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.

44 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 250clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,148Delhi996Jaipur319Kolkata306Ahmedabad305Bangalore228Chennai212Pune159Surat137Chandigarh130Hyderabad129Amritsar129Raipur125Indore123Karnataka101Rajkot84Lucknow66Cochin52Patna44Allahabad44Nagpur43Guwahati42Visakhapatnam41Calcutta34Cuttack29Agra29Dehradun28Panaji28Jabalpur26Jodhpur14Varanasi6Ranchi5Telangana2Rajasthan2SC1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)68Section 25049Section 14742Penalty38Section 27428Section 14423Addition to Income23Section 14822Natural Justice18Section 44A

NAND KUMAR PRASAD SAH,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the both the assessee in ITA

ITA 185/PAT/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Patna29 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri SK Tulsiyan, &For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

u/s 132(4) was made during the course of search and seizure. 4. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the order without giving the opportunity of being heard which is against the principle of natural justice. The appellant has filed a time petition on 24.04.2023. The Ld. CIT(A) was in hurry to pass the order

Showing 1–20 of 44 · Page 1 of 3

14
Limitation/Time-bar14
Section 271(1)(b)12

NAND KUMAR PRASAD SAH,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the both the assessee in ITA

ITA 184/PAT/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Patna29 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri SK Tulsiyan, &For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

u/s 132(4) was made during the course of search and seizure. 4. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the order without giving the opportunity of being heard which is against the principle of natural justice. The appellant has filed a time petition on 24.04.2023. The Ld. CIT(A) was in hurry to pass the order

BISHWANATH PRASAD,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the both the assessee in ITA

ITA 162/PAT/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Patna29 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri SK Tulsiyan, &For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

u/s 132(4) was made during the course of search and seizure. 4. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the order without giving the opportunity of being heard which is against the principle of natural justice. The appellant has filed a time petition on 24.04.2023. The Ld. CIT(A) was in hurry to pass the order

BISHWANATH PRASAD,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the both the assessee in ITA

ITA 161/PAT/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Patna29 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri SK Tulsiyan, &For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

u/s 132(4) was made during the course of search and seizure. 4. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the order without giving the opportunity of being heard which is against the principle of natural justice. The appellant has filed a time petition on 24.04.2023. The Ld. CIT(A) was in hurry to pass the order

SHAMBHU PRAKASH SAH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-6(3), PATNA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on legal ground

ITA 36/PAT/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), whereby the learned Commissioner has affirmed the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. At the outset it was argued by the learned counsel for the assessee that in the instant case the notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) dated 29.01.2013 is vague, having

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)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2016-17 dated 11.02.2025, which have been passed against the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, and penalty orders under section 271

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)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2016-17 dated 11.02.2025, which have been passed against the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, and penalty orders under section 271

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)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2016-17 dated 11.02.2025, which have been passed against the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, and penalty orders under section 271

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)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2014-15 dated 24.11.2022, which have been passed against the assessment order u/s 144/147 and penalty order under section 271

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)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2014-15 dated 24.11.2022, which have been passed against the assessment order u/s 144/147 and penalty order under section 271

GANESH RAM DOKANIA,BANKA vs. ACIT, CIR-2, PATNA, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 238/PAT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Years: 2014-15 Ganesh Ram Dokania………..……..………………….……….……….……Appellant Dokania Market, Aliganj, Bihar-813102.. [Pan: Aadfg1795P] Vs. Acit, Circle-2, Patna…….………...…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Rastogi, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Md. A H Chowdhury, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 08, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.03.2025 Of The Cit(A)-3, Patna (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014–15. 2. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In Real Estate Business & The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 15.11.2016 In Response To Notice U/S 153A Of The Act By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.31,56,350/-. Notice U/S. 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued & Subsequently, Assessment U/S. 153A/144 Was Completed At A Total Income Of Rs.25,67,79,232/- Wherein The Assessing Officer Imposed Penalty U/S. 271Aab Of The Act At Rs. 1,60,00,000/- On Undisclosed Income.

Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2014–15. 2. Facts in brief are that the assessee is engaged in real estate business and the assessee filed return of income on 15.11.2016 in response to notice u/s 153A of the Act by declaring total income of Rs.31,56,350/-. Notice

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

271(1)(b) as the provisions of this section are not attracted. 15. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order of the Ld. A.O wherein the Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271F r.w.s. 274 as the provisions of this section are not attracted. 16. For that the appellant reserves its right

SAMASTIPUR KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK,PATNA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3, DARBHANGA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 32/PAT/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Patna01 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.32/Pat/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Samastipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Merged With Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank)……………....Appellant C/O Nirmal & Associates, Ca, Nepali Kothi, Opp Gasoline Petrol Pump, Boring Road, Patna-800001. [Pan: Aafas8891R] Vs. Dcit, Circle-3, Darbhanga..…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Nishant Maitin, Ca Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Rinku Singh, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 21, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 1St, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.10.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Jamshedpur Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Regional Rural Bank & Had Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Nil Income After Claiming Deduction On Account Of Brought Forward Losses & Deductions U/S 80P Of The Act. The Deduction U/S 80P Was Withdrawn From The Statute W.E.F Asst Year 2007-08. Accordingly, In The Present Case Of The Assessee, Assessment Was Framed By Disallowing The Claim Of Brought Forward Losses & Deduction U/S 80P Of The Act.

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80P

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is regional rural bank and had filed its return of income declaring Nil income after claiming deduction on account of brought forward losses and deductions u/s 80P of the Act. The deduction u/s 80P was withdrawn from the statute w.e.f Asst Year

ANJANI KUMAR,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-6(5), PATNA, PATNA

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

ITA 201/PAT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2011-12 dated 14.07.2023. 1.1. The Registry has informed that the appeal is barred by limitation by 592 days. The assessee has submitted a petition for condonation of delay explaining the reasons being the Counsel failing to appear before

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’), dt. 27/06/2019, for the Assessment Year 2008-09, wherein, he confirmed the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, by the Assessing Officer . 2. After hearing rival contentions, we find that the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dt. 29/12/2011, did not specify

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’), dt. 31/05/2019, 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. After hearing rival contentions, we find that the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dt. 27/12/2011, did not specify

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’), dt. 28/05/2019, 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. After hearing rival contentions, we find that the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dt. 27/12/2011, did not specify

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

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

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. SHRI DUDHESHWAR NATH SINGH, PATNA

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

ITA 15/PAT/2021[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 Jan 2025AY 1995-96

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A), This Penalty Was Deleted But, As Has Been Pointed Out By The Ld. Ar, The Impugned Order Is Passed In The Name Of Dudheshwar Nath Singh, Sunil Bhawan, Punai Chak, Patna – 800023 (Status Of “Individual”).

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 273Section 274Section 292BSection 69A

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter ‘the Act’). The impugned order arises from the order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 31.03.2008 in the case of M/s D.N. Singh, Sunil Bhawan, Punai Chak, Patna (status of “firm”). 1.1 The facts in brief are that apparently the assessee firm was an accused in some Bitumen Scam

SURYADEO PRASAD,SIWAN vs. ITO WARD-2 (3), SIWAN

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

ITA 82/PAT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

u/s 144 dated 30.10.2019. Page 2 of 8 I.T.A. No.: 82/PAT/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Suryadeo Prasad. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and very perused the record and the submissions made were also examined. We find that the ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order. 5. We also note that while