Search: penalty u/s 271 | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases 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.

511 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Business Incomeclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,424 Delhi3,319 Ahmedabad846 Jaipur618 Bangalore609 Kolkata582 Pune511 Chennai472 Indore403 Hyderabad338 Surat252 Chandigarh220 Rajkot156 Karnataka150 Cochin131 Amritsar122 Raipur112 Visakhapatnam109 Lucknow97 Nagpur93 Cuttack73 Agra49 Patna47 Allahabad44 Guwahati43 Calcutta36 Dehradun33 Ranchi31 Jabalpur29 Jodhpur26 Panaji19 Varanasi14 Kerala14 SC6 Telangana6 Rajasthan2 Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)197 Addition to Income78 Penalty74 Section 143(3)68 Section 14849 Section 14741 Section 143(2)30 Deduction27 Section 25026

MR. CHITTARANJAN TRIMBAK GAIKWAD,PUNE vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 759/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri B.C. MalakarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

business, to the total income of Rs.41,67,100/- declared by the assessee. The Ld. AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

Showing 1–20 of 511 · Page 1 of 26

...

SHRIRAM VITHAL CHIDRAWAR,,NANDED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 904/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of the said addition of Rs.10,00,000/-. Consequently the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) did not also have the jurisdiction to levy the penalty in respect of the said addition. (iii) Penalty has been initiated and levied by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the charge of concealing

SANJAY D. KAKADE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AHMEDNAGAR

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

ITA 14/PUN/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

For Respondent: Sri Achal Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

u/s 153A of the Act despite non- discovery of any incriminating materials during the search action on ITA Nos.100 to 102/PUN/2013 M/s. Kakade Construction Company the Assessee. From that point of view, the same additional income if AO were to make in assessment, the same needs to be deleted. Consequently, the penalty levied on the said sum of Rs.8

M/S KAKADE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

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

ITA 100/PUN/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

For Respondent: Sri Achal Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

u/s 153A of the Act despite non- discovery of any incriminating materials during the search action on ITA Nos.100 to 102/PUN/2013 M/s. Kakade Construction Company the Assessee. From that point of view, the same additional income if AO were to make in assessment, the same needs to be deleted. Consequently, the penalty levied on the said sum of Rs.8

M/S KAKADE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

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

ITA 101/PUN/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

For Respondent: Sri Achal Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

u/s 153A of the Act despite non- discovery of any incriminating materials during the search action on ITA Nos.100 to 102/PUN/2013 M/s. Kakade Construction Company the Assessee. From that point of view, the same additional income if AO were to make in assessment, the same needs to be deleted. Consequently, the penalty levied on the said sum of Rs.8

SANJAY D. KAKADE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AHMEDNAGAR

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

ITA 13/PUN/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

For Respondent: Sri Achal Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

u/s 153A of the Act despite non- discovery of any incriminating materials during the search action on ITA Nos.100 to 102/PUN/2013 M/s. Kakade Construction Company the Assessee. From that point of view, the same additional income if AO were to make in assessment, the same needs to be deleted. Consequently, the penalty levied on the said sum of Rs.8

SANJAY D. KAKADE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AHMEDNAGAR

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

ITA 17/PUN/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

For Respondent: Sri Achal Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

u/s 153A of the Act despite non- discovery of any incriminating materials during the search action on ITA Nos.100 to 102/PUN/2013 M/s. Kakade Construction Company the Assessee. From that point of view, the same additional income if AO were to make in assessment, the same needs to be deleted. Consequently, the penalty levied on the said sum of Rs.8

SANJAY D. KAKADE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AHMEDNAGAR

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

ITA 15/PUN/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

For Respondent: Sri Achal Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

u/s 153A of the Act despite non- discovery of any incriminating materials during the search action on ITA Nos.100 to 102/PUN/2013 M/s. Kakade Construction Company the Assessee. From that point of view, the same additional income if AO were to make in assessment, the same needs to be deleted. Consequently, the penalty levied on the said sum of Rs.8

