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.

78 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 20clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,547Mumbai2,253Ahmedabad614Jaipur575Bangalore502Kolkata379Pune371Chennai367Indore318Hyderabad292Surat221Chandigarh196Raipur152Rajkot139Karnataka135Amritsar101Lucknow78Visakhapatnam76Nagpur71Cuttack66Cochin61Allahabad53Agra48Calcutta36Guwahati27Dehradun26Panaji23Jabalpur19Patna15Ranchi15Kerala14Jodhpur12SC11Varanasi11Telangana5Rajasthan4Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 14273Section 1172Section 271(1)(c)51Natural Justice43Penalty43Section 27542Addition to Income40Section 142(1)30Limitation/Time-bar

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 78 · Page 1 of 4

29
Section 2(15)28
Section 6925
Section 12A24
Section 274
Section 40a

u/s 40a(ia) - Rs. 9,63,357/ iv. Interest on bank account - Rs. 20,413/- ITA No.181/LKW/2018 & C.O. No.09/LKW/2018 Page 3 of 13 4. The A.O also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271

DILEEP KUMAR OJHA,SITAPUR vs. NFAC DELHI, DELHI

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

ITA 453/LKW/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Ravinder Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 249(3)Section 270ASection 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69C

section 234A, 234B and 243C of the I.T. Act, 1961. ITA Nos. 453 to 463/LKW/2024 Page 3 of 9 7. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. AO has erred both in law as well as on facts in initiating the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c).” ITA. No.454/LKW/2024 1. On facts

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

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

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

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

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on 27/01/2016, which proves that the penalty order is barred by limitation. 19. The learned CIT(A) has duly taken all the above facts into consideration while holding and, in our considered opinion, rightly so, that the penalty order was barred by the limitation prescribed by the ITA No.470&471/LKW/2017 Page

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on 27/01/2016, which proves that the penalty order is barred by limitation. 19. The learned CIT(A) has duly taken all the above facts into consideration while holding and, in our considered opinion, rightly so, that the penalty order was barred by the limitation prescribed by the ITA No.470&471/LKW/2017 Page

M/S JUPITER TRADELINKS PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. DY,. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 71/LKW/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2013-14 M/S Jupiter Tradelinks Private Vs. Dcit, Limited, Dobiriyal Complex Gole Central Circle-1, Lucknow Market Mahanagar, Lucknow Pan: Aaccj0525G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Akshay Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 26.11.2024 Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Dated 4.06.2019, Passed Under Section 271(1)(C). The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Both Law & Facts Of The Case By Confirming The Penalty Of 2,20,41,900/- Levied By The Assessing Officer. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate That: A. The Appellant Has Neither Concealed The Particulars Of Its Income Nor Furnished Any Inaccurate Particulars Of Income; B. There Was No Failure On The Part Of The Appellant In Truly & Fully Disclosing All Material Facts C. Mere Disallowance Or Rejection Of The Claim Or Stand Taken By The Appellant Based On Reasonable Interpretation Of The Law Is Not Sufficient To Attract Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) 3. The Amount Of Penalty Confirmed By The Learned Cit(A) Is Invalid, Excessive & Unreasonable.”

For Appellant: Sh. Akshay Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

section 271(1)(c). The grounds of appeal are as under: - “1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in both law and facts of the case by confirming the penalty of 2,20,41,900/- levied by the assessing officer. 2. The learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that: a. the appellant has neither concealed the particulars

KAPIL KHANDELWAL,BAREILLY, UTTAR PRADESH vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-I, BAREILLY , BAREILLY, UTTAR PRADESH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 335/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 Kapil Khandelwal, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of 56, Moar Kothi, Gangapur, Bareilly Income Tax, Circle-I, Bareilly Pan: Aiypk4908M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Penalty Levied Upon The Assessee Under Section 271(1)(C) By The Ld. Ao On 17.03.2022 & Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. Because Requisite Satisfaction For Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) If The Income Tax Act 1961 Was Not Recorded In The Regular Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2017 Passed A/S 100%, Therefore, Penalty Proceedings Got Wholly Vitiated & Consequently, The Id. "Cit(A)" Ought To Have Quashed The Penalty Order Dated 17.03.2022, Being Illegal, Bad-In-Law & Without Jurisdiction 2. Because The Show Cause Notice For Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Did Not Specify Under Which Limb Penalty Was Sought To Be Imposed I.E.. Whether On Account Of Concealment Of Income Or For Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income & Consequently, The Penalty Order Dated 17.03.2022 Passed By Faceless Assessing Officer Deserved To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act did not specify under which limb penalty was sought to be imposed i.e.. whether on account of concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and consequently, the penalty order dated 17.03.2022 passed by Faceless Assessing Officer deserved to be quashed. 3.1 BECAUSE, even on merits

