G Assessee By Shri G.N.Purohit, Sr.Adv. & Shri Abhijeet Shrivastava, Adv. Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2023

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature. (4) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the levy of penalty is perverse unjustified and uncalled for.” 2 | P a g e J.P.Tobacco Product Pvt.Ltd. vs ACIT 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessment u/s

AMIT KUMAR YADAV,SEONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SEONI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 166/JAB/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. G.N. Purohit, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 250Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)

u/s 142(1). The penalty of Rs. 50000/- should be quashed in toto. 4. That The applicant reserves his right to raise additional ground or grounds of appeal those may arise at the time of hearing of this appeal.” 2. The facts of the case are, that the return of income of the assessee for the assessment year

AMIT KUMAR YADAV,SEONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SEONI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 168/JAB/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. G.N. Purohit, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 250Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)

u/s 142(1). The penalty of Rs. 50000/- should be quashed in toto. 4. That The applicant reserves his right to raise additional ground or grounds of appeal those may arise at the time of hearing of this appeal.” 2. The facts of the case are, that the return of income of the assessee for the assessment year

MANESSH SHARMA,JABALPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME OFFICER (TDS), BHOPAL

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 102/JAB/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 201(1)Section 250Section 271Section 271C

section 271(c) of the I. T. Act i.e the Ld. CTT(A) has erred both in law and in facts in upholding the impugned penalty order passed by Ld. AO is arbitrarily, unjustly and without basis in levying penalty of Rs. 4,04,312/- u/s

MANESSH SHARMA ,JABALPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME OFFICER (TDS), BHOPAL

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 103/JAB/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 201(1)Section 250Section 271Section 271C

section 271(c) of the I. T. Act i.e the Ld. CTT(A) has erred both in law and in facts in upholding the impugned penalty order passed by Ld. AO is arbitrarily, unjustly and without basis in levying penalty of Rs. 4,04,312/- u/s

MANESSH SHARMA,JABALPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 99/JAB/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 201(1)Section 250Section 271Section 271C

section 271(c) of the I. T. Act i.e the Ld. CTT(A) has erred both in law and in facts in upholding the impugned penalty order passed by Ld. AO is arbitrarily, unjustly and without basis in levying penalty of Rs. 4,04,312/- u/s

MANESSH SHARMA,JABALPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 101/JAB/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 201(1)Section 250Section 271Section 271C

section 271(c) of the I. T. Act i.e the Ld. CTT(A) has erred both in law and in facts in upholding the impugned penalty order passed by Ld. AO is arbitrarily, unjustly and without basis in levying penalty of Rs. 4,04,312/- u/s

MANESSH SHARMA,JABALPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 100/JAB/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 201(1)Section 250Section 271Section 271C

section 271(c) of the I. T. Act i.e the Ld. CTT(A) has erred both in law and in facts in upholding the impugned penalty order passed by Ld. AO is arbitrarily, unjustly and without basis in levying penalty of Rs. 4,04,312/- u/s

RAJESH SINGH,REWA vs. ITO WARD-1 REWA, REWA

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 129/JAB/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur19 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.128 & 129/Jab/2023 A.Y. 2010-11 Rajesh Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, M/S Pharma Deal Agency, Ward No.8, Ward-1, Rewa, M.P. Mauganj, Distt. Rewa, M.P. Pan:Atrps5702K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Devendra Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

penalty under section 271(1)(b) arises out of the assessment, the two cases are taken up together for adjudication. The grounds of appeal in these two cases are as under:- ITA No.-128/JAB/2023 “1. That the Ld. Appellate authority CIT (Appeal) has grossly eared on facts and circumstances of the case to confirm the addition

RAJESH SINGH,REWA vs. ITO WARD -1,REWA, REWA

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 128/JAB/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur19 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.128 & 129/Jab/2023 A.Y. 2010-11 Rajesh Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, M/S Pharma Deal Agency, Ward No.8, Ward-1, Rewa, M.P. Mauganj, Distt. Rewa, M.P. Pan:Atrps5702K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Devendra Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

penalty under section 271(1)(b) arises out of the assessment, the two cases are taken up together for adjudication. The grounds of appeal in these two cases are as under:- ITA No.-128/JAB/2023 “1. That the Ld. Appellate authority CIT (Appeal) has grossly eared on facts and circumstances of the case to confirm the addition

