BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI 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.

9 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 282clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi284Mumbai194Karnataka120Jaipur75Bangalore72Ahmedabad54Kolkata31Indore31Amritsar22Pune22Allahabad21Hyderabad19Chandigarh18Rajkot12Surat9Cochin6Nagpur5Patna5Dehradun3Visakhapatnam3Chennai2Ranchi1SC1Jodhpur1Telangana1Varanasi1Rajasthan1Raipur1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)17Penalty7Addition to Income7Section 2635Section 14A5Section 254(1)5Disallowance5Section 143(3)3Section 271(1)

SHRI PARESH K. SORATHIYA,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(2)(3),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 342/SRT/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.342/Srt/2018 (Ay 2009-10) (Hearing In Physical Court) Shri Paresh Sorathiya Income Tax Officer 195, Ambica Nagar No.2, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Vs Opp. Arogya Kendra, Gate, Surat-395001 Katargam Road, Surat Pan : Axbps 9579 C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. It is therefore prayed that penalty imposed by assessing officer and confirmed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) may please be deleted.” 2. On perusal of record, we find that Ld. CIT(A) passed impugned order on 20.08.2015, however, this appeal was filed on 02.05.2018. Thus, there is a delay

PAL GRAM HINDU SARVAJANIK TRUST,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

3
Section 113
Section 37(1)3
Deduction3
ITA 536/SRT/2018[2011-12 ]Status: Disposed
ITAT Surat
29 Jul 2021

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.536/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Pal Gram Hindu Sarvajanik Trust, V The Income Tax Officer, At 7 Post : Pal, Tal. Choryasi, Exemption Ward, Surat. S. Dist – Surat – 395005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaatp 2544 G (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hiren Vepari - Ca Respondent By : Ms.Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 02/07/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29/07/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12 Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Surat [Ld.Cit(A)] Dated 30.05.2018, Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of 1The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], Dated 24.03.2017. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “[1] On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. [2] With The Assessing Officer Failing To Specify In The Assessment Order As To Whether The Proceedings Were Initiated For Concealing Income Or Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income, The Penalty Order Was Required To Be Knocked Down In View Of The Decision Of The Gujarat High Court In Case Of Sorathia Engineering Co. Ltd. (282-Itr-642). [3] The Assessee Craves Leave To Add, Alter Or Vary Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Vepari - CAFor Respondent: Ms.Anupama Singla – Sr.DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 142(1)Section 22Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) of 1the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”], dated 24.03.2017. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee are as follows: “[1] On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) was not justified in confirming penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. [2] With the Assessing Officer

RUCHIT DINESHBHAI DOSHI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 2(2)(1), SURAT

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

ITA 216/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Ruchit Dineshbhai Doshi, I.T.O., C-10, 5/6, Somakanji Estate-2, Opp- Ward-2(2)(1), Vs. Sanidev Mandir, Magdalla Bo, Surat. Surat-395007 (Gujarat) Pan No. Afxpd 4008 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. It is therefore, prayed that above penalty levied by the assessing officer may please be deleted. 3. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before on in the course of hearing of the appeal.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee

BAYER VAPI PVT. LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BILAG INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD.,),VAPI vs. THE A CIT., VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1688/AHD/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Aug 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No.1688/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2005-06 Bayer Vapi Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Bilag Industries Income Tax, Private Limited), Plot No.306/3, Vapi Circle, Vapi. Phase-Ii, Vapi – 396 195, Gujarat. [Pan: Aabcb 2100 L] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Mehul K Patel, Advocate & Shri A. Gopalakrishnan, Ca Shri Prasenjit Singh – Cit(Dr) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By 18.07.2019 सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On: 27.08.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per O.P.Meena, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The 1. Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)- Valsad, Valsad(In Short “The Cit(A)”) Dated 31.03.2014 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2005-06. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita 2. No.1688/Ahd/2014 Read As Under : “01. The Appellant Company Has Neither Concealed Its Income Nor Submitted Any Inaccurate Particulars Of Income & The Adjustments/ Additions Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Contrary To The Facts Of The Case & Law & Deserves To Be Deleted. 02. On Appreciation Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Bayer Vapi Pvt. Ltd.,(Formerly Known As Bilag Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vs.Acit-Vapi/Ita No.1688/Ahd/2014: A.Y.2005-06 Page 2 Of 20

