BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

213 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 254clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai213Delhi158Surat117Jaipur42Chandigarh38Raipur37Pune30Chennai28Bangalore25Hyderabad24Rajkot23Indore22Ahmedabad22Kolkata18Varanasi6Lucknow6Guwahati6Patna6Allahabad5Nagpur4Visakhapatnam3Panaji2Amritsar2Jodhpur1Jabalpur1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)125Addition to Income70Section 143(3)69Section 14A58Section 153A55Penalty47Disallowance34Section 14832Section 147

ANJIS DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE CIT-5,MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 959/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anjis Developers Private Limited, Pcit-5, 2Nd Floor, Soham Apartments, Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, 208, Walkeshwar Road, Teen Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mk. Batti, Road, Mumbai-400006. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaaca 6022 H Appellant Respondent : Assessee By S. Sriram/Dinesh Kukreja/Ssnyaknavedie Revenue By : Shri Chetan Kacha, Dr : Date Of Hearing 25/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/02/2023

For Respondent: Assessee by S. Sriram/Dinesh
Section 270A

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has rendered, t of the Act has rendered, the assessment order erroneous in so far he assessment order erroneous in so far Anjis Developers Pvt. Ltd. 7 AY 2017-18 as prejudicial to the interest of the Rev as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The relevant finding of enue. The relevant

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 (1) MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. PANTHER INVESTRADE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the Cross appeals no

Showing 1–20 of 213 · Page 1 of 11

...
31
Deduction30
Section 6827
Section 4023
ITA 416/MUM/2025[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Akash Kumar, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan (Sr. DR)
Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, merely on technical grounds, without considering the substantive merits of the case, and failed to follow the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the following judgments: CIT v. S. S. Suri (2005) 279 ITR 276 CIT v. Zoom Communication

DCIT(CENTRAL CIRCLE)-7(1), MUMBAI vs. PANTHER INVESTRADE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the Cross appeals no

ITA 415/MUM/2025[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Akash Kumar, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan (Sr. DR)
Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, merely on technical grounds, without considering the substantive merits of the case, and failed to follow the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the following judgments: CIT v. S. S. Suri (2005) 279 ITR 276 CIT v. Zoom Communication

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. TRIUMPH SECURITIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 962/MUM/2024[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2025AY 2003-04
For Appellant: \nShri Rajiv Khandelwal (VirtuallyFor Respondent: \nDr. P. Daniel – Spl. Counsel
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Section 254\nof the Act. in both the paragraphs, the AO had mentioned that the penalty proceedings uls\n271(1)(c) of the Act were being initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment\nof income. The AO has stated in paras 2 and 4.1 of the impugned penalty order that the penalty\nproceedings u/s 271

EVEREST KANTO CYLINDER LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5790/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Prabhash Shankareverest Kanto Cylinder V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd. बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 3(4), 204,Raheja Centre, Free World Trade Centre 1, Cuffe Press Journal Marg, Parade, Mumbai – 400005, Nariman Point, Mumbai – Maharashtra 400 021, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaace0836F Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Shekhar Gupta,ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, (Sr.DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Section 254 of the Act. in both the paragraphs, the AO had mentioned that the penalty proceedings uls 271(1)(c) of the Act were being initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income. The AO has stated in paras 2 and 4.1 of the impugned penalty order that the penalty proceedings u/s

THE RUBY MILLS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the substantial ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 3021/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar(Physical Hearing) The Ruby Mills Limited Dcit, Circle – 8(3)(1), 11Th Floor, Ruby House A, J.K. Sawant Vs Aayakarbhawan,Mumbai-400020. Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – 400028. [Pan No. Aaact0220G] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC dated 20.02.2025 for AY 2012-13. The assessee has following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant company's case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner

M.LAKHAMSI& CO. ,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4304/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: \nMr. Ketan Vajani, CAFor Respondent: \nShri Annavaran Kasuri, (Sr. AR)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292B

Section 254 of the Act. in both the paragraphs, the AO had mentioned\nthat the penalty proceedings uls 271(1)(c) of the Act were being initiated for\nfurnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income. The AO has\nstated in paras 2 and 4.1 of the impugned penalty order that the penalty\nproceedings u/s

SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC- 2(2), , MUMBAI

ITA 2006/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Karan JainFor Respondent: Kamble Minal Mohan
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

section 201(1) of the Act. The ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. statistical purposes. Shri Narendra S Shah ITA Nos. 2005 to 2007/M/ 2004/M/2004

SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH,MUM vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), , MUM

