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.

91 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 143clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,606Delhi3,570Ahmedabad840Kolkata696Jaipur612Bangalore534Pune504Indore469Chennai354Surat344Hyderabad321Chandigarh193Rajkot180Raipur172Karnataka131Amritsar130Visakhapatnam120Cochin96Lucknow91Nagpur80Allahabad65Dehradun57Agra51Guwahati49Cuttack44Calcutta37Patna37Jabalpur32Ranchi31Jodhpur30Varanasi14Panaji14SC8Kerala3Rajasthan3Telangana3Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(b)120Section 271(1)(c)95Section 1173Addition to Income64Penalty57Section 14856Section 142(1)55Section 14454Section 147

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KANPUR vs. SMT. SHEHLA AHMED , KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 181/LKW/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. Cit-1 V. Smt. Shehla Ahmad Kanpur 376-C, Allied Street Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aexpa4122N (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.09/Lkw/2018 [In Ita No.181/Lkw/2018] Assessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Shehla Ahmad V. Dy. Cit-1 376-C, Allied Street Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aexpa4122N (Cross-Objector) (Respondent) Department By: Shri R. K. Vishvakarma, D.R. Assessee By: Shri Swarn Singh, Fca Date Of Hearing: 24 07 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 22 08 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: This Is Revenue’S Appeal & Assessee’S Cross Objection Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Ii, Kanpur, Dated 1/12/2017, For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Revenue Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii, Kanpur Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs.22,00,000/- Imposed By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Undisclosed

For Appellant: Shri Swarn Singh, FCAFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Vishvakarma, D.R
Section 10(38)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Showing 1–20 of 91 · Page 1 of 5

50
Section 143(3)50
Survey u/s 133A33
Disallowance22
Section 274
Section 40a

penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, observing as under: “I have perused the facts of the case and case law relied upon by AO and appellant. A perusal of the assessment order u/s 143

RAJENDRA KUMAR AND COMPANY,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 2, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 584/LKW/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2014-15 Rajendra Kumar & Company V. The Dy. Cit-2 74/276, Halsy Road Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aacfr6463Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Swaran Singh, Fca Respondent By: Shri Ajay Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 16 09 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 20 09 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: This Is Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15, Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-I, Kanpur, Dated 13/6/2018, Taking The Following Grounds: 1. That The Impugned Penalty Order Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Is Illegal & Unsustainable In Law As The Ld. A.O. Has Not Mentioned Specific Charge In The Statutory Notice Issued Under Section 274 Read With Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That The Ld. C.I.T. (Appeals)-I Kanpur Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Sustaining The Penalty Imposed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Even When The Ld. A.O Has Not Mentioned The Specific Charge In The Statutory Notice Issued U/S 274 R/W Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That The Impugned Penalty Order Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Is Illegal & Ita No.584/Lkw/2018 Page 2 Of 7

For Appellant: Shri Swaran Singh, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar, D.R
Section 127Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 274 r/w section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That the impugned Penalty Order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is illegal and ITA No.584/LKW/2018 Page 2 of 7 unsustainable in law as the Ld. A.O. has not recorded satisfaction in terms of Section 271(1)(c) read with

M/S NARAINA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES PVT. LTD.,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 (4), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 404/LKW/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2013-2014

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) are not attracted, the penalty imposed is bad in law. 5. Because there being no specific charge either for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, there being no satisfaction by the Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty imposed which

SHRI DEVENDRA KUMAR SHAH,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 3(5), KANPUR

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

ITA 319/LKW/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri T.S. Kapoorassessment Year 2013-14 Devendra Kumar Shah, Ito -3(5), Vs. Kanpur - 208001 701 Urvashi Apartment, 7/292, Tilak Nagar, Kapur - 208002 Pan – Abmps 9132J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

u/s 143(2) by DCIT, Kanpur-2 beyond the statutory period of time is without jurisdiction and therefore, any order passed in consequence of such notice is also liable to be quashed. Therefore, we are in agreement with the argument of Ld. AR. Accordingly, additional grounds of appeal 5 to 8 are allowed. Since we have decided the legal issues

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPEMENT AUTHORITY, FAIZABAD

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 525/LKW/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 276CSection 292B

u/s 11 of the I.T. Act is in utter disregard to the judicial principles laid down by Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and several decisions of Hon'ble ITAT. The declared income, having been worked out in accordance with report in Form 10B should have been accepted. 3. Because the Ld. Assessing Officer was wholly unjustified, both on facts

M/S. BANSAL SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,,KANPUR vs. THE DCIT, CC-I, KANPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 285/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 271(1)(b)

143 (or fails to comply with a direction issued under sub-section (2A) of section 142) or…” he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty (i)….. (ii) In the cases referred to in clause (b), in addition to tax, if any, payable by him a sum of ten thousand rupees for each such failure ….. 8.1. Also

