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.

59 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 24clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,101Mumbai1,892Ahmedabad553Jaipur448Bangalore427Kolkata365Chennai314Pune287Indore257Hyderabad232Chandigarh146Raipur141Karnataka131Surat119Rajkot85Amritsar61Lucknow59Allahabad54Nagpur51Visakhapatnam50Cochin45Calcutta35Cuttack32Agra31Dehradun26Patna20Ranchi18Guwahati16Panaji16Kerala14Jabalpur12Varanasi10SC10Jodhpur10Telangana5Rajasthan4Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 1172Section 271(1)(c)66Addition to Income38Section 2(15)28Section 14727Section 12A24Section 27424Section 6923Section 143(3)

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 59 · Page 1 of 3

22
Penalty21
Exemption18
Survey u/s 133A18
Section 274
Section 40a

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 and 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

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 of the 1.T. Act 1961. 8. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. Authorities below have erred both in law as well as on facts in initiating the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) . 9. The assessee reserves the right to add, amend and delete any of the above

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, then any penalty levied on the basis of such notice is bad in law and liable to be deleted. Learned counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the following case laws: i) PCIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. ITA No. 475/2019 Order dt. 02.08/2019. ii) Pr.CIT (Central) vs. Goa Coastal

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, then any penalty levied on the basis of such notice is bad in law and liable to be deleted. Learned counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the following case laws: i) PCIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. ITA No. 475/2019 Order dt. 02.08/2019. ii) Pr.CIT (Central) vs. Goa Coastal

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, then any penalty levied on the basis of such notice is bad in law and liable to be deleted. Learned counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the following case laws: i) PCIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. ITA No. 475/2019 Order dt. 02.08/2019. ii) Pr.CIT (Central) vs. Goa Coastal

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, then any penalty levied on the basis of such notice is bad in law and liable to be deleted. Learned counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the following case laws: i) PCIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. ITA No. 475/2019 Order dt. 02.08/2019. ii) Pr.CIT (Central) vs. Goa Coastal

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, then any penalty levied on the basis of such notice is bad in law and liable to be deleted. Learned counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the following case laws: i) PCIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. ITA No. 475/2019 Order dt. 02.08/2019. ii) Pr.CIT (Central) vs. Goa Coastal

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, then any penalty levied on the basis of such notice is bad in law and liable to be deleted. Learned counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the following case laws: i) PCIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. ITA No. 475/2019 Order dt. 02.08/2019. ii) Pr.CIT (Central) vs. Goa Coastal

AGMOTEX FABRICS LTD.,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-6, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 803/LKW/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow15 Apr 2026AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2005-06 Agmotex Fabrics Ltd V. The Dy. Commissioner 3/239 Vishnupuri, Kanpur- Of Income Tax, Range-6 208002. Aayakar Bhawan, 16/69, Civil Lines, Kanpur- 208001. Pan:Aabca6099H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 23 02 2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 15 04 2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) © of the Income Tax Act, 1961 have been initiated. Issue necessary forms." Page 4 of 6 24. The income of the assessee was thus assessed under Section

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

24 05 2021 O R D E R PER A. D. JAIN, V.P.: The assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2013-14 against the order of levy of penalty of Rs.25 lakhs under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act was dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) by virtue of the impugned order dated 16.8.2019, holding

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

24 05 2021 O R D E R PER A. D. JAIN, V.P.: The assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2013-14 against the order of levy of penalty of Rs.25 lakhs under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act was dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) by virtue of the impugned order dated 16.8.2019, holding

REETA DEVI,BANNAMAU LALGANJ RAEBARELI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, RAEBARELI

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed, for statistical purposes

ITA 440/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 69ASection 69C

24 01 2025 O R D E R PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M.: These appeals have been preferred by the assessee against separate orders, both dated 27.05.2024, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Income Tax Department was in possession of information that

REETA DEVI,BANNA MAU LALGANJ RAEBARELI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, RAEBARELI

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed, for statistical purposes

ITA 439/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 69ASection 69C

24 01 2025 O R D E R PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M.: These appeals have been preferred by the assessee against separate orders, both dated 27.05.2024, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Income Tax Department was in possession of information that

M/S. AXIS MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 289/LKW/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

271(1)(c) of the Act as the issue was entirely covered in favour of the assessee as the assessee had deposited the amount before filing of return of income and therefore, as per the judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Sagun Foundry (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT in IT Appeal

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

penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 13 BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. "CIT (A)" should have held that the appellant" was not liable for interest u/s 2348 of the Act and consequently the Id "CIT(A)" ought to have directed the Assessing Officer to delete the interest charged

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

penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 13 BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. "CIT (A)" should have held that the appellant" was not liable for interest u/s 2348 of the Act and consequently the Id "CIT(A)" ought to have directed the Assessing Officer to delete the interest charged

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

penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 13 BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. "CIT (A)" should have held that the appellant" was not liable for interest u/s 2348 of the Act and consequently the Id "CIT(A)" ought to have directed the Assessing Officer to delete the interest charged

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

(SMT.) ANJU SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals for assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09

ITA 390/LKW/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Mar 2019AY 2003-04

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

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Madhuk, CIT (DR)
Section 132ASection 133ASection 69

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are being initiated separately for this default. (Addition Rs.2,86,500/-) 5.3.1 During the course of the appeal, the appellant has submitted as under: b) Assessment Year 2005-06: The addition of Rs.2,86,500 has been made on account of property purchased on 18.02.2005, The explanation letter dated

(SMT.) ANJU SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals for assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09

ITA 393/LKW/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Madhuk, CIT (DR)
Section 132ASection 133ASection 69

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are being initiated separately for this default. (Addition Rs.2,86,500/-) 5.3.1 During the course of the appeal, the appellant has submitted as under: b) Assessment Year 2005-06: The addition of Rs.2,86,500 has been made on account of property purchased on 18.02.2005, The explanation letter dated