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.

12 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 8clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,792Mumbai1,483Ahmedabad465Jaipur456Chennai315Hyderabad297Surat279Bangalore275Indore274Kolkata261Pune257Raipur181Chandigarh175Rajkot161Amritsar116Nagpur93Visakhapatnam79Cochin78Lucknow71Patna65Allahabad63Guwahati56Ranchi46Agra43Cuttack41Dehradun38Jodhpur29Jabalpur27Panaji20Varanasi12

Key Topics

Section 14720Section 80P(2)(a)18Section 80P18Section 143(3)13Section 14811Penalty11Section 271(1)(c)10Section 2717Disallowance

RAEES ALAM SIDDIQUI,GHAZIPUR vs. DY. C.I.T., RANGE - 1, VARANASI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 39/VNS/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi31 Dec 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Arvind Shukla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amandeep Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 without affording proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 4. Because on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC erred in upholding levying penalty of Rs. 2,13,250/- u/s 271 (1)(c) of Income Tax Act. 1961, levied

7
Section 2546
Deduction6
Addition to Income3

PANKAJ KUMAR GUPTA,AZAMGARH vs. ITO WARD3(1), INCOME TAX OFFICE AZAMGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 126/VNS/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi10 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: S/Shri Piyush Kumar Kamal and Abhishek Kumar Gupta, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Smt Amandeep Kaur, D.R
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 148 of the Act could have been validly issued after the expiry of 6 years from the end of the relevant assessment year as per the old provisions of section 147 to section 151 existing on the statute books upto 31.3.2021 and penalty proceeding on such basis proceeded to arrive at conclusions on factually incorrect basis and, total misconception

PANKAJ KUMAR GUPTA,AZAMGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 125/VNS/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi10 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: S/Shri Piyush Kumar Kamal and Abhishek Kumar Gupta, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Smt Amandeep Kaur, D.R
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 148 of the Act could have been validly issued after the expiry of 6 years from the end of the relevant assessment year as per the old provisions of section 147 to section 151 existing on the statute books upto 31.3.2021 and penalty proceeding on such basis proceeded to arrive at conclusions on factually incorrect basis and, total misconception

SANJAY TIWARI,GORAKHPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 22/VNS/2021[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi13 Feb 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2015-16 Sanjay Tiwari V. The Ito Prop. Tiwari Automobiles Ward 2(1) Bewari Chowk, Gola Bazar Gorakhpur Gorakhpur Pan:Agupt4822H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09 02 2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 02 2023 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144ASection 271B

section 144 of the Act on 23.12.2017, whereby the income of the assessee was assessed by applying the net profit rate @ 8% on the total deposits in the Bank account of the assessee to the tune of Rs.1,08,62,500/-. Thus, the Assessing Officer has assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.8.69 lakhs as against the returned

DY. C. I. T., CIRCLE - 1, GORAKHPUR vs. BARODA UTTAR PRADESH GRAMIN BANK NOW AMALGAMATED WITH BARODA U.P. BANK, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 55/VNS/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi26 Sept 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Robin Chaudhary, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 2(19)Section 22Section 254Section 271Section 3Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Penalty notice u/s 271(1) (c) is being issued separately. 6. Section 22 and 32 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 provides as under:- 22. Regional Rural Bank to be deemed to be a cooperative society for purpose of the Income Tax Act, 1961.- For the purpose of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), or any other

DY. C. I. T., CIRCLE - 1, GORAKHPUR vs. BARODA UTTAR PRADESH GRAMIN BANK NOW AMALGAMATED WITH BARODA U.P. BANK, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 56/VNS/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi26 Sept 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Robin Chaudhary, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 2(19)Section 22Section 254Section 271Section 3Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Penalty notice u/s 271(1) (c) is being issued separately. 6. Section 22 and 32 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 provides as under:- 22. Regional Rural Bank to be deemed to be a cooperative society for purpose of the Income Tax Act, 1961.- For the purpose of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), or any other

