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.

173 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 4clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi5,441Mumbai4,789Ahmedabad1,291Kolkata1,138Jaipur953Bangalore875Pune851Chennai679Indore673Surat541Hyderabad498Chandigarh405Rajkot269Amritsar239Raipur237Cochin177Visakhapatnam175Lucknow173Karnataka161Nagpur145Cuttack144Agra111Patna102Allahabad97Ranchi90Dehradun85Guwahati80Jabalpur65Jodhpur52Panaji44Calcutta39Varanasi21Kerala18SC13Telangana9Rajasthan4Punjab & Haryana2Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)128Section 1173Addition to Income71Section 14769Penalty66Section 14859Section 143(3)36Section 69A33Section 144

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 173 · Page 1 of 9

...
30
Section 27429
Natural Justice26
Disallowance22
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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 4,22,195/ 4. The order passed by the Ld. A.O. is against principles of natural justice. 5. The assessee reserves the right to add, amend and delete any grounds of appeal.” ITA. No.455/LKW/2024 1. On facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by Ld. Authorities below u/s 147 r.w.s

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 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 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

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

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

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

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)

4. Because the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the amount on which the penalty has been imposed is at best a case of deemed addition and would be the matter of interpretation, the penal provisions of section 271(1)(c) are not attracted, the penalty imposed is bad in law. 5. Because there being no specific charge either

SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA PATHAK,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 4(1), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 361/LKW/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

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

Section 27(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

4. Because the explanation furnished by the assessee has not been found to be false nor untrue, the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and be deleted. 5. Because the assessee was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause being under a bonafide belief totally depending upon the person filing the income

ACIT-2(1)(1), KANPUR, KANPUR vs. UP STATE YARN COMPANY LIMITED , KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 469/LKW/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Nov 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraacit-2(1)(1) Up State Yarn Company V. 15/295-A, Civil Lines, Kanpur, Limited Uttar Pradesh-208001. 1 Smith Square, 14/72, Civil Lines, Uttar Pradesh- 208001. Pan:Aaacu1674K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 11 11 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 11 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 254Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Relevant portion of the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: - “It is seen that penalty has been imposed by the AO on grounds that the appellant had file inaccurate particulars. I have gone through the assessment order passed by the AO. It is apparent that there has been

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 Act, which penalty is bad in law and be deleted. 6. Because the assessment has been framed rejecting the books of account and estimating the total income, there being no concealment, the penalty imposed is bad in law and be deleted. 2. The grievance of the assessee is against imposition of penalty under section

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short), pertaining to the assessment year 2015-16. 2. For the sake of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of consolidated order. First, we take up the ITA. No. 301/LKW/2025 (Quantum Appeal), pertaining

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short), pertaining to the assessment year 2015-16. 2. For the sake of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of consolidated order. First, we take up the ITA. No. 301/LKW/2025 (Quantum Appeal), pertaining

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short), pertaining to the assessment year 2015-16. 2. For the sake of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of consolidated order. First, we take up the ITA. No. 301/LKW/2025 (Quantum Appeal), pertaining

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short), pertaining to the assessment year 2015-16. 2. For the sake of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of consolidated order. First, we take up the ITA. No. 301/LKW/2025 (Quantum Appeal), pertaining

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

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 the charge that whether the assessee has concealed the particulars of Income or furnished inaccurate

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

section 268A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 that no appeal should be filed before the Tribunal in case the tax effect does not exceed Rs.50 lakhs. In the backdrop of the CBDT Circular No.17/2019, the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal, in its recent order passed on 14th August, 2019 in the case of Income Tax Officer Ward

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

section 268A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 that no appeal should be filed before the Tribunal in case the tax effect does not exceed Rs.50 lakhs. In the backdrop of the CBDT Circular No.17/2019, the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal, in its recent order passed on 14th August, 2019 in the case of Income Tax Officer Ward