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.

51 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 5(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi5,354Mumbai4,702Ahmedabad1,278Kolkata1,132Jaipur943Bangalore854Pune852Chennai668Indore606Surat536Hyderabad484Chandigarh399Rajkot260Amritsar239Raipur237Cochin179Lucknow174Visakhapatnam172Karnataka154Nagpur143Cuttack139Agra110Patna95Ranchi90Allahabad86Guwahati79Dehradun78Jabalpur65Jodhpur51Panaji44Calcutta39Varanasi21Kerala15SC12Telangana7Rajasthan4Punjab & Haryana2Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)81Section 271(1)(b)38Penalty37Addition to Income35Section 27125Section 14825Section 143(3)25Section 27425Section 12A

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 on the basis of vague notice. In this respect, our attention was drawn by the ld. AR towards impugned notice issued u/s 274 read with Section 271(1) of the Act dated 28-03-2013 and the same is reproduced as under:- 5

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Showing 1–20 of 51 · Page 1 of 3

22
Section 14420
Natural Justice9
Disallowance7
ITA 333/JODH/2019[2009-10]Status: Disposed
ITAT Jodhpur
20 Sept 2023
AY 2009-10
Section 127Section 132Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) vide order dated 28-06-2019. So, the assessee on being aggrieved preferred this appeal against the order of the CIT(A)-2, Udaipur dated 28-06-2019 by taking the ground of limitation stating that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) ordering the levy of the penalty was barred by limitation in accordance

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

5. In view of the above discussion, a penalty amounting to Rs.10,000/- is hereby imposed as per the provision of section u/s 271(1

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

5. In view of the above discussion, a penalty amounting to Rs.10,000/- is hereby imposed as per the provision of section u/s 271(1

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)

U/s 271(1)(b) of the Act, therefore, we thought it fit to dispose off all the grounds by this consolidated order. 9. The ld AR appearing on behalf of the assessee has reiterated the same arguments as were raised before the ld. CIT(A) and also relied upon the written submissions submitted before him which are reproduced below: With

M/S. BANARSI MARBLE STONE PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 365/JODH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Smt. Raksha Birla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Girish Mehta, JCIT DR
Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

penalty of Rs. 15,83,190/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that as the penal provisions have held to be strictly construed, the notice issued u/s

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). Accordingly, the impugned penalty order is barred by limitation and deserves to be quashed.” 4. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative supported the orders of the revenue authorities. Ground No. 1 relates to ld. CIT (A) has erred in not quashing the penalty order passed under section 271E of the IT Act, 1961. 5

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

section 271(1)(b)/274 of the Act. Finally, the penalty was levied amount to Rs.10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b). Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the penalty order. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us. 5

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

section 271(1)(b)/274 of the Act. Finally, the penalty was levied amount to Rs.10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b). Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the penalty order. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us. 5

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

section 271(1)(b)/274 of the Act. Finally, the penalty was levied amount to Rs.10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b). Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the penalty order. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us. 5

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

section 271(1)(b)/274 of the Act. Finally, the penalty was levied amount to Rs.10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b). Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the penalty order. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us. 5

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)

section 144 of the Act and passed the order u/s 144 r.w. 147 of the Act. The Ld.DR supported the order of the CIT(A). 6. We heard the Ld. DR submissions and perused the material available on record. The assessee has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the levy of penalty u/s 271(1

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)

5. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings and levied the penalty of Rs. 37,350/- u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) who sustained the penalty. 7. Now the assessee is in appeal. 8. The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the penalty proceedings were

SMT. BHAWANA NAGORI,BHILWARA. vs. ITO, WARD-5, BHILWARA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 380/JODH/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: The Time Of Hearing. 5. The Petitioner Prays For Justice & Relief.

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Girish Mehta, JCIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

5,85,000/-). Accordingly, the AO levied the penalty of Rs. 2,10,000/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A), and furnished the written submission which has been incorporated by the Ld. CIT(A) in para 4.2 of the impugned order for the cost

RAWAT PRABHU PRAKASH SINGH CHUNDAWAT HUF,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 690/JODH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT(Sr. D.R)
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) levied. 556199 432600 527620 894515 1201374 5.2 We note that the additional income was offered in the return filed under section 148. No incriminating documents indicating suppression or bogus transactions were found during the survey. The expenses in question were supported by internal vouchers and recorded in regular books. The Assessing Officer accepted the revised returns

RAWAT PRABHU PRAKASH SINGH CHUNDAWAT HUF,UDAIPUR vs. DCITL CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 687/JODH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT(Sr. D.R)
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) levied. 556199 432600 527620 894515 1201374 5.2 We note that the additional income was offered in the return filed under section 148. No incriminating documents indicating suppression or bogus transactions were found during the survey. The expenses in question were supported by internal vouchers and recorded in regular books. The Assessing Officer accepted the revised returns

RAWAT PRABHU PRAKASH SINGH CHUNDAWAT HUF,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 691/JODH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT(Sr. D.R)
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) levied. 556199 432600 527620 894515 1201374 5.2 We note that the additional income was offered in the return filed under section 148. No incriminating documents indicating suppression or bogus transactions were found during the survey. The expenses in question were supported by internal vouchers and recorded in regular books. The Assessing Officer accepted the revised returns

RAWAT PRABHU PRAKASH SINGH CHUNDAWAT HUF,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 689/JODH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT(Sr. D.R)
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) levied. 556199 432600 527620 894515 1201374 5.2 We note that the additional income was offered in the return filed under section 148. No incriminating documents indicating suppression or bogus transactions were found during the survey. The expenses in question were supported by internal vouchers and recorded in regular books. The Assessing Officer accepted the revised returns

ACIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA vs. M/S. SURAJ FABRICS INDUSTRIES LTD. , KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 475/JODH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur11 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year: 2010-11 Assistant Commissioner M/S Suraj Fabrics Industries Of Income-Tax, Circle, Vs Ltd., 224A, Elegant Tower, Bhilwara A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata, West Bengal Pan: Aabcs8988B Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Revenue By Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain, Cit-Dr Assessee By None Date Of Hearing 11.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.08.2023 Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Department Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ajmer Dated 06.09.2017 Deleting The Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act For A.Y. 2010-11. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal As Under:- “1. Cancelling The Penalty Levied For Addition Of Unexplained Cash Credit On A/C Of Share Capital Of 10,00,00,000/- Without Appreciating The Facts That The Quantum Addition Made By The Ao Was Confirmed By The Ld.Cit(A) As The Identity & M/S Suraj Fabrics Industries Ltd.

Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)Section 50CSection 68

u/s 271(1)(c) can be levied in respect of the addition made by invoking the Provisions of Section 50C. I have gone through the order of the Mumbai ITAT relied upon by the appellant carefully. The ITAT at para 6 of its order has held as under: "6. As it is clear that the assessee has disclosed all 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

Section 113 of the Act vide order dated 16th March, 2014 with the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- by disallowing remuneration paid to partners. 3. In the present case thus, the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1