M/S. CITYON NANO TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD.,KANPUR vs. THE DCIT, CC-I, KANPUR

In the result , all the seven appeal’s in ITA no

ITA 303/LKW/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 275

20 /10/2022 I.T.A. No.299 to 319/Lkw/2020 Assessment Year:2010-11 to 2016-17 2 O R D E R PER Bench These 21 appeals are filed by three different assessee’s namely Cityon Nano Technology Private Limited, Cityon Systems (India) Ltd. and Cityon Infrastructure Private Limited , for seven assessment years from assessment year

M/S. CITYON SYSTEMS (INDIA) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. THE DCIT, CC-I, KANPUR

In the result , all the seven appeal’s in ITA no

ITA 307/LKW/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 275

20 /10/2022 I.T.A. No.299 to 319/Lkw/2020 Assessment Year:2010-11 to 2016-17 2 O R D E R PER Bench These 21 appeals are filed by three different assessee’s namely Cityon Nano Technology Private Limited, Cityon Systems (India) Ltd. and Cityon Infrastructure Private Limited , for seven assessment years from assessment year

M/S. CITYON NANO TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD.,KANPUR vs. THE DCIT, CC-I, KANPUR

In the result , all the seven appeal’s in ITA no

ITA 300/LKW/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 275

20 /10/2022 I.T.A. No.299 to 319/Lkw/2020 Assessment Year:2010-11 to 2016-17 2 O R D E R PER Bench These 21 appeals are filed by three different assessee’s namely Cityon Nano Technology Private Limited, Cityon Systems (India) Ltd. and Cityon Infrastructure Private Limited , for seven assessment years from assessment year

M/S. CITYON SYSTEMS (INDIA) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. THE DCIT, CC-I, KANPUR

In the result , all the seven appeal’s in ITA no

ITA 312/LKW/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 275

20 /10/2022 I.T.A. No.299 to 319/Lkw/2020 Assessment Year:2010-11 to 2016-17 2 O R D E R PER Bench These 21 appeals are filed by three different assessee’s namely Cityon Nano Technology Private Limited, Cityon Systems (India) Ltd. and Cityon Infrastructure Private Limited , for seven assessment years from assessment year

M/S. CITYON INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,KANPUR vs. THE DCIT, CC-I, KANPUR

In the result , all the seven appeal’s in ITA no

ITA 313/LKW/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 275

20 /10/2022 I.T.A. No.299 to 319/Lkw/2020 Assessment Year:2010-11 to 2016-17 2 O R D E R PER Bench These 21 appeals are filed by three different assessee’s namely Cityon Nano Technology Private Limited, Cityon Systems (India) Ltd. and Cityon Infrastructure Private Limited , for seven assessment years from assessment year

M/S. CITYON SYSTEMS (INDIA) LTD.,DELHI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , KANPUR

In the result , all the seven appeal’s in ITA no

ITA 309/LKW/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 275

20 /10/2022 I.T.A. No.299 to 319/Lkw/2020 Assessment Year:2010-11 to 2016-17 2 O R D E R PER Bench These 21 appeals are filed by three different assessee’s namely Cityon Nano Technology Private Limited, Cityon Systems (India) Ltd. and Cityon Infrastructure Private Limited , for seven assessment years from assessment year

M/S. CITYON SYSTEMS (INDIA) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. THE DCIT, CC-I, KANPUR

In the result , all the seven appeal’s in ITA no

ITA 311/LKW/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 275

20 /10/2022 I.T.A. No.299 to 319/Lkw/2020 Assessment Year:2010-11 to 2016-17 2 O R D E R PER Bench These 21 appeals are filed by three different assessee’s namely Cityon Nano Technology Private Limited, Cityon Systems (India) Ltd. and Cityon Infrastructure Private Limited , for seven assessment years from assessment year

M/S. CITYON INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,KANPUR vs. THE DCIT, CC-I, KANPUR

In the result , all the seven appeal’s in ITA no

ITA 316/LKW/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 275

20 /10/2022 I.T.A. No.299 to 319/Lkw/2020 Assessment Year:2010-11 to 2016-17 2 O R D E R PER Bench These 21 appeals are filed by three different assessee’s namely Cityon Nano Technology Private Limited, Cityon Systems (India) Ltd. and Cityon Infrastructure Private Limited , for seven assessment years from assessment year

M/S. CITYON INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,KANPUR vs. THE DCIT, CC-I, KANPUR

In the result , all the seven appeal’s in ITA no

ITA 315/LKW/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 275

20 /10/2022 I.T.A. No.299 to 319/Lkw/2020 Assessment Year:2010-11 to 2016-17 2 O R D E R PER Bench These 21 appeals are filed by three different assessee’s namely Cityon Nano Technology Private Limited, Cityon Systems (India) Ltd. and Cityon Infrastructure Private Limited , for seven assessment years from assessment year