Search: penalty u/s 271 | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court 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.

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

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,082 Mumbai1,842 Ahmedabad542 Jaipur501 Chennai393 Pune350 Kolkata349 Indore327 Hyderabad321 Surat303 Bangalore274 Chandigarh186 Rajkot183 Amritsar142 Raipur131 Visakhapatnam86 Nagpur82 Lucknow77 Allahabad75 Patna73 Cochin71 Agra66 Dehradun53 Guwahati52 Jodhpur43 Jabalpur42 Cuttack36 Ranchi31 Panaji18 Varanasi13

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)147 Section 271(1)(b)98 Penalty89 Addition to Income80 Section 142(1)79 Section 143(3)61 Section 14855 Section 14744 Section 254(1)39

MOULIMANI IMPEX PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(1)(3), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 535/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c)

addition of the estimated commission income. Therefore, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act should be upheld qua the addition

MOULIMANI IMPEX PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 1(1)(3), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 533/SRT/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c)

Showing 1–20 of 303 · Page 1 of 16

...

Search & Seizure25

Reopening of Assessment19

addition of the estimated commission income. Therefore, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act should be upheld qua the addition

MOULIMANI IMPEX PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 1(1)(3), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 536/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c)

addition of the estimated commission income. Therefore, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act should be upheld qua the addition

MOULIMANI IMPEX PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(1)(3), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 534/SRT/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c)

addition of the estimated commission income. Therefore, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act should be upheld qua the addition

VASIMKHAN HAMIDKHAN PATHAN,DANG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, NAVSARI, NAVSARI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 704/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.704/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) Vasimkhan Hamidkhan Pathan Income Tax Officer Ward-5, Navsari, Income Ta Office, Charpool, O Main Bazar, At & Po Waghai Vs. Awabaug, Navsari-396445 Tal, Dang-394730 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bptpp 6081 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR

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

income. The penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is leviable to the extent of tax on the addition of Rs.3,67,500/-. The concealment

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 188/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

income. The addition was confirmed by the CIT(A). The appellant did not provide any reason or explanation before the CIT(A) to prove that there was reasonable cause as provided u/s 273B of the Act. Hence, he held that the AO had rightly invoked penalty provisions u/s 271

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 187/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

income. The addition was confirmed by the CIT(A). The appellant did not provide any reason or explanation before the CIT(A) to prove that there was reasonable cause as provided u/s 273B of the Act. Hence, he held that the AO had rightly invoked penalty provisions u/s 271

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, SILVASSA WARD , SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 186/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

income. The addition was confirmed by the CIT(A). The appellant did not provide any reason or explanation before the CIT(A) to prove that there was reasonable cause as provided u/s 273B of the Act. Hence, he held that the AO had rightly invoked penalty provisions u/s 271

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA , SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 189/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

income. The addition was confirmed by the CIT(A). The appellant did not provide any reason or explanation before the CIT(A) to prove that there was reasonable cause as provided u/s 273B of the Act. Hence, he held that the AO had rightly invoked penalty provisions u/s 271

VIKAS AGARWAL,SILVASSA vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 191/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

income. The addition was confirmed by the CIT(A). The appellant did not provide any reason or explanation before the CIT(A) to prove that there was reasonable cause as provided u/s 273B of the Act. Hence, he held that the AO had rightly invoked penalty provisions u/s 271

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO,WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 193/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

income. The addition was confirmed by the CIT(A). The appellant did not provide any reason or explanation before the CIT(A) to prove that there was reasonable cause as provided u/s 273B of the Act. Hence, he held that the AO had rightly invoked penalty provisions u/s 271

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 192/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

income. The addition was confirmed by the CIT(A). The appellant did not provide any reason or explanation before the CIT(A) to prove that there was reasonable cause as provided u/s 273B of the Act. Hence, he held that the AO had rightly invoked penalty provisions u/s 271

