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.

64 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 250(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,147Delhi1,013Jaipur322Kolkata310Ahmedabad305Bangalore249Chennai223Pune158Surat141Indore140Hyderabad135Amritsar129Chandigarh128Raipur125Karnataka101Rajkot92Lucknow64Cochin52Patna47Allahabad44Nagpur43Guwahati42Visakhapatnam42Calcutta34Dehradun31Agra29Cuttack29Panaji28Jabalpur25Jodhpur14Varanasi6Ranchi5Rajasthan2Telangana2Gauhati1SC1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(b)114Section 271(1)(c)67Section 142(1)54Addition to Income54Section 14452Penalty47Section 14245Section 133A43Section 11

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

4), Chennai, 93 taxmann.com 250 (Madras), wherein the penalty levied I.T.A. Nos.265 to 270/Lkw/2019 Assessment Years:2002-03 to 2007-08 3 u/s 271(1)(c) has been upheld. Learned D. R. drew our specific attention to the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd. (supra) wherein the issue of striking

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

Showing 1–20 of 64 · Page 1 of 4

29
Section 14729
Survey u/s 133A24
Natural Justice14
ITA 265/LKW/2019[2002-03]Status: Disposed
ITAT Lucknow
28 Oct 2021
AY 2002-03

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

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

4), Chennai, 93 taxmann.com 250 (Madras), wherein the penalty levied I.T.A. Nos.265 to 270/Lkw/2019 Assessment Years:2002-03 to 2007-08 3 u/s 271(1)(c) has been upheld. Learned D. R. drew our specific attention to the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd. (supra) wherein the issue of striking

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

4), Chennai, 93 taxmann.com 250 (Madras), wherein the penalty levied I.T.A. Nos.265 to 270/Lkw/2019 Assessment Years:2002-03 to 2007-08 3 u/s 271(1)(c) has been upheld. Learned D. R. drew our specific attention to the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd. (supra) wherein the issue of striking

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

4), Chennai, 93 taxmann.com 250 (Madras), wherein the penalty levied I.T.A. Nos.265 to 270/Lkw/2019 Assessment Years:2002-03 to 2007-08 3 u/s 271(1)(c) has been upheld. Learned D. R. drew our specific attention to the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd. (supra) wherein the issue of striking

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

4), Chennai, 93 taxmann.com 250 (Madras), wherein the penalty levied I.T.A. Nos.265 to 270/Lkw/2019 Assessment Years:2002-03 to 2007-08 3 u/s 271(1)(c) has been upheld. Learned D. R. drew our specific attention to the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd. (supra) wherein the issue of striking

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

4), Chennai, 93 taxmann.com 250 (Madras), wherein the penalty levied I.T.A. Nos.265 to 270/Lkw/2019 Assessment Years:2002-03 to 2007-08 3 u/s 271(1)(c) has been upheld. Learned D. R. drew our specific attention to the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd. (supra) wherein the issue of striking

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to facts, law and principles of natural justice. 9. BECAUSE each ground taken in appeal is mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other. 10. The "appellant" craves leave, to add, delete or modify any of the grounds before hearing of appeal. ITA No.273/LKW/2024: 1.1. 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

271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to facts, law and principles of natural justice. 9. BECAUSE each ground taken in appeal is mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other. 10. The "appellant" craves leave, to add, delete or modify any of the grounds before hearing of appeal. ITA No.273/LKW/2024: 1.1. 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

271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to facts, law and principles of natural justice. 9. BECAUSE each ground taken in appeal is mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other. 10. The "appellant" craves leave, to add, delete or modify any of the grounds before hearing of appeal. ITA No.273/LKW/2024: 1.1. BECAUSE

CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LIMITED MAHOLI AYYUBI CHAMBER, RANIGANJ, LAKHIMPUR KHERI-262001,LAKHIMPUR KHERI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SITAPUR-NEW, SITAPUR

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

ITA 164/LKW/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl CIT
Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80P

250 dismissing the appeal of the assessee filed against the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) by the Income Tax Officer, Sitapur. The grounds of appeal preferred are as under:- “(1) That the penalty notice issued u/s 274 of 1. T. Act dated 09.12.2016 initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) of 1. T. Act did not specify

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)

250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) passed against the penalty orders by the DCIT, Central Circle-1, Kanpur u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act, all dated 27.03.2019 . Since all the appeals relating to both the two assessees belong to one group of Rich Udyog Net Worth Ltd. and facts are identical

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)

250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) passed against the penalty orders by the DCIT, Central Circle-1, Kanpur u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act, all dated 27.03.2019 . Since all the appeals relating to both the two assessees belong to one group of Rich Udyog Net Worth Ltd. and facts are identical

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)

250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) passed against the penalty orders by the DCIT, Central Circle-1, Kanpur u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act, all dated 27.03.2019 . Since all the appeals relating to both the two assessees belong to one group of Rich Udyog Net Worth Ltd. and facts are identical

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)

250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) passed against the penalty orders by the DCIT, Central Circle-1, Kanpur u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act, all dated 27.03.2019 . Since all the appeals relating to both the two assessees belong to one group of Rich Udyog Net Worth Ltd. and facts are identical

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)

250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) passed against the penalty orders by the DCIT, Central Circle-1, Kanpur u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act, all dated 27.03.2019 . Since all the appeals relating to both the two assessees belong to one group of Rich Udyog Net Worth Ltd. and facts are identical

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)

250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) passed against the penalty orders by the DCIT, Central Circle-1, Kanpur u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act, all dated 27.03.2019 . Since all the appeals relating to both the two assessees belong to one group of Rich Udyog Net Worth Ltd. and facts are identical

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)

250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) passed against the penalty orders by the DCIT, Central Circle-1, Kanpur u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act, all dated 27.03.2019 . Since all the appeals relating to both the two assessees belong to one group of Rich Udyog Net Worth Ltd. and facts are identical

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)

250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) passed against the penalty orders by the DCIT, Central Circle-1, Kanpur u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act all dated 30.03.2019. Since all the appeals relate to assessee belonging to one group called Rich Udyog Network and facts are identical, arising out of common order

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)

250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) passed against the penalty orders by the DCIT, Central Circle-1, Kanpur u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act all dated 30.03.2019. Since all the appeals relate to assessee belonging to one group called Rich Udyog Network and facts are identical, arising out of common order

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)

250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) passed against the penalty orders by the DCIT, Central Circle-1, Kanpur u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act all dated 30.03.2019. Since all the appeals relate to assessee belonging to one group called Rich Udyog Network and facts are identical, arising out of common order