Search: penalty u/s 271 | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

48 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Disallowanceclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,032 Delhi933 Ahmedabad249 Jaipur209 Kolkata154 Chennai153 Hyderabad145 Bangalore142 Pune130 Indore112 Chandigarh89 Surat86 Raipur82 Rajkot56 Nagpur48 Allahabad45 Amritsar38 Lucknow36 Visakhapatnam33 Cochin28 Ranchi24 Agra20 Jodhpur16 Cuttack16 Guwahati11 Dehradun9 Jabalpur9 Varanasi8 Patna7 Panaji7

Key Topics

Section 143(3)57 Section 271(1)(c)37 Addition to Income32 Section 153A27 Section 6826 Section 36(1)(viia)25 Penalty21 Section 4018 Section 250

ACIT, AMRAVATI CIRCLE, AMRAVATI vs. CHANDRAPUR DIST CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 398/NAG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Salonkhe

Section 271(1)(c)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of IT. Act 1961 is exigible in respect to disallowance of deduction u/s 36(1) (vila

ACIT, CHANDRAPUR CIRCLE , CHANDRAPUR vs. CHANDRAPUR DISTT. CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD , CHANDRAPUR

Showing 1–20 of 48 · Page 1 of 3

15

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 399/NAG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(viia)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act 1961 is exigible in respect to disallowance of deduction u/s 36(1)(viia

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CHANDRAPUR CIRCLE , CHANDRAPUR vs. M/S CHANDRAPUR DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPRATIVE BANK LIMTED , CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 241/NAG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(viia)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act 1961 is exigible in respect to disallowance of deduction u/s 36(1)(viia

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRAVATI & CHANDRAPUR CIRCLE, AMRAVATI vs. CHANDRAPUR DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD., CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 89/NAG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(viia)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act 1961 is exigible in respect to disallowance of deduction u/s 36(1)(viia

BHAKTVATSAL SADGURU YOGIRAJ VASANTRAO GOPALRAO GHONGE MAHARAJ TRUST,WARDHA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 598/NAG/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur04 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 28

disallowed. Resultantly proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated. The Ld. CIT Appeal upheld the order of the AO. Thereafter, notices u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were issued but the appellant failed to offer any explanation in support of its claim. Therefore, the AO imposed penalty

DCIT CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR vs. M/S TRISTER RETAIL CONCEPTS PRIVATE LIMITED, NAGPUR

In the result, department’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 319/NAG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Further on perusal of profit & Loss account assessee has claimed loss on Sale of Fixed Assets of Rs.4,02,50,000/- which resulted in loss of Rs.4,20,81,645/-. During the course of assessment proceedings by issuing show cause notice dated 04/12/2017, assessee was asked to explain why loss on sale of fixed assets

BHAVIKA GUNWANT PATEL,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 366/NAG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Abhay R. Marathe

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

disallowed the exemption u/s 10(38) and added back to the income of the appellant. The AO also levied commission @3% on such accommodation entry of Rs.9,430/- and added back the same to the income of the appellant u/s 69C of the Act. Based on above addition, the AO also levied penalty u/s 271

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-1(3), NAGPUR vs. M/S GIGEO CONSTRUCTION CO.PVT. LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 486/NAG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani a/wFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 40Section 40A(3)

U/s. 271(1)(c), imposition of penalty is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Nagpur erred in confirming penalty even though the concealed income determined as per CIT(A) order at Rs. 38,19,636/- and confirmed the penalty of Rs.33

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-1(3), NAGPUR vs. M/S GIGEO CONSTRUCTION CO.PVT. LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 488/NAG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani a/wFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 40Section 40A(3)

U/s. 271(1)(c), imposition of penalty is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Nagpur erred in confirming penalty even though the concealed income determined as per CIT(A) order at Rs. 38,19,636/- and confirmed the penalty of Rs.33

GIGEO CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD.,,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3),, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 97/NAG/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani a/wFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 40Section 40A(3)

