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.

39 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 11(5)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi3,849Mumbai3,190Ahmedabad916Kolkata780Bangalore754Jaipur736Pune630Chennai503Indore496Hyderabad412Surat392Chandigarh269Raipur202Rajkot174Amritsar166Karnataka148Lucknow137Visakhapatnam136Cochin126Cuttack124Nagpur117Agra73Ranchi72Allahabad68Guwahati63Dehradun50Patna39Panaji37Calcutta37Jodhpur29Jabalpur27Kerala14SC12Varanasi11Telangana7Rajasthan4Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)62Penalty34Section 27430Section 25028Section 14727Addition to Income25Section 271A24Section 14423Section 271(1)(b)

PATLIPUTRA BUILDERS LIMITED,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 53/PAT/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Jha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rinku Singh, DR
Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

11, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are hereby quashed and the penalty is levied therein u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are hereby deleted. Legal grounds raised by the assessee challenging the validity of penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are allowed. 022. Now, we take up the grounds challenging the levy of penalty u/s 271

PATLIPUTRA BUILDERS LTD,PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

Showing 1–20 of 39 · Page 1 of 2

17
Natural Justice16
Section 14815
Limitation/Time-bar7

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 52/PAT/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Jha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rinku Singh, DR
Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

11, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are hereby quashed and the penalty is levied therein u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are hereby deleted. Legal grounds raised by the assessee challenging the validity of penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are allowed. 022. Now, we take up the grounds challenging the levy of penalty u/s 271

PATLIPUTRA BUILDERS LIMITED,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 57/PAT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Jha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rinku Singh, DR
Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

11, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are hereby quashed and the penalty is levied therein u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are hereby deleted. Legal grounds raised by the assessee challenging the validity of penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are allowed. 022. Now, we take up the grounds challenging the levy of penalty u/s 271

PATLIPUTRA BUILDERS LIMITED,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 54/PAT/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Jha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rinku Singh, DR
Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

11, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are hereby quashed and the penalty is levied therein u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are hereby deleted. Legal grounds raised by the assessee challenging the validity of penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are allowed. 022. Now, we take up the grounds challenging the levy of penalty u/s 271

PATLIPUTRA BUILDERS LIMITED,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 55/PAT/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Jha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rinku Singh, DR
Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

11, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are hereby quashed and the penalty is levied therein u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are hereby deleted. Legal grounds raised by the assessee challenging the validity of penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are allowed. 022. Now, we take up the grounds challenging the levy of penalty u/s 271

PATLIPUTRA BUILDERS LIMITED,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 56/PAT/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Jha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rinku Singh, DR
Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

11, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are hereby quashed and the penalty is levied therein u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are hereby deleted. Legal grounds raised by the assessee challenging the validity of penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are allowed. 022. Now, we take up the grounds challenging the levy of penalty u/s 271

M/S VATSA CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD.,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 10/PAT/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Patna15 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 09/Pat./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 10/Pat./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 M/S Vatsa Constructions Pvt. Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltd., Kasturba Path, North S.K. Circle-2, Puri, Patna-800013 Patna (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcv2236R Assessee By : Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Kausik Kumar Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.03.2018 Order These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Each Dated 06.10.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A)-1, Patna.

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Kausik Kumar Das, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

section 271(1).” ITA Nos. 09 & 10/Pat./2017 4 Vatsa Construction 10. We, therefore, by respectfully following the ratio laid down in the aforesaid referred to cases delete the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and sustained by the ld. CIT(A). 11. In ITA No. 10/Pat./2017, the only grievance of the assessee

JOANNA GOKAVI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-1, MOTIHARI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 218/PAT/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Patna16 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon’Ble Am Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम Dr. (Mrs.) Joanna Gokavi Ito, Ward – 1, Motihari / B-19, Anand Niketan, New V/S. Delhi – 110021. Pan No.Amepg 2067 M अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent .. अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant None ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent Shri Ajay Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr

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

5,82,273/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. It emerges from the relevant penalty notice dated 21.10.2014 that the Assessing Officer did not specify as to whether the assessee is accused of concealment of particulars of any taxable income or it had furnished inaccurate particulars of such Dr. (Mrs.) Joanna Gokavi income. This tribunal’s co-ordinate bench

SANJAY KUMAR MODI,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA

Appeal is allowed

ITA 41/PAT/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Patna16 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम Sanjay Kumar Modi Acit, Central Circle-3, Patna / 20B, Arya Nagar Colony, Lodi V/S. Katra, Patna City, Patna Pan No.Afupm7073G अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent .. अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant None ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent Shri Indrajit Singh, Cit, Dr

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

11 at page 19 has held that concealment of income an Sanjay Kumar Modi furnishing inaccurate particulars of income carry different connotations. The Gujarat High Court in the case of MANU ENGINEERING reported in 122 ITR 306 and the Delhi High Court in the case of VIRGO MARKETING reported in 171 Taxman 156, has held that levy of penalty

SANJAY YADAV,JAHANABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 216/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna11 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

11. For that the other grounds, if any, shall be urged at the time of hearing of appeal. II. ITA No. 217/PAT/2025: 1. For that the ld. CIT (A) NFAC has erred in affirming imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 5,47,559/- 2. For that the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has failed to appreciate that imposing