M/S. BANSAL SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,,KANPUR vs. THE DCIT, CC-I, KANPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 290/LKW/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

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 271(1)(b)

143 (or fails to comply with a direction issued under sub-section (2A) of section 142) or…” he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty (i)….. (ii) In the cases referred to in clause (b), in addition to tax, if any, payable by him a sum of ten thousand rupees for each such failure ….. 8.1. Also

M/S. BANSAL SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,,KANPUR vs. THE DCIT, CC-I, KANPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 286/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 271(1)(b)

143 (or fails to comply with a direction issued under sub-section (2A) of section 142) or…” he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty (i)….. (ii) In the cases referred to in clause (b), in addition to tax, if any, payable by him a sum of ten thousand rupees for each such failure ….. 8.1. Also

M/S. BANSAL SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,,KANPUR vs. THE DCIT, CC-I, KANPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 284/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 271(1)(b)

143 (or fails to comply with a direction issued under sub-section (2A) of section 142) or…” he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty (i)….. (ii) In the cases referred to in clause (b), in addition to tax, if any, payable by him a sum of ten thousand rupees for each such failure ….. 8.1. Also

M/S. BANSAL SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,,KANPUR vs. THE DCIT, CC-I, KANPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 289/LKW/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

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 271(1)(b)

143 (or fails to comply with a direction issued under sub-section (2A) of section 142) or…” he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty (i)….. (ii) In the cases referred to in clause (b), in addition to tax, if any, payable by him a sum of ten thousand rupees for each such failure ….. 8.1. Also

M/S. BANSAL SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,,KANPUR vs. THE DCIT, CC-I, KANPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 288/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 271(1)(b)

143 (or fails to comply with a direction issued under sub-section (2A) of section 142) or…” he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty (i)….. (ii) In the cases referred to in clause (b), in addition to tax, if any, payable by him a sum of ten thousand rupees for each such failure ….. 8.1. Also

M/S. BANSAL SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,,KANPUR vs. THE DCIT, CC-I, KANPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 287/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 271(1)(b)

143 (or fails to comply with a direction issued under sub-section (2A) of section 142) or…” he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty (i)….. (ii) In the cases referred to in clause (b), in addition to tax, if any, payable by him a sum of ten thousand rupees for each such failure ….. 8.1. Also

M/S NIKKI GLOBAL FINANCE LTD,NEW DELHI vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, KANPUR

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

ITA 275/LKW/2020[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Dec 2022AY 2015-2016

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)

143 (or Ashesh Agrawal, AYs: 2010-11 to 2016-17. fails to comply with a direction issued under sub-section (2A) of section 142) or…” he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty (i)….. (ii) In the cases referred to in clause (b), in addition to tax, if any, payable

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)

143 (or Ashesh Agrawal, AYs: 2010-11 to 2016-17. fails to comply with a direction issued under sub-section (2A) of section 142) or…” he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty (i)….. (ii) In the cases referred to in clause (b), in addition to tax, if any, payable

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)

143 (or Ashesh Agrawal, AYs: 2010-11 to 2016-17. fails to comply with a direction issued under sub-section (2A) of section 142) or…” he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty (i)….. (ii) In the cases referred to in clause (b), in addition to tax, if any, payable

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)

143 (or Ashesh Agrawal, AYs: 2010-11 to 2016-17. fails to comply with a direction issued under sub-section (2A) of section 142) or…” he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty (i)….. (ii) In the cases referred to in clause (b), in addition to tax, if any, payable

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)

143 (or Ashesh Agrawal, AYs: 2010-11 to 2016-17. fails to comply with a direction issued under sub-section (2A) of section 142) or…” he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty (i)….. (ii) In the cases referred to in clause (b), in addition to tax, if any, payable

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)

143 (or Ashesh Agrawal, AYs: 2010-11 to 2016-17. fails to comply with a direction issued under sub-section (2A) of section 142) or…” he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty (i)….. (ii) In the cases referred to in clause (b), in addition to tax, if any, payable

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

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

ITA 297/LKW/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

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)

143 (or Ashesh Agrawal, AYs: 2010-11 to 2016-17. fails to comply with a direction issued under sub-section (2A) of section 142) or…” he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty (i)….. (ii) In the cases referred to in clause (b), in addition to tax, if any, payable

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

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

ITA 298/LKW/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

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)

143 (or Ashesh Agrawal, AYs: 2010-11 to 2016-17. fails to comply with a direction issued under sub-section (2A) of section 142) or…” he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty (i)….. (ii) In the cases referred to in clause (b), in addition to tax, if any, payable