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.

174 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 5clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi5,355Mumbai4,702Ahmedabad1,278Kolkata1,132Jaipur943Bangalore854Pune852Chennai668Indore606Surat536Hyderabad484Chandigarh399Rajkot260Amritsar239Raipur237Cochin179Lucknow174Visakhapatnam172Karnataka154Nagpur143Cuttack139Agra110Patna95Ranchi90Allahabad86Guwahati79Dehradun78Jabalpur65Jodhpur51Panaji44Calcutta39Varanasi21Kerala15SC12Telangana7Rajasthan4Punjab & Haryana2Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)128Section 1173Addition to Income71Section 14769Penalty67Section 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 174 · Page 1 of 9

...
32
Section 27429
Natural Justice26
Exemption22
Section 274
Section 40a

5. Aggrieved by the order of the A.O levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The submission of the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) was that the AO has not specified the limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, under which penalty proceedings have

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 I.T. Act 1961. ITA Nos. 453 to 463/LKW/2024 Page 5 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

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

u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c), the penalty cannot be levied. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the decision of Dharmendra Textile Processors, relied on by Learned D. R., is not applicable as that case was under Central Excise wherein the duty payable had not been paid and there was issue with respect to mens

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 274 read with section 271(1)(c), the penalty cannot be levied. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the decision of Dharmendra Textile Processors, relied on by Learned D. R., is not applicable as that case was under Central Excise wherein the duty payable had not been paid and there was issue with respect to mens

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 274 read with section 271(1)(c), the penalty cannot be levied. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the decision of Dharmendra Textile Processors, relied on by Learned D. R., is not applicable as that case was under Central Excise wherein the duty payable had not been paid and there was issue with respect to mens

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 274 read with section 271(1)(c), the penalty cannot be levied. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the decision of Dharmendra Textile Processors, relied on by Learned D. R., is not applicable as that case was under Central Excise wherein the duty payable had not been paid and there was issue with respect to mens

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 274 read with section 271(1)(c), the penalty cannot be levied. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the decision of Dharmendra Textile Processors, relied on by Learned D. R., is not applicable as that case was under Central Excise wherein the duty payable had not been paid and there was issue with respect to mens

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 274 read with section 271(1)(c), the penalty cannot be levied. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the decision of Dharmendra Textile Processors, relied on by Learned D. R., is not applicable as that case was under Central Excise wherein the duty payable had not been paid and there was issue with respect to mens

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)

section 271(1)(c) are not attracted, the penalty imposed is bad in law. 5. Because there being no specific charge either for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, there being no satisfaction by the Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty imposed which

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

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 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

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

5. Because the assessee was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause being under a bonafide belief totally depending upon the person filing the income-tax return, the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty of Rs.40,000/- under section 271(1)(c) is bad in law and be deleted

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

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

THE SUB- REGISTRAR,HAMIRPUR vs. DI (INTELLIGENCE & CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the aforesaid two different assessee's in ITA No

ITA 250/LKW/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar**

Section 246A(1)(q)Section 271Section 271FSection 274Section 285B

5) commencing from the due date of filing of AIR information which was 31.08.2015, and further delay of 364 days till actual filing of AIR information by assessee for financial year 2014- 15(assessment year 2015-16), on 02/12/2016. 2. The assessee, being aggrieved by penalty order dated 23.03.2017 passed by Assessing Officer levying penalty of Rs. 191400 u/s 271FA

THE SUB-REGISTRAR,HAMIRPUR vs. DI (INTELLIGENCE & CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the aforesaid two different assessee's in ITA No

ITA 251/LKW/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar**

Section 246A(1)(q)Section 271Section 271FSection 274Section 285B

5) commencing from the due date of filing of AIR information which was 31.08.2015, and further delay of 364 days till actual filing of AIR information by assessee for financial year 2014- 15(assessment year 2015-16), on 02/12/2016. 2. The assessee, being aggrieved by penalty order dated 23.03.2017 passed by Assessing Officer levying penalty of Rs. 191400 u/s 271FA

M/S J.S TOWER,KANPUR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 570/LKW/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow01 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoora.Y. 2012-13 M/S J.S. Tower, Vs. Acit-I, 16/80-I, Civil Lines, Kanpur Kanpur Pan Aadfj5437B (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

Section 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 while levying penalty on charge of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of such income, therefore, the impugned penalty order is unsustainable in law and deserves to be deleted, 4. That the Ld. C.I.T. (Appeals)-l Kanpur has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the penalty levied