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.

49 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 27(1)(c)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai746 Delhi722 Jaipur220 Ahmedabad193 Hyderabad163 Bangalore154 Chennai148 Raipur124 Kolkata116 Pune99 Chandigarh86 Indore85 Rajkot56 Surat49 Allahabad46 Amritsar45 Visakhapatnam28 Lucknow28 Nagpur20 Panaji13 Patna11 Cuttack9 Guwahati9 Dehradun8 Ranchi7 Agra5 Cochin4 Jodhpur3 Jabalpur1 Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)121 Section 69A60 Addition to Income46 Penalty37 Section 25020 Section 143(3)20 Section 14818 Limitation/Time-bar14 Disallowance

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income and rightly levied the penalty under the said section. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal. 27

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 Surat

Showing 1–20 of 49 · Page 1 of 3

11

19 Aug 2025

AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income and rightly levied the penalty under the said section. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal. 27

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income and rightly levied the penalty under the said section. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal. 27

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income and rightly levied the penalty under the said section. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal. 27

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income and rightly levied the penalty under the said section. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal. 27

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income and rightly levied the penalty under the said section. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal. 27

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income and rightly levied the penalty under the said section. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal. 27

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income and rightly levied the penalty under the said section. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal. 27

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)

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘in short, the Act’) dated 27.12.2023 by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) - 11, Ahmedabad [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] for the assessment year (AY) 2015-16. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well

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 280/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)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act to the tune of Rs.12,50,901/-. 27. In the result, appeal filed by assessee in ITA No. 281/SRT/2022 is allowed. ITA.280 to 282/SRT/2022/AY.2009-10 Pinky Manishkumar Jariwala 28. Now coming to assessee’s appeal in ITA No.282/SRT/2022 wherein the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, are as follows: “1. On the facts

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)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act to the tune of Rs.12,50,901/-. 27. In the result, appeal filed by assessee in ITA No. 281/SRT/2022 is allowed. ITA.280 to 282/SRT/2022/AY.2009-10 Pinky Manishkumar Jariwala 28. Now coming to assessee’s appeal in ITA No.282/SRT/2022 wherein the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, are as follows: “1. On the facts

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 282/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)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act to the tune of Rs.12,50,901/-. 27. In the result, appeal filed by assessee in ITA No. 281/SRT/2022 is allowed. ITA.280 to 282/SRT/2022/AY.2009-10 Pinky Manishkumar Jariwala 28. Now coming to assessee’s appeal in ITA No.282/SRT/2022 wherein the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, are as follows: “1. On the facts

HETAL RAMANLAL SHAH,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(2), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1274/SRT/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Ms. Dalzin Madan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)(a)Section 40A(3)(b)

27,989/- under Section 40A(3)(a) of the Act and Rs. 15,45,212/- on account of disallowance under Section 40A(3)(b) of the Act. Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated against the assessee, for concealment of income. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before

SUN DIAM,SURAT vs. ITO 2(3)(6), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1108/SRT/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.DR

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is time barred and thus the penalty order is itself bad in law and required to be quashed. 4. 3.On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty of Rs. 1,27,000/- on estimation basis under section

SUN DIAM,SURAT vs. ITO 2(3)(6), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1112/SRT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.DR

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is time barred and thus the penalty order is itself bad in law and required to be quashed. 4. 3.On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty of Rs. 1,27,000/- on estimation basis under section

SUN DIAM,SURAT vs. ITO 2(3)(6), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1110/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.DR

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is time barred and thus the penalty order is itself bad in law and required to be quashed. 4. 3.On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty of Rs. 1,27,000/- on estimation basis under section

SUN DIAM,SURAT vs. ITO 2(3)(6), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1107/SRT/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Feb 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.DR

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is time barred and thus the penalty order is itself bad in law and required to be quashed. 4. 3.On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty of Rs. 1,27,000/- on estimation basis under section

SUN DIAM,SURAT vs. ITO 2(3)(6), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1109/SRT/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.DR

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is time barred and thus the penalty order is itself bad in law and required to be quashed. 4. 3.On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty of Rs. 1,27,000/- on estimation basis under section

SUN DIAM,SURAT vs. ITO 2(3)(6), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1111/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.DR

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is time barred and thus the penalty order is itself bad in law and required to be quashed. 4. 3.On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty of Rs. 1,27,000/- on estimation basis under section

GANESH GANPAT ALIM,MAHARASHTRA vs. ITO WASRD-3(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 41/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.40/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Ganesh Ganpat Alim, Vs. The Ito, B-205, Mahashakti Appartment, Ward -1(1)(1), Jai Shree Jahannath, Nr. Manvel Panda Surat. Road, Nr. Mahak City Virar East, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 401305. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ambpa5834F आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.41/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) Ganesh Ganpat Alim, Vs. The Ito, B-205, Mahashakti Appartment, Ward -3(3)(1), Jai Shree Jahannath, Nr. Manvel Panda Surat. Road, Nr. Mahak City Virar East, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 401305. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ambpa5834F Appellant By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) With Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 22/03/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 08/05/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”], Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 144 R.W.S 147 & A Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income thereby concealment of income.” 11. Therefore, Ld. Counsel contended that the issue has been discussed and examined by the Assessing Officer in the original assessment order, dated 30.03.2015 for assessment order 2012-13, therefore the Assessing Officer should not have recorded reasons again