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.

226 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 273clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi268Mumbai226Karnataka122Bangalore101Jaipur90Indore70Ahmedabad51Chennai34Lucknow30Kolkata26Hyderabad23Pune18Visakhapatnam15Kerala14Chandigarh12Cochin12Surat8Amritsar7Agra7Panaji5Rajkot5Nagpur4Raipur4Cuttack3Patna2SC2Jabalpur1Jodhpur1Guwahati1Telangana1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)127Section 14768Section 143(3)65Addition to Income57Penalty57Section 14852Section 115J39Section 26337Section 271

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5696/MUM/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam KumarFor Respondent: Shri Neel Khandelwal
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Section 274 of the Act is in a standard proforma, without having striked out irrelevant clauses therein represent non-application of mind on the part of the AO while issuing penalty notice has not been disturbed. 18. We noted that Hon'ble “C” Bench in ITA Nos. 1597 & 1597/Mum/ 2014 in the case of M/s. Orbit Enterprises vs. Income

Showing 1–20 of 226 · Page 1 of 12

...
24
Section 153A22
Disallowance21
Reopening of Assessment15

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5695/MUM/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam KumarFor Respondent: Shri Neel Khandelwal
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Section 274 of the Act is in a standard proforma, without having striked out irrelevant clauses therein represent non-application of mind on the part of the AO while issuing penalty notice has not been disturbed. 18. We noted that Hon'ble “C” Bench in ITA Nos. 1597 & 1597/Mum/ 2014 in the case of M/s. Orbit Enterprises vs. Income

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5694/MUM/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam KumarFor Respondent: Shri Neel Khandelwal
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Section 274 of the Act is in a standard proforma, without having striked out irrelevant clauses therein represent non-application of mind on the part of the AO while issuing penalty notice has not been disturbed. 18. We noted that Hon'ble “C” Bench in ITA Nos. 1597 & 1597/Mum/ 2014 in the case of M/s. Orbit Enterprises vs. Income

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5698/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam KumarFor Respondent: Shri Neel Khandelwal
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Section 274 of the Act is in a standard proforma, without having striked out irrelevant clauses therein represent non-application of mind on the part of the AO while issuing penalty notice has not been disturbed. 18. We noted that Hon'ble “C” Bench in ITA Nos. 1597 & 1597/Mum/ 2014 in the case of M/s. Orbit Enterprises vs. Income

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5697/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam KumarFor Respondent: Shri Neel Khandelwal
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Section 274 of the Act is in a standard proforma, without having striked out irrelevant clauses therein represent non-application of mind on the part of the AO while issuing penalty notice has not been disturbed. 18. We noted that Hon'ble “C” Bench in ITA Nos. 1597 & 1597/Mum/ 2014 in the case of M/s. Orbit Enterprises vs. Income

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5699/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam KumarFor Respondent: Shri Neel Khandelwal
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Section 274 of the Act is in a standard proforma, without having striked out irrelevant clauses therein represent non-application of mind on the part of the AO while issuing penalty notice has not been disturbed. 18. We noted that Hon'ble “C” Bench in ITA Nos. 1597 & 1597/Mum/ 2014 in the case of M/s. Orbit Enterprises vs. Income

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 CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. LAXMICHAND D. ROHIRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are hereby dismissed and cross-objections filed by the assessee are hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 1178/MUM/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.1178 To 1184/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2007-08) Dy. Cit Cc-3(4) Central बिधम/ Shri Lakhmichand D. Rohira, 2301, Dheeraj Heigh Range-3 Vs. Gaurav, New Link Rd, Room No. 1915, 19Th Floor, Andheri (W), Mumbai- Air India Bldg, Nariman 400053. Point, Mumbai-400021. Co. Nos. 250 To 256/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita. Nos.1183, 1178, 1179, 1180, 1181 1182 & 1184/M/2016) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07& 2007-08) बिधम/ Shri Lakhmichand D. Dy. Cit Cc-3(4) Central Rohira, 2301, Dheeraj Heigh Range-3 Vs. Gaurav, New Link Rd, Room No. 1915, 19Th Floor, Andheri (W), Mumbai- Air India Bldg, Nariman 400053. Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adnpr6420M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05.09.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24.09.2018

