Search: penalty u/s 271 | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases 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.

2,924 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Depreciationclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi907 Mumbai866 Ahmedabad295 Bangalore135 Chennai90 Pune90 Jaipur88 Kolkata79 Chandigarh52 Raipur50 Hyderabad43 Indore38 Surat32 Visakhapatnam26 Amritsar24 Lucknow23 Rajkot11 Nagpur10 Jodhpur8 Cochin8 Dehradun8 Agra7 Guwahati6 Ranchi5 Karnataka4 SC4 Patna3 Panaji3 Allahabad3 Cuttack3 Jabalpur2 Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)93 Addition to Income66 Section 143(3)57 Disallowance51 Penalty44 Section 115J38 Depreciation37 Section 14A36 Section 14828 Section 80I

THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE vs. M/S KETI CONSTRUCTION (INDIA) LTD. , INDORE

In the result all the grounds raised by Revenue in the case of

ITA 877/IND/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Sept 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36

depreciation. 6. Subsequently Penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Assessee’s submissions were noted in the penalty

Showing 1–20 of 2,924 · Page 1 of 147

...

26

THE DCIT-CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. KALYAN TOLL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., INDORE

In the result all the grounds raised by Revenue in the case of

ITA 878/IND/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36

depreciation. 6. Subsequently Penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Assessee’s submissions were noted in the penalty

SMT. SUMAN LAKHANI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the penalty amounting to Rs

ITA 857/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Madan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Janardan Das, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36

penalty u/s 271(1 )(c) which are dealt with as under On the factual front, there is loss in foreign exchange fluctuation. Whether it is capital in nature or revenue in nature is the issue of contention. During the year under consideration the assessee suffered loss due to foreign exchange rate fluctuations. This was in relation to import of machinery

A.C.I.T. CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, MUMBAI vs. ANKUR DRUGS & PHARMA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in I

ITA 7529/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 7529/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07)

For Appellant: Shri. Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri. R.P Meena, CIT DR

Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80I

penalty levied u/s 271|(1)(c). Similarly , the reliance on the case of SBI DFHI Limited(supra) by learned CIT DR is also of no help as the tax-payer in this case did not offer any bonafide explanation for lodging excessive claim of unabsorbed depreciation

DCIT - (LTU) - 1 , MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue and Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6267/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Yadav &For Respondent: Shri H.N. Singh (CIT-DR)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

depreciation on steel purchases, disallowance out of professional fees paid to various parties and additions towards transfer pricing adjustment u/s 92C of the Act, towards interest on loan to subsidiaries. 5. Thereafter, the A.O has initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GRANITE GATE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 2239/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadi N Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Sapra, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT (DR)

penalty u/s 271 (1 )(c) could be levied. In this connection, reliance is placed on the following case laws: 294 ITR 83, CIT vs. Span Holdings Ltd. (Jurisdictional Delhi H.C.). In this case, even though in proceedings, disallowance of depreciation

KANHAIYALAL RAMESHWAR DAS,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

ITA 1454/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Rajnikant Bhatra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR (Thru: V.C)

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 154Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c)\nof the IT Act, 1961 and consequent penalty of Rs 2,79,985/- imposed by him is\nwrong and bad in law.\n2.\nThat without prejudice to the ground No. (1) above on the facts and in the\ncircumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) is wrong, unjust and has erred in\nlaw in confirming penalty

ELENJICKAMALIL V. THOMAS,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT 22(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 2647/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआमकय अऩीर सं/.I.T.A. No.2647/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : (2009-10) बिाम / Elenjickamalil V. Thomas Dcit 22(3) 212, Vardhaman Chambers, Mumbai Sector-17, Vashi, V. Navi Mumbai – 400 703 स्थामी रेखा सं/.Pan: Aacpe7339L (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Prakash PanditFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari (DR)

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

penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the 1961 Act , which are as under : “(i) On account of income on completion of project –Rs.77,99,056/- (ii) In respect of cash deposit –Rs.3,00,000/- (iii) Short term capital gain on sale of depreciable

NSE IT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5935/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5935/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) बिाम/ M/S. Nse. It Ltd, Dcit 8(2), Mumbai Trade Globe, Ground Floor, Andheri Kurla Road, V. Andheri (E), Mumbai 400059 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabcn0159P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri. Sunil NahtaFor Respondent: Shri. T.A Khan(DR)

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

u/s 271(1)(c) on the ground that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of her income and concealed her income. However, the Tribunal cancelled the penalty on the ground that a "bona fide mistake" had been made on her behalf by her Advocate/Chartered Accountant and there was no concealment of income nor a furnishing of inaccurate particulars. On appeal

RAMESH CHAND BANSAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, AJMER

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 398/JPR/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena, JCIT - DR

Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 139Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

271(1)(c) is also without jurisdiction: 3.1.1. It is submitted that a new Sec.271AAA was inserted so as to provide that in a case where search has been initiated u/s 132 on or after 01.06.2007 but before 31.07.2012, the assessee shall be liable to pay by way of penalty @ 10% of the undisclosed income of the specified previous year

SUPERFINE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1502/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri P.P. Meena, CIT

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 35A

penalty of Rs.5,18,55,995/- u/s 271(1)(c) of\nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 without considering that the assessee\nwas eligible for depreciation

KANHAIYALAL RAMESHWAR DAS,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

ITA 1453/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Rajnikant Bhatra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR (Thru: V.C)

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 154Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c)\nof the IT Act, 1961 and consequent penalty of Rs 2,79,985/- imposed by him is\nwrong and bad in law.\n2.\nThat without prejudice to the ground No. (1) above on the facts and in the\ncircumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) is wrong, unjust and has erred in\nlaw in confirming penalty

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1029/AHD/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Mar 2022AY 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R

Section 144Section 22Section 234BSection 271Section 271DSection 27ISection 57Section 68

penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal.” I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 4 Shri

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADIT(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2771/AHD/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Mar 2022AY 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R

Section 144Section 22Section 234BSection 271Section 271DSection 27ISection 57Section 68

penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal.” I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 4 Shri

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1032/AHD/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Mar 2022AY 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R

Section 144Section 22Section 234BSection 271Section 271DSection 27ISection 57Section 68

penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal.” I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 4 Shri

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADIT(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2772/AHD/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Mar 2022AY 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R

Section 144Section 22Section 234BSection 271Section 271DSection 27ISection 57Section 68

penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal.” I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 4 Shri

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1031/AHD/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Mar 2022AY 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R

Section 144Section 22Section 234BSection 271Section 271DSection 27ISection 57Section 68

penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal.” I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 4 Shri

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1030/AHD/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Mar 2022AY 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R

Section 144Section 22Section 234BSection 271Section 271DSection 27ISection 57Section 68

penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal.” I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 4 Shri

M/S. PADMINI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1002/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri K.N. Chary & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, FCA and Shri Somil Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

depreciation,..." 5.5 Therefore, from the provisions it is clear that every company has to compute profits as per normal provision of the Act and as per 115JB. Section 80IB (10) is not related to the aspect of 115JB. The appellant has been allowed deduction u/s 80IB(10) by the Ld. CIT(A) from its normal profits. The aspect of computation

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. RESURGERE MINES AND MINERALS INDIA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1531/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, CA and Shri Ashish Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) on the ground that the assessee had filed "inaccurate particulars" by wrongly (i) claiming deduction for contribution to a 'staff welfare fund' despite the bar in s. 40A(9) and the qualification of the auditors and (ii) claiming depreciation