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.

11 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Addition to Incomeclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,082Mumbai1,842Ahmedabad542Jaipur501Chennai393Pune350Kolkata349Indore327Hyderabad321Surat303Bangalore274Chandigarh186Rajkot183Amritsar142Raipur131Visakhapatnam86Nagpur82Lucknow77Allahabad75Patna73Cochin71Agra66Dehradun53Guwahati52Jodhpur43Jabalpur42Cuttack36Ranchi31Panaji18Varanasi13SC11

Key Topics

Section 143(2)10Section 276C6Addition to Income6Section 271(1)(C)4Penalty4Section 1323Section 1583Section 1253Section 1123Search & Seizure

JT.COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,SURAT vs. SAHELI LEASING & INDUSTRIES LTD

Appeals stand allowed as mentioned hereinabove but with

C.A. No.-004278-004278 - 2010Supreme Court07 May 2010
Section 260

additional Income Tax”, “charge on the total income”, “profits liable to tax” and lastly, “dividends payable out of such profits”, whereas, in Gold Coin's case, the question arose whether word “income” includes loss for the purpose of imposition of penalty u/s 271

DILIP N. SHROFF vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI &ANR

The appeal is allowed

C.A. No.-002746-002746 - 2007Supreme Court18 May 2007
For Respondent: Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr

u/s 271(1)(c) to any other person who might have helped him in the matter of preparation of the return and drawing the statement of income. It was further held : "\005This is very strange way of valuing the land after first arriving at the value of the building and deducting therefrom the value of the superstructure instead of directly

3
Section 115Q2
Deduction2

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE

The appeal is allowed

C.A. No.-009720-009720 - 2014Supreme Court25 Sept 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

Section 10(15)Section 148Section 245CSection 245C(1)Section 271Section 32Section 80M

u/s 271(1)(c) was levied by the Assessing Officer for AY 1997-98 in respect of non disclosure of lease rental as income. The penalty order is annulled considering that the non disclosure was on account of RBI guidelines and the 32 subsequent disclosure of additional

VIJAY KRISHNASWAMI @ KRISHNASWAMI VIJAYAKUMAR vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION)

Crl.A. No.-003777-003779 - 2025Supreme Court28 Aug 2025

Bench: The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.Ii), Egmore, Chennai, For The Offence Under Section 276C(1)2 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (In Short “It Act”) For Assessment Year 2017- 1 High Court Of Judicature At Madras. 2 Wilful Attempt To Evade Tax, Etc. 1 Digitally Signed By Gulshan Kumar Arora Date: 2025.08.28 20:56:48 Ist Reason: Signature Not Verified

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 245Section 245CSection 245D(4)Section 276C(1)Section 279(1)Section 482

additional income without any suppression of account, 18 therefore, in exercise of order passed under Section 245D(4), immunity from levy of penalty was granted. It is not a case wherein due to the fraud or misrepresentation, the case of the appellant was reopened as per Section 245D(6) within the time as specified. In such circumstances, there cannot

SRI T. ASHOK PAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

The appeal is allowed

C.A. No.-002747-002747 - 2007Supreme Court18 May 2007
For Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore
Section 271(1)(C)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(C) was not exigible in the present case?" 6. The High Court compared the returns filed by the appellant under the Income Tax Act and the Wealth Tax Act and arrived at the following decision : "The principal is responsible for all the act done by the agent. That apart, in the case on hand there

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) 2 vs. M/S MAHAGUN REALTORS (P) LTD

The appeal is allowed, in the above terms, without order on costs

C.A. No.-002716-002716 - 2022Supreme Court05 Apr 2022

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 276C

income of the assessee. I am satisfied that the assessee has not disclosed the above receipts/income and as such penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are attracted on this score. (Addition

K. KRISHNAMURTHY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is disposed of with

C.A. No.-002411-002411 - 2025Supreme Court13 Feb 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 260A

u/s. 271AAA of the Act”. Special Leave Petition (C)No.943 of 2023 Page 6 of 18 12. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) vide order dated 17th October, 2016 rejected the Appellant’s appeal against the order dated 04th March, 2013 again on the ground of non-compliance with Section 271AAA(2) of the Act 1961. 13. The Appellant preferred

GENPACT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.A. No.-008945-008945 - 2019Supreme Court22 Nov 2019

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 115QSection 143(2)Section 77A

u/s 46A in the hands of shareholders. However, taking the benefit of Article 13 of India-Mauritius DTAA, which provides for capital gain arising on transfer of shares of Mauritius resident taxable in that country and under Mauritius tax laws capital gain is totally exempt, entire transaction used to escape the tax net. Thus to plug this loop hole

ASSTT.COMMR.OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HOTEL BLUE MOON

C.A. No.-001198-001198 - 2010Supreme Court02 Feb 2010
Section 132Section 142Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 158Section 260ASection 68

u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should be deleted or set aside.” 4) The High Court, disagreeing with the Tribunal, held, that the provisions of Section 142 and sub- sections (2) and (3) of Section 143 will have mandatory application in a case where the assessing officer in repudiation of return filed in response to a notice issued

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) vs. STONEMAN MARBLE INDUSTRIES

C.A. No.-004371-004383 - 2004Supreme Court21 Jan 2011
Section 111Section 112Section 125Section 130A

Additionally, in some cases, the quantity and price of the imported goods was mis-declared in the bills of entry. 4. The goods imported by the respondents were confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Act. However, the importers were given an option to redeem the confiscated goods on payment of redemption fine, which was 3 fixed, adopting the margin

VINUBHAI MOHANLAL DOBARIA vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms

C.A. No.-001977-001977 - 2025Supreme Court07 Feb 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

Section 143(1)Section 276C

271 has been reduced or waived by an order under section 273A. SLP (C) NO. 20519 of 2024 Page 37 of 59 (2) Any offence under this Chapter may, either before or after the institution of proceedings, be compounded by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or a Principal Director General or Director General. (3) Where any proceeding