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya (AR)For Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (DR)
Section 132

Section 274 of the Act is in a standard proforma, without having striked out irrelevant clauses therein represent non-application of mind on the part of the AO while issuing penalty notice has not been disturbed. 18. We noted that Hon'ble "C" Bench in ITA Nos. 1597 & 1597/Mum/ 2014 in the case of M/s. Orbit Enterprises vs. Income

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7126/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

271, section 271A, section 271AA, section 271B, section 271BA, section 271BB, section 271C, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271G, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or sub-section (1) of section 272BB or sub-section (1) of section 272BBB

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7125/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

271, section 271A, section 271AA, section 271B, section 271BA, section 271BB, section 271C, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271G, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or sub-section (1) of section 272BB or sub-section (1) of section 272BBB

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7128/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

271, section 271A, section 271AA, section 271B, section 271BA, section 271BB, section 271C, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271G, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or sub-section (1) of section 272BB or sub-section (1) of section 272BBB

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7124/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

271, section 271A, section 271AA, section 271B, section 271BA, section 271BB, section 271C, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271G, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or sub-section (1) of section 272BB or sub-section (1) of section 272BBB

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7127/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

271, section 271A, section 271AA, section 271B, section 271BA, section 271BB, section 271C, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271G, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or sub-section (1) of section 272BB or sub-section (1) of section 272BBB

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7129/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

271, section 271A, section 271AA, section 271B, section 271BA, section 271BB, section 271C, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271G, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or sub-section (1) of section 272BB or sub-section (1) of section 272BBB

RAMACHANDRAN A. POTHI,MUMBAI vs. JCIT 24 (2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7268/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 7268/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2009-10) Shri Ramachandran A Pothi The Jt. Commissioner Of 513, Laxmi Plaza, Laxmi Income Tax, Circle 24(2) फनाभ/ 4 Th Industrial Estate Andheri West, Room No.504, Floor, Mumbai-400 053 Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. Mumbai-400 012 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aacpp8620K अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Shri Rushabh Mehta, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Shri Bharat Andhle, Sr. Ar ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 02.08.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 08.10.2021 आदेश / O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-36, Mumbai [In Short Cit(A)], In Appeal No. Mumbai-36/11494/2016-17 Vide Dated 30.10.2019. The Assessment Was Framed By The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 24(2), Mumbai (In Short Jcit/ Ao) For The A.Y. Shri Ramachandran A Pothi; Ay 09-10 2009-10 Vide Order Dated 29.11.2011 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhle, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

u/s 1 54of the Act. No interference is called for with the order on the said ground. Accordingly, The Ground of appeal nos. 1, 2 & 3 is Dismissed.” Aggrieved, now assessee is in appeal before Tribunal. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. First of all, we have to consider

ORBIT ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. ITO 15(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Year

ITA 1596/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev M. ShahFor Respondent: Shri A.B. Koli
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Section 271(1)(c) on grounds different than that mentioned in aforesaid show cause notice and assessment order dated 22.12.2008.” 7. At the time of hearing, the learned representative pointed out that the additional Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee involve a point of law for which the necessary facts are on record and, therefore, the same be admitted

ORBIT ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. ITO 15(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Year

ITA 1597/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev M. ShahFor Respondent: Shri A.B. Koli
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Section 271(1)(c) on grounds different than that mentioned in aforesaid show cause notice and assessment order dated 22.12.2008.” 7. At the time of hearing, the learned representative pointed out that the additional Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee involve a point of law for which the necessary facts are on record and, therefore, the same be admitted

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 7248/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. The Tribunal has concurred with the view taken by the Commissioner of Income Tax (A). The Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has rightly taken a view that no penalty can be imposed if the facts and circumstances are equally consistent with the hypothesis that the amount does not represent concealed income

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 7249/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. The Tribunal has concurred with the view taken by the Commissioner of Income Tax (A). The Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has rightly taken a view that no penalty can be imposed if the facts and circumstances are equally consistent with the hypothesis that the amount does not represent concealed income

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 7245/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. The Tribunal has concurred with the view taken by the Commissioner of Income Tax (A). The Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has rightly taken a view that no penalty can be imposed if the facts and circumstances are equally consistent with the hypothesis that the amount does not represent concealed income