DY. C. I. T., CIRCLE - 1, GORAKHPUR vs. BARODA UTTAR PRADESH GRAMIN BANK NOW AMALGAMATED WITH BARODA U.P. BANK, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 51/VNS/2023[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi26 Sept 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Robin Chaudhary, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 2(19)Section 22Section 254Section 271Section 3Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Penalty notice u/s 271(1) (c) is being issued separately. 6. Section 22 and 32 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 provides as under:- 22. Regional Rural Bank to be deemed to be a cooperative society for purpose of the Income Tax Act, 1961.- For the purpose of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), or any other

DY. C. I. T., CIRCLE - 1, GORAKHPUR vs. BARODA UTTAR PRADESH GRAMIN BANK NOW AMALGAMATED WITH BARODA U.P. BANK, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 52/VNS/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi26 Sept 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Robin Chaudhary, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 2(19)Section 22Section 254Section 271Section 3Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Penalty notice u/s 271(1) (c) is being issued separately. 6. Section 22 and 32 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 provides as under:- 22. Regional Rural Bank to be deemed to be a cooperative society for purpose of the Income Tax Act, 1961.- For the purpose of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), or any other

DY. C. I. T., CIRCLE - 1, GORAKHPUR vs. BARODA UTTAR PRADESH GRAMIN BANK NOW AMALGAMATED WITH BARODA U.P. BANK, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 53/VNS/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi26 Sept 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Robin Chaudhary, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 2(19)Section 22Section 254Section 271Section 3Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Penalty notice u/s 271(1) (c) is being issued separately. 6. Section 22 and 32 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 provides as under:- 22. Regional Rural Bank to be deemed to be a cooperative society for purpose of the Income Tax Act, 1961.- For the purpose of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), or any other

DY. C. I. T., CIRCLE - 1, GORAKHPUR vs. BARODA UTTAR PRADESH GRAMIN BANK NOW AMALGAMATED WITH BARODA U. P.. BANK, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 54/VNS/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi26 Sept 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Robin Chaudhary, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 2(19)Section 22Section 254Section 271Section 3Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Penalty notice u/s 271(1) (c) is being issued separately. 6. Section 22 and 32 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 provides as under:- 22. Regional Rural Bank to be deemed to be a cooperative society for purpose of the Income Tax Act, 1961.- For the purpose of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), or any other

BYAS PRASAD VERMA,KUSHINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4), KUSHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2/VNS/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi10 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Byas Prasad Verma V. The Income Tax Officer Vill. Dhaurahara Ward 2(4) Nadwa Bishunpur Kushinagar Fazilnagar, Kushinagar (U.P) Tan/Pan:Amupv6031E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Smt Amandeep Kaur, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.07.2023, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits To The Tune Of Rs.16,45,000/- In His Saving Bank Account. In Order To Examine These Facts, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Reopened The Case Of The Assessee Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act. Thereafter, The Ao Issued Statutory Notices To The Assessee, Requiring The Assessee To Furnish The Source Of Cash

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt Amandeep Kaur, D.R
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 69A

penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b)of the Act, separately. 2.2 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte qua the assessee. 2.3 Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the orders of the AO as well as the NFAC by raising the following

M/S RAJENDRA PRASAD SRIVASTAVA,AZAMGARH vs. ACIT, RANGE - AZAMGARH, AZAMGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 164/VNS/2019[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi07 Feb 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Rajendra Prasad Srivastava, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Sarfuddinpur, Near Railway Tax, Range-Azamgarh Station, Azamgarh-276001 Pan-Aakfr2986A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh.Hari N. Singh Bisen, C.A. Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.02.2023

For Appellant: Sh.Hari N. Singh Bisen, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 145(3)

Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1) (c) is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 7. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the CIT(A) and contended that the AO has assessed the interest on FDR as income from other sources instead of part of net profit. It was contended that the assessee is a civil contractor