DINESH JAT,SAGAR vs. CIT(A), NFAC

ITA 196/JAB/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Jaiswal Sancheti, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 69A

u/s 271(1)(c) is unsustainable in law and facts. 2. Penalty Confirmed Without Establishing Concealment or Inaccurate Particulars The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty under section

DINESH JAT,SAGAR vs. CIT (A), SAGAR

ITA 195/JAB/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Jaiswal Sancheti, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 69A

u/s 271(1)(c) is unsustainable in law and facts. 2. Penalty Confirmed Without Establishing Concealment or Inaccurate Particulars The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty under section

VENKET RAMAN NARLWAR, THROUGHOUT L/H DR. PRATIMA RAMAN,KATNI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -2, KATNI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 54/JAB/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshradr. Pratima Raman (L/H Of V. Income Tax Officer-2 Venket Raman Narlwar Aayakar Bhawan, Sahkarita Maryadit) Jhinjhari, Katni-483501. Venket Building Lalita Bhawan, Sawarkar Ward, Katni-483501. Pan:Abhpn5492K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Dhiraj Ghai, Ca Respondent By: Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. Dr-1 O R D E R (A) The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)- Delhi, Dated 12.02.2025 Which In Turn Arose From The Penalty Order Passed Under Section 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, For Short) For The Assessment Year 2011-12. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Assessee Are As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj Ghai, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. DR-1

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 273B

u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act of Rs.10,000/-. The assessee’s appeal against the order levying penalty was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) due to non-compliance of notices by the assessee. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against order of the Ld.CIT(A). (2.1) At the time of hearing, learned Counsel

J.P TOBACO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,DAMOH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE , SAGAR

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 184/JAB/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Sept 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 115Section 271Section 271(1)(d)

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for concealment of income/inaccurate particulars of fringe benefit of tax (FBT). The issue involved in both the appeals is ITA No.183 & 184/Jab/2018 J.P.Tobacco Products Pvt.Ltd. vs DCIT common, therefore both the appeals were heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated

J.P TOBACO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,DAMOH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE , SAGAR

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 183/JAB/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Sept 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 115Section 271Section 271(1)(d)

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for concealment of income/inaccurate particulars of fringe benefit of tax (FBT). The issue involved in both the appeals is ITA No.183 & 184/Jab/2018 J.P.Tobacco Products Pvt.Ltd. vs DCIT common, therefore both the appeals were heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated

SHRI DIGPAL JAISWAL,KATNI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JABALPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 83/JAB/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. K P Dewani, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Shravan Kumar Gotru, CIT-DR

Section 1Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 271(1)(b)Section 40

section 271(1)(b) indicates A.O. is required to be satisfied in the course of any proceedings under the Act for default before levying penalty. Assessment order passed on 16/10/2019 (P 14 - 18) does not indicate any satisfaction recorded for levy of penalty u/s

SHRI DIGPAL JAISWAL,KATNI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1 , KATNI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 42/JAB/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. K P Dewani, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Shravan Kumar Gotru, CIT-DR

Section 1Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 271(1)(b)Section 40

section 271(1)(b) indicates A.O. is required to be satisfied in the course of any proceedings under the Act for default before levying penalty. Assessment order passed on 16/10/2019 (P 14 - 18) does not indicate any satisfaction recorded for levy of penalty u/s

RAJ KUMAR KHATIK,SAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3, SAGAR, SAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 13/JAB/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadaleraj Kumar Khatik, Vs Ito, Fresh Vegetable Commission Ward-3, Sagar Agent, Sabji Mandi, Sagar, Madhya Pradesh-470002. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Cefpk7387R Assessee By Shri Dhiraj Ghai, Fca Revenue By Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20/09/2023

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 142(1)of the Act. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1 | P a g e 1. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Id CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the penalty of 10,000/- imposed under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 2. On the facts

BANPRABHA REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD. NIRMAL CHHAYA, BEHIND BLOCK OFFICE, KHUTEHI, REWA-486001,REWA vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE SATNA, SATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 92/JAB/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. K.P Dewani, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ravi Mehrotra, JCIT-DR

Section 27Section 271Section 271ASection 271BSection 271CSection 271ESection 271FSection 271GSection 272ASection 272B

271 , section 271A, 22 [ section 271AA,] section 271B 23[, section 271BA], 24 [ section 271BB,] section 271C , 25[ section 271CA , ] section 27 1D, section 271E, 26 [ section 271F, 27 [ section 271FA,] 28 [ section 271FB,] 3 Banprabha Real Estate P Ltd. 29 [ section 271G,]] clause (c) or clause (d) of sub -section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A