Search: penalty u/s 271 | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases 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.

76 results for “penalty u/s 271”

Sorted by relevance

Delhi6,612 Mumbai5,986 Ahmedabad1,414 Kolkata1,412 Pune1,097 Jaipur1,063 Bangalore1,023 Chennai852 Indore796 Hyderabad648 Surat574 Chandigarh514 Amritsar325 Rajkot302 Raipur251 Cochin208 Visakhapatnam201 Lucknow187 Nagpur169 Karnataka164 Cuttack154 Agra132 Patna128 Ranchi105 Allahabad104 Dehradun102 Guwahati91 Jodhpur76 Jabalpur70 Panaji54 Calcutta39 Varanasi23 Kerala18 SC14 Telangana9 Rajasthan4 Punjab & Haryana2 Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)117 Penalty62 Section 271(1)(b)60 Addition to Income53 Section 27136 Section 143(3)36 Section 14828 Section 142(1)27 Section 274

VINOD (RATAN) SUHALKA,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 241/JODH/2019[2007-08]Status: PendingITAT Jodhpur05 Jan 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs.12,05,028/- is bad in law and bad on facts. 2. The penalty

SMT. JAYA MOGRA,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 333/JODH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur

Showing 1–20 of 76 · Page 1 of 4

25

Natural Justice17

20 Sept 2023

AY 2009-10

Section 127Section 132Section 271(1)(c)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of particulars of income was initiated by issue of notice u/s 271(1)(c) on dated

SHRI KHERAJ RAM ,BARMER vs. DC CEN CIR01, JODHPUR

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

ITA 114/JODH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 142(1)(iii)Section 153ASection 250Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 44A

penalty u/s 271(1)(b). Consequently, the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act is confirmed

SHRI KHERAJ RAM ,BARMER vs. DC CEN CIR01, JODHPUR

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

ITA 112/JODH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 142(1)(iii)Section 153ASection 250Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 44A

penalty u/s 271(1)(b). Consequently, the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act is confirmed

SHRI KHERAJ RAM ,BARMER vs. DC CEN CIR01, JODHPUR

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

ITA 111/JODH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 142(1)(iii)Section 153ASection 250Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 44A

penalty u/s 271(1)(b). Consequently, the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act is confirmed

SHRI KHERAJ RAM ,BARMER vs. DC CEN CIR01, JODHPUR

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

ITA 113/JODH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 142(1)(iii)Section 153ASection 250Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 44A

penalty u/s 271(1)(b). Consequently, the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act is confirmed

VIRENDRA SINGH RATHORE ,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 50/JODH/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur23 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad50/Jodh/2020 (Assessment Year- 2015-16) Shri Virendra Singh Rathore Vs The Ito 130, Road No. 5, Subhash Nagar Ward 1(1) Distt. Udaipur (Raj) Udaipur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Amfpr 9675 K

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) was imposed. The AO in the penalty order specifically mentioned that the penalty u/s 271

VAMITA SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO, , BALOTRA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 87/JODH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur22 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 87/Jodh/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Vamita Singh, Cuke Ito, Vs. C/O-Ashok Kumar Bansal, C.A., Ward-7(3) 2Nd Vijay Shanti Plaza, Near Jaipur. Railway Crossing, Balotra-344022. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Atzps 9372 B Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Ashok Kumar Bansal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 22/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 24/02/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 20/11/2018 For The A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar Bansal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(b)

penalty U/s 271(1)(b) of the Act at Rs. 40,000/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of penalty imposed

SANGRAM RAM,BIKANER vs. ITO, WARD -1(1), BIKANER

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 119/JODH/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur20 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

271(1)(c) kept in absence and on the same ground this penalty was imposed u/s 271(1)(b) of it Act. 7. That

SANGRAM RAM,BIKANER vs. ITO, WARD -1(1), BIKANER

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 120/JODH/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur20 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

271(1)(c) kept in absence and on the same ground this penalty was imposed u/s 271(1)(b) of it Act. 7. That

SHRINATH PRODUCTS,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

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

ITA 51/JODH/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripotem/S Shrinath Products Vs. Ito. Ward 1(1), A.M.Mehta & Co, Udaipur, 6-B, Bapu Bazar, Rajasthan. Udaipur.-313001, Rajasthan. Pan/Gir No. : Aaqfs9840Q Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Nidhi Nair. Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 07.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(Cit(A)-1,Udaipur Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax (Act), 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Nair. JCIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

u/s 20.05.2015 271(1)(b)/271(1)( c) 10 Penalty Memo 488/15.07.2015 Speed post dated u/s 19.08.2014 271(1)(b)/271

VIKRAM ANJANA,PRATAPGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, CHITTORGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 46/JODH/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 May 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Sainishri Vikram Anjana, Vs The Acit, Vill - Kesunda, Circle-Chittorgarh Tehsil Chhotisadri, Pratapgarh (Raj.) 312604

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act were initiated but nowhere it was mentioned as to whether the penalty

MANISH SHARMA,KOTA vs. JCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 619/JODH/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Date Of Hearing.

Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 269TSection 271DSection 271E

271(1)(c) was concerned and not date on which SCN was issued – Held, yes – Whether, since Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings in December, 2008 and six months from end of month in which action of imposition of penalty was initiated expired on 30.06.2009, penalty order passed on 29.09.2009 was barred by limitation – Held, yes [para 12][in favour

SHRI CHUTRA RAM CHOUDHARY,BARMER vs. DC, CEN CIR-1,, JODHPUR

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

ITA 44/JODH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote.

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Jain, Adv &For Respondent: Ms. Prerana Choudhary

Section 132ASection 142(1)Section 142(1)(iii)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 44A

penalty of Rs 10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act, 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances

KEWAL KANWAR BHANDARI ,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), JODHPUR

Appeal is hereby dismissed

ITA 651/JODH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Learned Cit(A). Vide Impugned Order, Learned Cit(A) Has Upheld The Penalty Order, By Observing In The Manner As Under:-

For Appellant: Smt. Raksha Birla, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Karni Dan, Addl. CIT (Sr. DR)

Section 14Section 142(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(b)

271(1)(b) of the Act, thereby imposing on of penalty of Rs. 20,000/-. 4. As is available from the penalty order, penalty came to be imposed due to the reason that the assessee had failed to respond /comply with the notices u/s

SHRI ANAND JAIN ,BHILWARA vs. ITO,WARD-4, BHILWARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 295/JODH/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur19 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma(Respondent) Pan: Aazpj3120D

Section 271(1)(c)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short]. The grounds

DEEPAK KUMAR RAJORIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), BIKANER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 170/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur11 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Assessing Authority Tax Was Paid & Adjust From Tds The Appellant Was Aware Of The Fact That There Is Any Form By Filing Which The Penalty May Be Dropped So The Penalty Was Never Leviable In This Case Therefore The Penalty U/S 270A May Please Be Cancelled. 3. The Appellant Prays For Justice & Relief. 4. The Appellant May Please Be Permitted To Raise Any Addition Or Alternative Ground At Or Before The Hearing.”

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 271(1)(C)Section 274Section 80G

penalty provision u/s 270A is in force to replace section 271(1)(C) of the IT Act. In this relevant

MAHENDRA SINGH DHARAMPAL & CO.,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 229/JODH/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blemahendra Singh Dharampal & Acit Circle 2, Co Udaipur - 313001 15-18, Diamond Plazza, Hiran Magri Sect 5, Udaipur - 313001 Pan No. Aadfm 9764 A Assessee By Shri Yogesh Pokharna, C.A. (Physical) Revenue By Shri K.C. Meena, Addl. Cit-Dr (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 13.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 28.01.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal [Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)] Udaipur Dated 19.03.2024 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Challenging Therein Confirmation Of Penalty Of Rs. 1,54,500/- Levied U/S 271(1)(C) By The Ao.

Section 113Section 139(4)Section 144Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 40

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) based on false and non-existent facts is not maintainable. 7. Therefore, the penalty

SHRI THAKUR CHAPLOT,RAJSAMAND vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 105/JODH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur06 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri A. T. Varkeyshri Thakur Chaplot Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Pan: Aappc9323H Income-Tax, Circle-2, C/O Rajendra Jain, Advocate, Udaipur, Rajasthan, Kar 106, Akshay Deep Complex, Bhawan, Sub-City 5Th B Road,Sardrpura, Centre,Saveena,Udaipur Jodhpur (Raj)-313001. (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The facts and circumstances under which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed

M/S. THE CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. ,BHILWARA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA

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

ITA 93/JODH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur11 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripotem/S.The Central Vs. The Acit, Circle Cooperative Bank Ltd., Bhilwara. Mahendra Gargieya & Rajasthan. Associates, Adv , No537-538,5Thfloor, Mahimatrinity, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur – 302019, Rajasthan. Pan/Gir No. : Aaaat8126B Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Nidhi Nair, Jcit -Dr Date Of Hearing 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ajmer Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: M/S. The Central Cooperative Bank Ltd.,Bhilwara. 1.The Impugned Penalty Order U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Dated 18.05.2017 Is Bad In Law & On Facts Of The Case, For Want Of Jurisdiction & Various Other Reasons & Hence The Same Kindly Be Quashed.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Nair, JCIT -DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 274 r/w 271(1)(c) of the Act, is quite vague and did not at all specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty