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.

114 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 14clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi3,310Mumbai2,656Ahmedabad746Jaipur635Bangalore630Kolkata594Pune480Indore447Chennai414Hyderabad350Surat309Chandigarh221Raipur197Karnataka147Rajkot136Amritsar124Lucknow114Visakhapatnam114Cochin112Nagpur99Cuttack88Allahabad64Agra47Dehradun47Ranchi47Guwahati44Calcutta36Panaji35Patna31Jodhpur20Jabalpur14Kerala14SC12Telangana7Varanasi7Rajasthan4Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 14273Section 271(1)(c)73Section 1172Section 271(1)(b)64Addition to Income62Penalty58Section 14845Section 14743Section 142(1)

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, LUCKNOW vs. SCOOTERS INDIA LIMITED, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 265/LKW/2019[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Oct 2021AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is being initiated against the assessee in assessment year 2014-15 separately for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” Thus, even in the assessment order, the specific charge for the proposed levy of penalty has not been delineated. 7. In 'CIT vs. SSA's Emerald

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW vs. SCOOTERS INDIA LIMITED, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

Showing 1–20 of 114 · Page 1 of 6

39
Natural Justice38
Section 14432
Survey u/s 133A28
ITA 268/LKW/2019[2005-06]Status: Disposed
ITAT Lucknow
28 Oct 2021
AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is being initiated against the assessee in assessment year 2014-15 separately for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” Thus, even in the assessment order, the specific charge for the proposed levy of penalty has not been delineated. 7. In 'CIT vs. SSA's Emerald

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW vs. SCOOTERS INDIA LIMITED, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 269/LKW/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Oct 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is being initiated against the assessee in assessment year 2014-15 separately for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” Thus, even in the assessment order, the specific charge for the proposed levy of penalty has not been delineated. 7. In 'CIT vs. SSA's Emerald

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW vs. SCOOTERS INDIA LIMITED, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 270/LKW/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is being initiated against the assessee in assessment year 2014-15 separately for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” Thus, even in the assessment order, the specific charge for the proposed levy of penalty has not been delineated. 7. In 'CIT vs. SSA's Emerald

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW vs. SCOOTERS INDIA LIMITED, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 267/LKW/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Oct 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is being initiated against the assessee in assessment year 2014-15 separately for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” Thus, even in the assessment order, the specific charge for the proposed levy of penalty has not been delineated. 7. In 'CIT vs. SSA's Emerald

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW vs. SCOOTERS INDIA LIMITED, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 266/LKW/2019[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Oct 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is being initiated against the assessee in assessment year 2014-15 separately for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” Thus, even in the assessment order, the specific charge for the proposed levy of penalty has not been delineated. 7. In 'CIT vs. SSA's Emerald

M/S. RISHA TOUR AND TRAVELS,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 2(3), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 606/LKW/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow23 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Risha Tour & Travels V. Ito-2(3) 111/51, Ashok Nagar Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaofr5578C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Ajay Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09 01 2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 23 01 2020 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar, D.R
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is being initiated against the assessee in assessment year 2014-15 separately for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” Thus, even in the assessment order, the specific charge for the proposed levy of penalty has not been delineated. 7. In 'CIT vs. SSA's Emerald

RAJNESH KUMAR,SITAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SITAPUR

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 303/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri K. R. Rastogi, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 271(1)(b)Section 44ASection 69A

Section 44AD of the Act @ 8% amounting to Rs.6,00,807/-. The Assessing Authority in para no. 4.5.2 of the assessment order, has stated that the payments made by the above entities on purchase of liquor and collected tax at source u/s 206CA of the Act does not appear to be made in the mode of cash. While there appears

RAJNESH KUMAR,SITAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SITAPUR

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 304/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri K. R. Rastogi, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 271(1)(b)Section 44ASection 69A

Section 44AD of the Act @ 8% amounting to Rs.6,00,807/-. The Assessing Authority in para no. 4.5.2 of the assessment order, has stated that the payments made by the above entities on purchase of liquor and collected tax at source u/s 206CA of the Act does not appear to be made in the mode of cash. While there appears