M/S KAKADE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

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

ITA 102/PUN/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

For Respondent: Sri Achal Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

u/s 153A of the Act despite non- discovery of any incriminating materials during the search action on ITA Nos.100 to 102/PUN/2013 M/s. Kakade Construction Company the Assessee. From that point of view, the same additional income if AO were to make in assessment, the same needs to be deleted. Consequently, the penalty levied on the said sum of Rs.8

SANJAY D. KAKADE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AHMEDNAGAR

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

ITA 12/PUN/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

For Respondent: Sri Achal Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

u/s 153A of the Act despite non- discovery of any incriminating materials during the search action on ITA Nos.100 to 102/PUN/2013 M/s. Kakade Construction Company the Assessee. From that point of view, the same additional income if AO were to make in assessment, the same needs to be deleted. Consequently, the penalty levied on the said sum of Rs.8

BHUPENDRA S. SHAH,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1328/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri V.L. JainFor Respondent: Mrs. Shweta Mishra

Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69

business premises of the assessee were covered under the search and seizure action. In response to the notice u/s. 153A of the Act, the assessee filed return of income on 29-09-2008 declaring total income of Rs.34,99,270/-. The assessee in the return of income disclosed additional income of Rs.12,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer during the assessment

JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

ITA 99/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /For Respondent: Shri Hitendra Ninawe

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

income in the hands of the assessee firm as against notice u/s. 148 issued by him and therefore, the assessment order passed u/s. 147 is bad in law and accordingly, the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) on the basis of an invalid assessment order was null and void.‖ 21. In order to adjudicate the issues, we are referring

JOSHI WADEWALE HADAPSAR,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

ITA 105/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /For Respondent: Shri Hitendra Ninawe

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

income in the hands of the assessee firm as against notice u/s. 148 issued by him and therefore, the assessment order passed u/s. 147 is bad in law and accordingly, the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) on the basis of an invalid assessment order was null and void.‖ 21. In order to adjudicate the issues, we are referring

MRS. VASUNDHARA SHAILESH JOSHI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

ITA 96/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /For Respondent: Shri Hitendra Ninawe

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

income in the hands of the assessee firm as against notice u/s. 148 issued by him and therefore, the assessment order passed u/s. 147 is bad in law and accordingly, the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) on the basis of an invalid assessment order was null and void.‖ 21. In order to adjudicate the issues, we are referring

JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

ITA 100/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /For Respondent: Shri Hitendra Ninawe

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

income in the hands of the assessee firm as against notice u/s. 148 issued by him and therefore, the assessment order passed u/s. 147 is bad in law and accordingly, the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) on the basis of an invalid assessment order was null and void.‖ 21. In order to adjudicate the issues, we are referring

MRS. VASUNDHARA SHAILESH JOSHI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

ITA 95/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /For Respondent: Shri Hitendra Ninawe

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

income in the hands of the assessee firm as against notice u/s. 148 issued by him and therefore, the assessment order passed u/s. 147 is bad in law and accordingly, the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) on the basis of an invalid assessment order was null and void.‖ 21. In order to adjudicate the issues, we are referring

JOSHI WADEWALE PRABHAT CINEMA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

ITA 102/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /For Respondent: Shri Hitendra Ninawe

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

income in the hands of the assessee firm as against notice u/s. 148 issued by him and therefore, the assessment order passed u/s. 147 is bad in law and accordingly, the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) on the basis of an invalid assessment order was null and void.‖ 21. In order to adjudicate the issues, we are referring

VEENA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE2(1), PUNE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 2871/PUN/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by the Ld. AO and further upheld by the First Appellate Authority is bad in law and liable to be quashed, since the penalty proceedings were initiated for one limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, whereas the penalty has ultimately been imposed for the other limb. The penalty order

VEENA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE2(1), PUNE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 2872/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Apr 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by the Ld. AO and further upheld by the First Appellate Authority is bad in law and liable to be quashed, since the penalty proceedings were initiated for one limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, whereas the penalty has ultimately been imposed for the other limb. The penalty order

VEENA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE2(1), PUNE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 2874/PUN/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Apr 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by the Ld. AO and further upheld by the First Appellate Authority is bad in law and liable to be quashed, since the penalty proceedings were initiated for one limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, whereas the penalty has ultimately been imposed for the other limb. The penalty order