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.

71 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 16clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,868Mumbai2,373Ahmedabad660Jaipur563Bangalore516Kolkata430Pune416Chennai396Indore366Hyderabad314Surat215Chandigarh207Raipur171Karnataka145Rajkot119Amritsar97Cochin90Visakhapatnam84Nagpur79Cuttack77Lucknow71Allahabad54Agra48Guwahati47Dehradun40Calcutta35Ranchi29Panaji26Jabalpur20Jodhpur18Patna15Kerala14SC12Varanasi11Telangana7Rajasthan4Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)75Section 1172Addition to Income46Section 14739Penalty33Section 2(15)28Section 27427Section 12A24Section 143(3)

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

Showing 1–20 of 71 · Page 1 of 4

23
Section 14821
Exemption20
Natural Justice20
ITA 269/LKW/2019[2006-07]Status: Disposed
ITAT Lucknow
28 Oct 2021
AY 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 268/LKW/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Oct 2021AY 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 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JEDY TAPES PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals stand partly allowed, as indicated

ITA 569/LKW/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorin Ita No.568 & 569/Lkw/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Jedy Tapes Private Limited Dcit 16/1A. Abdul Hamid Street Cc-Ii 5Th Floor, Kolkata Lucknow West Bengal Tan/Pan:Aaacj8642E (Applicant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Smt. Priyanka Ajit Saria, Fca Respondent By: Shri Ajay Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 24 03 2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 24 05 2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Smt. Priyanka Ajit Saria, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar, D.R
Section 127(2)Section 132Section 132BSection 139Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 3/10/2Q16. 5. That the time for filing of the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) was to expire on 2/11/2016. 6. That as per the said order, I found that a penalty of Rs.25,00,000/- has been levied for concealment of income amounting to Rs.79,31,687/-. 7. That

JEDY TAPES PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals stand partly allowed, as indicated

ITA 568/LKW/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 May 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorin Ita No.568 & 569/Lkw/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Jedy Tapes Private Limited Dcit 16/1A. Abdul Hamid Street Cc-Ii 5Th Floor, Kolkata Lucknow West Bengal Tan/Pan:Aaacj8642E (Applicant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Smt. Priyanka Ajit Saria, Fca Respondent By: Shri Ajay Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 24 03 2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 24 05 2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Smt. Priyanka Ajit Saria, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar, D.R
Section 127(2)Section 132Section 132BSection 139Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 3/10/2Q16. 5. That the time for filing of the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) was to expire on 2/11/2016. 6. That as per the said order, I found that a penalty of Rs.25,00,000/- has been levied for concealment of income amounting to Rs.79,31,687/-. 7. That

M/S FIVE ROSES,KANPUR vs. J/DCIT-CC,, KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 272/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 153CSection 292C

16 (iii) Addition of Rs.12,72,887/ made u/s 37 of the Act on account of disallowance of claim of interest on unsecured loans. 12. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. "CIT(A)" should have directed the AO to drop the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 13 BECAUSE

M/S FIVE ROSES,KANPUR vs. DY, CIT-CC-1, KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 271/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 153CSection 292C

16 (iii) Addition of Rs.12,72,887/ made u/s 37 of the Act on account of disallowance of claim of interest on unsecured loans. 12. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. "CIT(A)" should have directed the AO to drop the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 13 BECAUSE

M/S FIVE ROSES,KANPUR vs. DY, CIT-CC-1, KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 273/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 153CSection 292C

16 (iii) Addition of Rs.12,72,887/ made u/s 37 of the Act on account of disallowance of claim of interest on unsecured loans. 12. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. "CIT(A)" should have directed the AO to drop the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 13 BECAUSE

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