RAJNESH KUMAR,SITAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SITAPUR

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 302/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri K. R. Rastogi, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 271(1)(b)Section 44ASection 69A

Section 44AD of the Act @ 8% amounting to Rs.6,00,807/-. The Assessing Authority in para no. 4.5.2 of the assessment order, has stated that the payments made by the above entities on purchase of liquor and collected tax at source u/s 206CA of the Act does not appear to be made in the mode of cash. While there appears

RAJNESH KUMAR,SITAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SITAPUR

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 301/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri K. R. Rastogi, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 271(1)(b)Section 44ASection 69A

Section 44AD of the Act @ 8% amounting to Rs.6,00,807/-. The Assessing Authority in para no. 4.5.2 of the assessment order, has stated that the payments made by the above entities on purchase of liquor and collected tax at source u/s 206CA of the Act does not appear to be made in the mode of cash. While there appears

INCOME TAX OFFICER -(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S APS ACADEMY, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 471/LKW/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Smt. Alka Singh, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate
Section 268A

271(1)(a) of the Act. 10. Section 275 deals with bar of limitation for imposing penalty. Sub-section (1) of section 275 reads as under: “(1) No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be passed- (a) in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject matter of an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals

INCOME TAX OFFICER -(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S APS ACADEMY, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 470/LKW/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Sept 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Smt. Alka Singh, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate
Section 268A

271(1)(a) of the Act. 10. Section 275 deals with bar of limitation for imposing penalty. Sub-section (1) of section 275 reads as under: “(1) No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be passed- (a) in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject matter of an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals

SHRI ASHESH AGARWAL,KANPUR vs. THE DCIT, CC-I, KANPUR

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

ITA 292/LKW/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Nigam, DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed. As we have allowed the appeal by considering the existence of reasonable cause within the meaning of section 273B of the Act, all the other grounds taken by the assessee are rendered academic for adjudication, in the given context, and hence

SHRI ASHESH AGARWAL,KANPUR vs. THE DCIT, CC-I, KANPUR

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

ITA 296/LKW/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Nigam, DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed. As we have allowed the appeal by considering the existence of reasonable cause within the meaning of section 273B of the Act, all the other grounds taken by the assessee are rendered academic for adjudication, in the given context, and hence

M/S. NIKKI GLOBAL FINANCE LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. THE DCIT, CC-1, KANPUR

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

ITA 270/LKW/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Nigam, DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed. As we have allowed the appeal by considering the existence of reasonable cause within the meaning of section 273B of the Act, all the other grounds taken by the assessee are rendered academic for adjudication, in the given context, and hence

SHRI ASHESH AGARWAL,KANPUR vs. THE DCIT, CC-I, KANPUR

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

ITA 294/LKW/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Nigam, DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed. As we have allowed the appeal by considering the existence of reasonable cause within the meaning of section 273B of the Act, all the other grounds taken by the assessee are rendered academic for adjudication, in the given context, and hence

SHRI ASHESH AGARWAL,KANPUR vs. THE DCIT, CC-I, KANPUR

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

ITA 293/LKW/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Nigam, DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed. As we have allowed the appeal by considering the existence of reasonable cause within the meaning of section 273B of the Act, all the other grounds taken by the assessee are rendered academic for adjudication, in the given context, and hence

M/S. NIKKI GLOBAL FINANCE LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. THE DCIT, CC-I, KANPUR

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

ITA 274/LKW/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Nigam, DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed. As we have allowed the appeal by considering the existence of reasonable cause within the meaning of section 273B of the Act, all the other grounds taken by the assessee are rendered academic for adjudication, in the given context, and hence

SHRI ASHESH AGARWAL,KANPUR vs. THE DCIT, CC-I, KANPUR

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

ITA 295/LKW/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Nigam, DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed. As we have allowed the appeal by considering the existence of reasonable cause within the meaning of section 273B of the Act, all the other grounds taken by the assessee are rendered academic for adjudication, in the given context, and hence