ITA 2005/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Karan JainFor Respondent: Kamble Minal Mohan
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

section 201(1) of the Act. The ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. statistical purposes. Shri Narendra S Shah ITA Nos. 2005 to 2007/M/ 2004/M/2004

SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH,MUM vs. DCIT, CC-2(2),, MUM

ITA 2004/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Karan JainFor Respondent: Kamble Minal Mohan
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

section 201(1) of the Act. The ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. statistical purposes. Shri Narendra S Shah ITA Nos. 2005 to 2007/M/ 2004/M/2004

SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CEN CIR-(2), , MUMBAI

ITA 2003/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Karan JainFor Respondent: Kamble Minal Mohan
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

section 201(1) of the Act. The ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. statistical purposes. Shri Narendra S Shah ITA Nos. 2005 to 2007/M/ 2004/M/2004

DCIT, CC-2(2), , MUM vs. SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH, MUM

ITA 2315/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Karan JainFor Respondent: Kamble Minal Mohan
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

section 201(1) of the Act. The ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. statistical purposes. Shri Narendra S Shah ITA Nos. 2005 to 2007/M/ 2004/M/2004

DCIT, CC-2(2),, MUM vs. SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH, MUMBAI

ITA 2566/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Karan JainFor Respondent: Kamble Minal Mohan
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

section 201(1) of the Act. The ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. statistical purposes. Shri Narendra S Shah ITA Nos. 2005 to 2007/M/ 2004/M/2004

SHRI NARENDRA S SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-2(2),, MUMBAI

ITA 2007/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Karan JainFor Respondent: Kamble Minal Mohan
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

section 201(1) of the Act. The ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. statistical purposes. Shri Narendra S Shah ITA Nos. 2005 to 2007/M/ 2004/M/2004

MUKON CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1152/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: \nShri Siddharth Srivashtav,ARFor Respondent: \nShri Annavaran Kasuri, (Sr. AR)
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292B

Section 254 of the Act. in both the paragraphs, the AO had mentioned\nthat the penalty proceedings uls 271(1)(c) of the Act were being initiated for\nfurnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income. The AO has\nstated in paras 2 and 4.1 of the impugned penalty order that the penalty\nPage 9\nITA No. 1152/Mum/2025\nA.Y

KAMINI KRISHNA KOTAK ,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL / JOINT / DEPUTY / ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

The appeals are allowed while Ground No

ITA 6610/MUM/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Y. P. Trivedi, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

254 of the Act, the penalty proceedings were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The relevant extract of the aforesaid assessment order reads as under: “9. As the assessee had not disclosed income correctly in the return of income, as discussed above, penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act, 1961 is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate

ANJALI NEERAJ HARDIKAR ,PUNE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), MUMBAI-3, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2704/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankaranjali Neeraj Hardikar Vs. Pcit (Central) E/3, Vibhawari Apartments, 1901, 19Th Floor, Air Sahwas Society, Lane No.1, India Bldg, Nariman Karve Nagar – 411052. Point, Maharashtra – 400021. Pan/Gir No. Aafph0320K (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80G

254 dated 18.12.2019 it was specifically that penalty 8 Anjali Neeraj Hardikar, Mumbai proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act initiated dated 27/03/2014 which were kept in abeyance till the disposal of the appeal by Hon'ble Tribunal by the then AO was revived by virtue of provisions of section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. NEVALES NETWORKS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4827/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-14(1)(1), M/S. Nevales Networks Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 432, 4Th Floor, The Capital, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Level 7, Plot-C70, M.K.Road, G Block, Mumbai-400020. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan : Aadcn1748A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Piyush Chhajed Revenue By : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui

For Appellant: Shri Piyush ChhajedFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

u/s. 271(1)(c) on disallowance of Rs. 48,30,254/-us. 438 of the Income Tax Act, 1961" The Hon'ble Court held that the ambiguity with regard to the year of allowability of expenses for such a transition period should not be adversely viewed for the purpose of levy of penalty and more over all the particulars

BIPIN PRANJIVANDAS SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 27(1)(1), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1661/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

section 271 (1) (c) of the Act would be applicable only where the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. However, the estimation of higher rate of profits by the AO cannot be termed as either concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. ITA No. 1661 & 1660/Mum/2024 Bipin Pranjivandas

CONWOOD CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), MUMBAI

ITA 4756/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 254(1)Section 270(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The captioned appeal is filed by the assessee against the orders of CIT(A)/NFAC – 47, Mumbai dated 27.05.2025 for the Assessment Year 2015-16, which in term arises from the order u/s 270(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated