BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

13 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 273Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Bangalore56Indore45Delhi43Cochin40Mumbai35Surat32Chennai30Jaipur28Hyderabad24Kolkata16Amritsar13Rajkot13Visakhapatnam8Pune8Ahmedabad7Allahabad4Jabalpur4Guwahati3Nagpur3Agra2Raipur2Chandigarh2Cuttack2Jodhpur2

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(b)28Section 271(1)(c)13Penalty13Section 271B12Section 143(3)10Section 92E10Section 44A9Section 142(1)9Addition to Income

SHREENATHJI DEVLOPERS,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 (1) (1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 130/RJT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 271(1)(b)

u/s. 144 assessment order is deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). Thus, the grievance made out by the assessee is found to be genuine and reasonable. In the above circumstances the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) in our considered opinion is unwarranted. For better understanding Section 271(1)(b) and 273B

SHREENATHJI DEVLOPERS,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 (1) (1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 133/RJT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

9
Section 269T6
Limitation/Time-bar2
Bench:
Section 271(1)(b)

u/s. 144 assessment order is deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). Thus, the grievance made out by the assessee is found to be genuine and reasonable. In the above circumstances the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) in our considered opinion is unwarranted. For better understanding Section 271(1)(b) and 273B

SHREENATHJI DEVLOPERS,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 (1) (1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 132/RJT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 271(1)(b)

u/s. 144 assessment order is deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). Thus, the grievance made out by the assessee is found to be genuine and reasonable. In the above circumstances the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) in our considered opinion is unwarranted. For better understanding Section 271(1)(b) and 273B

SHREENATHJI DEVLOPERS,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 (1) (1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 131/RJT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 271(1)(b)

u/s. 144 assessment order is deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). Thus, the grievance made out by the assessee is found to be genuine and reasonable. In the above circumstances the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) in our considered opinion is unwarranted. For better understanding Section 271(1)(b) and 273B

SHREENATHJI DEVLOPERS,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 (1) (1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 134/RJT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 271(1)(b)

u/s. 144 assessment order is deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). Thus, the grievance made out by the assessee is found to be genuine and reasonable. In the above circumstances the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) in our considered opinion is unwarranted. For better understanding Section 271(1)(b) and 273B

KLIN INDUSTRIES,SANDHA KHAMIDANA, JUNAGADH vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE, JUNAGADH, JUNAGADH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 857/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot15 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Gopi Nath Chaubey, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 273BSection 80J

penalty of Rs.6,21,198/-, under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, despite the final tax liability for A. Y. 2014-15, having been determined and levied exclusively under the deemed provisions of Section 115JC (AMT) of the Act. 4. That the Ld. authorities failed to appreciate that the case is covered by the reasonable cause u/s 273B

SHRI PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.-2, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 139/RJT/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 40A(2)(b)Section 92E

271 BA of the Act. 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee Shri Mehul Ranpura submitted that certificate in Form No.3CEB was obtained, but failed to furnish it electronically as the assessee was not aware about the recent change in the provisions of the Act. Since this was the first year of applicability, the assessee was ignorant about the change

KAJAL NIMISHBHAI SINOJIA,RAJKOT vs. ITO WD 1(1)(1) , RKT, RAJKOT

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 664/RJT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.664/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Kajal Nimishbhai Sinojia Vs. Income-Tax Officer, B-21 Shreeji Haridwar Society,Nr Ito Ward – 1(1)(1), Gokuldham, Aaykar Bhavan, Rajkot - 360004 Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bsups2455J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri K. L. Solanki, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24 / 04 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09 / 07/2025

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri K. L. Solanki, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 273BSection 69C

273B. The action of the A.O. in imposing penalty of Rs 20,000/- under section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the levy of penalty is confirmed. These grounds of appeal are dismissed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.” 5. That the assessee field an appeal against the impugned order dated 25/07/2024

SUBHAS HANSARAJ NANDU,BHACHAU, KUTCH vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 9/RJT/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hybrid Hearing) Assessment Year: (2010-11) Subhas Hansaraj Nandu Vs. National Faceless Assessment Opp:Shambhu Maharaj Bungalow Centre, Delhi. Bhachau, Gujarat. Pan : Afrpn 0720 J (Assessee) (Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and disallowing Rs. 54,950/- on account of interest paid to the depositors. The above narrated facts clearly state that the initial onus was duly discharged by the assessee, during the assessment proceedings and then the onus was upon the department to collect all the details from the third parties. Since the department

LOVE SHOPPERS LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. ADD. CIT, RANGE -2(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 427/RJT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.427/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Hearing) M/S. Love Shoppers Ltd. Vs. Add. Cit, Range 2(1) 10Th Floor, Broadway Business Ahmedabad Centre, Opp. Mayors Bunglow, Nr. Law Garden, Ellisbridge Ahmedabad 380006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacl5963A (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 26SSection 271Section 271DSection 271E

271 E of the I.T. Act, 1961, if a person repays such sum in contravention of the provisions of section 269T, he shall be liable to pay a penalty of a sum equal to the amount of loan or deposit so repaid.You are, therefore, requested to show cause as to why the penalty u/s 271E of the Act should

LOVE SHOPPERS LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 285/RJT/2022[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot16 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal. Total Tax Effect 13,25,000/-”

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 250Section 269SSection 271Section 271DSection 273B

273B of the Act for non-levy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act. However, the assessing officer held that the assessee has not been able to bring forth to any such emergency circumstances, which would necessitate receipt of amounts in cash from its Director in violation of section 269SS of the Act. 6. The assessee filed appeal before

HIRABEN RAJUBHAI BOKHIRIYA,PORBANDAR vs. INDIVIDUAL, PORBANDAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 293/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं. /Ita No.293/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Divyesh Sodha, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

section 44AB. 2. The Penalty levied by the Ld CIT (A) & assessing officer exceeds the statutory limits u/s 271(B) which prescribes a penalty of 0.5% of turnover or 1,50,000/- whichever is lower. However, the penalty of 1.5% has been imposed. 3. The failure to get accounts audited was not deliberate or intentional but arose from a genuine

NIKUNJ SOJITRA,JAMNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(7), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 859/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.859/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Nikunj Sojitra Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Dhudashiya, Jamvanthali, Ito Ward – 2(7), Jamnagar - 361130 Jamnagar - 361008 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Gdeps4923M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri K. L. Solanki, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24 / 04 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08 / 07 /2025

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri K. L. Solanki, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144Section 271Section 271BSection 44A

271 B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Nikunj Sojitra vs. The ITO ward-2 2. GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1. Learned CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- u/s 271B of the without considering the fact that books of account are not maintained as per section 44AA