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.

62 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 5Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi136Mumbai110Kolkata64Jaipur62Indore58Pune48Ahmedabad36Bangalore24Hyderabad18Amritsar17Raipur17Chennai16Ranchi16Surat12Cochin10Guwahati9Cuttack8Patna8Chandigarh4Panaji3Rajkot2Visakhapatnam2Jodhpur1Karnataka1Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)251Section 153A94Penalty55Addition to Income47Section 139(1)46Section 143(3)38Search & Seizure24Section 13222Section 132(4)

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 197/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hemang Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (through V.C.) a
Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

5A to Section 271(1)(c), penalty is not leviable since the assessee has paid the taxes thereon in the Return of Income filed u/s

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAIPUR vs. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Showing 1–20 of 62 · Page 1 of 4

22
House Property18
Undisclosed Income16
Section 27413
ITA 196/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: Disposed
ITAT Jaipur
24 Sept 2025
AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Hemang Gargieya, Adv. &
Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

5A to Section 271(1)(c), penalty is not leviable\nsince the assessee has paid the taxes thereon in the Return of Income filed u/s

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA , JAIPUR vs. SHRI NATH CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 267/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Hemang Gargieya, Adv. &
Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

5A to Section 271(1)(c), penalty is not leviable since the assessee has paid the taxes thereon in the Return of Income filed u/s

DWARKA GEMS LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 847/JPR/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2024AY 2010-2011
For Appellant: Shri Harshit Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40Section 80I

U/s 271(1)(c) for imposing of penalty\nwithout specifying the limb for reasons to impose the penalty, whether it is for concealed\nparticulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The ld CIT(A) has\nconsidered all the aspect and held that Explanation 5A to Section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA, C-42, GOKUL PATH VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 776/JPR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Ao On The Charge Of Concealment Of Income.

For Appellant: Shri PC Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

penalty under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of this section, be deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income.] 7. It is clear from plain reading of the explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) that, the return of income envisaged in clause (a) of such explanation is return filed u/s

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA, C-42, GOKUL PATH VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 777/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Ao On The Charge Of Concealment Of Income.

For Appellant: Shri PC Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

penalty under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of this section, be deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income.] 7. It is clear from plain reading of the explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) that, the return of income envisaged in clause (a) of such explanation is return filed u/s

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA, C-42, GOKUL PATH VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 778/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Ao On The Charge Of Concealment Of Income.

For Appellant: Shri PC Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

penalty under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of this section, be deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income.] 7. It is clear from plain reading of the explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) that, the return of income envisaged in clause (a) of such explanation is return filed u/s

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. SHRI KAMAL SETHIA, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1498/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Anil Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Shri B. K. Gupta (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

5A to section 271(1)(C) is not applicable as the assessment order is silent on disclosure being relatable to seized assets or incriminating transactions. DCIT, Jaipur vs. Sh. Kamal Sethia, Jaipur 2. That the order passed u/s 143(3) rws u/s 153A does not specify under which limb the penalty

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty is directed to be deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 730/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta (C.A.) &For Respondent: Smt. Roli Agarwal (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

5A to section 271(1)(c) is a deeming provision and subject to fulfilling the requisite conditions, it deems the assessee to have concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income similar to what has been provided in clause (c) to section 271(1) of the Act. In search cases as well, the legislature

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty is directed to be deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 731/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2018AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta (C.A.) &For Respondent: Smt. Roli Agarwal (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

5A to section 271(1)(c) is a deeming provision and subject to fulfilling the requisite conditions, it deems the assessee to have concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income similar to what has been provided in clause (c) to section 271(1) of the Act. In search cases as well, the legislature

SMT. SHIPRA JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty so levied u/s 271(1)(c) is hereby deleted and appeals are allowed

ITA 922/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Oct 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri J. C. Kulhari (JCIT)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c). In view of above, penalty imposed by AO and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) be deleted. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The AO has invoked the deeming provisions of Explanation 5A to Section

RAMESH CHAND BANSAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, AJMER

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 398/JPR/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Jun 2018AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena, JCIT - DR
Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 139Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) invoking Expl. 5A. Accordingly, Show cause notice u/s 274 r/w section 271(1)(c) of the Act were

NARAYAN HEIGHTS & TOWERS,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1033/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Feb 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Vijay Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

U/s 271(1)(c) for imposing of penalty without specifying the limb for reasons to impose the penalty, whether it is for concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The ld CIT(A) has considered all the aspect and held that Explanation 5A to Section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA vs. SMT. MALTI AGARWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1447/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Mar 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta(CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) is not applicable. Accordingly, we delete the penalty confirmed by ld. CIT (A).” Thus, the Tribunal has held that the penalty U/s 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 5A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SMT. JYOTI AGARWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1430/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Mar 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta(CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) is not applicable. Accordingly, we delete the penalty confirmed by ld. CIT (A).” 19 DCIT Vs Jyoti Agarwal Thus, the Tribunal has held that the penalty U/s 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 5A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA vs. SMT. INDIRA AGRAWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1444/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Mar 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta(CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) is not applicable. Accordingly, we delete the penalty confirmed by ld. CIT (A).” 19 DCIT Vs Indira Agarwal Thus, the Tribunal has held that the penalty U/s 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 5A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KOTA vs. SHRI RAJENDRA AGRAWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1432/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Mar 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta(CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) is not applicable. Accordingly, we delete the penalty confirmed by ld. CIT (A).” Thus, the Tribunal has held that the penalty U/s 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 5A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA vs. SHRI AJAY AGARWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1442/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Mar 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta(CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) is not applicable. Accordingly, we delete the penalty confirmed by ld. CIT (A).” Thus, the Tribunal has held that the penalty U/s 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 5A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA vs. SHRI VASUDEV AGRAWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1434/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Mar 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta(CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) is not applicable. Accordingly, we delete the penalty confirmed by ld. CIT (A).” Thus, the Tribunal has held that the penalty U/s 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 5A

RADHA GOVIND LASHKARI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, it cannot be said to be case of concealment of income and the penalty to this extent stand deleted

ITA 141/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 May 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S. R. Sharma (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri O.P. Bhateja (Addl.CIT)
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 153ASection 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before ld CIT (A) against the said penalty order and filed written submission reproduced in appeal order of ld CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) relying on provisions of section 153A, Expl. 5A