SANJAY YADAV,JAHANABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 218/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna11 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

11. For that the other grounds, if any, shall be urged at the time of hearing of appeal. II. ITA No. 217/PAT/2025: 1. For that the ld. CIT (A) NFAC has erred in affirming imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 5,47,559/- 2. For that the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has failed to appreciate that imposing

SANJAY YADAV,JAHANABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 217/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna11 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

11. For that the other grounds, if any, shall be urged at the time of hearing of appeal. II. ITA No. 217/PAT/2025: 1. For that the ld. CIT (A) NFAC has erred in affirming imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 5,47,559/- 2. For that the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has failed to appreciate that imposing

ANIL KUMAR,WEST CHAMPARAN vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (5), BETTIAH

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

ITA 261/PAT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 144/147 and penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 21.12.2017 and 30.05.2018, respectively. Since the issues in both the appeals are related to the same assessee, both the appeals were heard together and I.T.A. Nos.: 261 & 262/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Anil Kumar. are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience

ANIL KUMAR,WEST CHAMPARAN vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (5), BETTIAH

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

ITA 262/PAT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 144/147 and penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 21.12.2017 and 30.05.2018, respectively. Since the issues in both the appeals are related to the same assessee, both the appeals were heard together and I.T.A. Nos.: 261 & 262/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Anil Kumar. are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience

RANJEET KUMAR (INDIVIDUAL),BEGUSARAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2 (1), BEGUSARAI

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

ITA 198/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna06 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 282Section 69

5. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to consider that the appellant has not been served any hearing notice in the primary mail box of registered mail id and also that no notices were uploaded in "for your action" tab of the income tax portal during pendency of the CIT Appeal proceedings and there was no effective communication

SMT NEELAM KUMARI,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 200/PAT/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Sept 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S.S. Godara Hon’Ble] Assessment Year: 2004-05 Smt. Neelam Kumari..............................……………………………………................................Appellant C/O. Nirmal & Associates, Chartered Accountants, Nepali Kothi, Opp. Gasoline Petrol Pump, Boring Road, Patna – 800 001. [Pan: Afzpk 6823 P] Acit, Central Circle -3, Patna ..…………………………………………................................Respondent Patna. Appearances By: Shri Nishant Maitin, C.A. Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Inderjit Singh, Cit Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 22, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order September 22, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 3, Patna, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt. 30/04/2019, For The Assessment Year 2004-05, Wherein, He Confirmed The Penalty Levied U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act, By The Assessing Officer . 2. At The Outset, We Find That There Is A Delay Of 25 Days In Filing Of This Appeal In Time. After Perusing The Petition For Condonation, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing The Appeal In Time. Hence, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted.

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

11. We have already observed that the show cause notice issued in the present case u/s 274 of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does not strike out the inappropriate words

M/S MANISH KUMAR,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 204/PAT/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Sept 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S.S. Godara Hon’Ble] Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Manish Kumar..............................……………………………………..................................Appellant C/O. Nirmal & Associates, Chartered Accountants, Nepali Kothi, Opp. Gasoline Petrol Pump, Boring Road, Patna – 800 001. [Pan: Aapfm 7731 B] Acit, Central Circle -3, Patna ..…………………………………………................................Respondent Patna. Appearances By: Shri Nishant Maitin, C.A. Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Inderjit Singh, Cit Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue.

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

11. We have already observed that the show cause notice issued in the present case u/s 274 of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does not strike out the inappropriate words

SMT URMILA DEVI,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 203/PAT/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Sept 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S.S. Godara Hon’Ble] Assessment Year: 2004-05 Smt. Urmila Devi..............................…………………………………….......................................Appellant C/O. Nirmal & Associates, Chartered Accountants, Nepali Kothi, Opp. Gasoline Petrol Pump, Boring Road, Patna – 800 001. [Pan: Afzpk 6824 L] Acit, Central Circle -3, Patna ..…………………………………………................................Respondent Patna. Appearances By: Shri Nishant Maitin, C.A. Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Inderjit Singh, Cit Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue.

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

11. We have already observed that the show cause notice issued in the present case u/s 274 of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does not strike out the inappropriate words

SMT INDU SINHA,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 201/PAT/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Sept 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S.S. Godara Hon’Ble] Assessment Year: 2004-05 Smt. Indu Sinha..............................……………………………………..........................................Appellant C/O. Nirmal & Associates, Chartered Accountants, Nepali Kothi, Opp. Gasoline Petrol Pump, Boring Road, Patna – 800 001. [Pan: Aeapd 5840 D] Acit, Central Circle -3, Ranchi …………………………………………................................Respondent Ranchi. Appearances By: Shri Nishant Maitin, C.A. Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Inderjit Singh, Cit Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue.

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

11. We have already observed that the show cause notice issued in the present case u/s 274 of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does not strike out the inappropriate words

BAIJU ROY,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-4(2), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 13/PAT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna02 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 10(37)Section 133(6)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 45(5)Section 54BSection 54F

Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) is also initiated for inaccurate particular of income of Rs.1,25,05,763/-“. 4. Dissatisfied with this assessment order, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). According to the ld. CIT(Appeals), the appeal was time- barred by 150 days. The ld. 1st Appellate Authority has considered the explanation