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 190/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

income. The addition was confirmed by the CIT(A). The appellant did not provide any reason or explanation before the CIT(A) to prove that there was reasonable cause as provided u/s 273B of the Act. Hence, he held that the AO had rightly invoked penalty provisions u/s 271

JANAKKUMAR MUKUNDPRASAD PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 BARDOLI, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 418/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.418/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Court Hearing) Janakkumar Mukundprasad Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Patel Bardoli Vs. 57 Omnagar, Tarsadi Kosamba (R.S) Surat-394120 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Auzpp 2106 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Ms. Chaitali Shah, Ca िनधा"रती की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 05/10/2023 सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2023 आदेश / Order Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short, “Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 18.04.2023, Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penalty Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Bardoli, Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’), Dated 02.06.2017. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1.On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Levying Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) When Assessing Office Had Not Specified In The Notice U/S 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) Whether The Penalty Was Leviable For Concealment Of Particulars Income Or For Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Thereof. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Office In Levying Penalty Of Rs.3,09,062/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 3. It Is Therefore Prayed That Penalty Levied By The Assessing Office & Confirmed By Cit(A) May Please Be Deleted.

Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

income of assessee during the penalty proceedings, and hence Ld. Counsel contended that the penalty on estimation should not be ITA.418/SRT/2023 AY.14-15 Janakkumar M Patel imposed. Hence, it is abundantly clear that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, was imposed on estimated addition

YASH BHUPESHBHAI TAMAKUWALA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2)(5), NOW INCOME TAX OFFICER - 1(2)(6), SURAT

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 580/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.580/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) Yash Bhupeshbhai Tamakuwala, Vs. The Ito, 1/208, Kharadi Sheri, Nanpura, Ward- 1(2)(6), Surat – 395001. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ajypt3602P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

income in as such as penalty was made on the basis of findings of the AO in the assessment stage. Neither the appellant nor his AR could have furnished/uploaded any evidence in support of his claim raised in 2nd grounds of appeal how the AO’s action being erroneous in facts and in law in imposing penalty when the addition

HASMUKHBHAI DAHYABHAI PATEL,VAPI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 115/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), DR. A. L. SAINI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr- DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Income-tax, Central Circle-1, Belgaum [2021] 125 taxmann.com 253 (Bom)/[2021] wherein the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was deleted on account of defective penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, we note that since the penalty notice issued by the Assessing Officer is defective, hence, penalty initiated by the Assessing Officer

KHODIYAR ORGANISERS, SURAT,SURAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(3), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 36/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.36/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) M/S Khodiyar Organisers, Vs. Acit, Central Plaza, Near Om Terrace, Circle – 2(3), New City Light Road, Surat – Surat 395007, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aakfk1498A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/08/2025

Section 133ASection 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act when there is no difference in the return of income and assessed income. On careful perusal of Explanation - 1 to Section 271(1), it may be seen that it is only the addition or disallowance to the total income that would represent the income for the purpose of levy of penalty

SHRI VIJAY CHAMPAK PATEL,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 281/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.281/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Vijay Champak Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pachhlu Faliyu, Near Water Ward-6(4), Surat Tank, Bharthana, Vesu, Surat

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah - CAFor Respondent: Shri O P Meena – Sr. DR

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54ESection 54F

addition by way of disallowance of deduction u/s.54EC of the Act, the Assessing Officer had initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act observing as follows:- “By claiming incorrect deduction, the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income, for which, penalty proceedings u/s. 271

SANTOSH SINGH HUKAM SINGH KARNAWAT,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT

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

ITA 655/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on addition made of 5% of total purchase value

PINKY MANISHKUMAR JARIWALA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(3), SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee, in ITA No

ITA 281/SRT/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.280 To 282/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2009-10) (Physical Hearing) Pinky Manishkumar Jariwala, Vs. The Ito, 4/1710, Nawabwadi, Begampura, Ward – 2(2)(3), Surat – 395003. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahnpj7591D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 23/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2023

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

penalty of Rs.12,50,901/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. It is therefore prayed that the above addition