U/s. 271(1)(c), imposition of penalty is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Nagpur erred in confirming penalty even though the concealed income determined as per CIT(A) order at Rs. 38,19,636/- and confirmed the penalty of Rs.33

THE WARDHA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD.,WARDHA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE-3, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 11/NAG/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Ms. Alfiya RozieFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(viia)

u/s 271(1)(c) to the tune of Rs.68,00,000/-. 2. The Appellant craves leave to add or alter any other ground that may be taken at the time of the hearing.” 2 The Wardha District Central Co–operative Bank Ltd. ITA no.11/Nag./2025 3. While perusing the material available on record, we find that this is a case

VIDHARBHA KONKAN GRAMIN BANK ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(5) , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 8/NAG/2019[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 22Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 80P

disallowed and added back to the total income. Penalty notice u/s 271(1) (c) is being issued separately. 6. Sections

VIDHARBHA KONKAN GRAMIN BANK ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(5) , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 7/NAG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 22Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 80P

disallowed and added back to the total income. Penalty notice u/s 271(1) (c) is being issued separately. 6. Sections

GAJANAND FINANCIAL CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 126/NAG/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is hereby Initiated separately for concealment of income.. 8.1 Hence, in order to protect the interest of the revenue, the addition of Rs.14,10,00,000/- is made in the case of the Assessee…….” 13. The learned PCIT has held that ` 4.60 crore has to be explained by Antariksh Barter

TAJSHREE AUTOWHEELS PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 400/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur04 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Madhav VichoreFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee under the head 'Income from Other Sources'. Penalty proceedings u/s 271

INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD -4, AMRAVATI vs. SHRI MAHESH SHANKAR SORATE , DARYAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 250/NAG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 143(3)Section 269Section 269TSection 271E

disallowed in terms of section 40(a)(ia). 7.5 The appellant has submitted that he had made the repayment by using online cash deposit facility of the bank, which was out of his cash sales, and had insisted on such direct deposits to payee to ensure that the repayment was duly recorded. The assessing officer has not considered the business

ADITI EXPRESS CARGO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS ERSTWHILE DIRECTOR PRASHANT NATWARLAL LAKHANI,NAGPUR vs. DCITACIT CIRCLE-3 , NAGPUR

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 498/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: S/Shri Nitin Gulati a/w Pankaj KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

u/s 147. 7. Penalties Imposed Without Just Cause: Penalty proceedings initiated under Sections 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c), and 271F are unjustified, as the failure to file the return was due to operational shutdown and not due to any intention to evade tax. Moreover, taxes had already been paid in excess. 8. Procedural Lapses in Appeal Proceedings: The Learned

ADITI EXPRESS CARGO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. DCIT ACIT CIRCLE -3, NAGPUR

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 560/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: S/Shri Nitin Gulati a/w Pankaj KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

u/s 147. 7. Penalties Imposed Without Just Cause: Penalty proceedings initiated under Sections 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c), and 271F are unjustified, as the failure to file the return was due to operational shutdown and not due to any intention to evade tax. Moreover, taxes had already been paid in excess. 8. Procedural Lapses in Appeal Proceedings: The Learned

ADITI EXPRESS CARGO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. DCIT ACIT CIRCLE -3, NAGPUR

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 559/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: S/Shri Nitin Gulati a/w Pankaj KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

u/s 147. 7. Penalties Imposed Without Just Cause: Penalty proceedings initiated under Sections 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c), and 271F are unjustified, as the failure to file the return was due to operational shutdown and not due to any intention to evade tax. Moreover, taxes had already been paid in excess. 8. Procedural Lapses in Appeal Proceedings: The Learned

ADITI EXPRESS CARGO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. DCIT ACIT CIRCLE -3, , NAGPUR

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 558/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: S/Shri Nitin Gulati a/w Pankaj KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

u/s 147. 7. Penalties Imposed Without Just Cause: Penalty proceedings initiated under Sections 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c), and 271F are unjustified, as the failure to file the return was due to operational shutdown and not due to any intention to evade tax. Moreover, taxes had already been paid in excess. 8. Procedural Lapses in Appeal Proceedings: The Learned