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1) Bayer Vapi Pvt. Ltd.,(formerly known as Bilag Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vs.ACIT-Vapi/ITA No.1688/AHD/2014: A.Y.2005-06 Page 13 of 20 (c) of the Act cannot be attracted. The ld.Counsel also relied in the case of T.Ashok Pai Vs. CIT [2007] 292 ITR 11 (SC), Gita Prints Pvt. Ltd., Vs. CIT [2013] 39 taxmann.com 393 (Guj) and Dahod Sahakari

AALIDHARA TEXTOOL ENGINEERS PVT. LTD,SURAT vs. PCIT-1, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 94/SRT/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.94/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Alidhara Textool Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Pcit-1, Surat. Plot No.168, Udhyog Nagar Road, Udhna, Surat -394210. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacd8469M (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT(DR)
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

271 ITR 15 (Delhi)(HC).  CIT v. RatilalBacharilal& Sons [2006] 282 ITR 457 (Bom.)(HC)  PCIT vs. Oil India Ltd. [103 taxmann.com] (Gun. HC)  Renuka Philip vs ITO, [101 taxmann.com 119), (Madras HC)  CIT vs. Slum Rehabilitation Authority [107 taxmann.com 18] (Bombay)  CIT vs. Vam Resorts & Hotels [111 taxmann.com 62] (Allahabad). 5. In view of the above, your honour

M/S. MAHAVIR FOODS PVT. LTD.,NA vs. ARIVS.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, NAVSARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 28/AHD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri. Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No.28/Ahd/2016:िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Mahavir Foodis Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sarvoday Building, Opp. Railway Ward-3, Navsari Station, Navsari. [Pan: Aabfd 8442 Q] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""थ"/Respondent Shri Mahesh Rana, Employee Of िनधा"रतीकीओरसे /Assessee By The Assessee Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr. Dr राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By 13.05.2019 सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : उद्घोषणाकीतारीख/Pronouncement 16.05.2019 On : आदेश /O R D E R Per O.P. Meena, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The 1. Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Valsad [In Short “The Cit(A)”], Dated 27.01.2012 For The Assessment Year 2007-08. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: 2. That The Learned Cit[A] Has Passed Impugned Order 1. Without Following Due Process Of Laws, Legal Maxim "

Section 282Section 68

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the I.T. Act is separately initiated.” Being aggrieved, the assessee filed before the Ld. CIT(A). 16. However, CIT(A) has confirmed the additions made by the AO by observing as under:- “I have carefully perused the findings of the AO leading to the addition in this ground. I found

SHREE NARMADA KHAND UDYOG SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.,NARMADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), BHARUCH

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

ITA 104/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 234ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 37Section 37(1)

282 ITR 24) on identical facts holding in favour of the assessee by inferring that functioning of sugar mill is different from milk cooperative. 9. Levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C & 234D of the Act is unjustified. 10. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is unjustified.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that

SHREE NARMADA KHAND UDYOG SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.,NARMADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), BHARUCH

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

ITA 103/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 234ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 37Section 37(1)

282 ITR 24) on identical facts holding in favour of the assessee by inferring that functioning of sugar mill is different from milk cooperative. 9. Levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C & 234D of the Act is unjustified. 10. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is unjustified.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that

SHREE NARMADA KHAND UDYOG SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.,NARMADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), BHARUCH

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

ITA 102/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 234ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 37Section 37(1)

282 ITR 24) on identical facts holding in favour of the assessee by inferring that functioning of sugar mill is different from milk cooperative. 9. Levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C & 234D of the Act is unjustified. 10. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is unjustified.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that