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.

4,350 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Exemptionclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,059 Delhi1,014 Ahmedabad344 Bangalore268 Jaipur197 Chennai162 Pune157 Kolkata132 Hyderabad130 Chandigarh105 Karnataka103 Indore100 Surat89 Raipur80 Rajkot58 Nagpur53 Lucknow42 Amritsar41 Cochin39 Calcutta35 Visakhapatnam23 Guwahati21 Allahabad13 Jodhpur13 Dehradun12 Patna11 Agra11 Ranchi9 Cuttack7 Varanasi6 SC6 Telangana3 Rajasthan2 Panaji2 Jabalpur2 Gauhati1

Key Topics

Addition to Income70 Section 143(3)61 Section 271(1)(c)54 Penalty52 Section 14A42 Disallowance37 Section 14835 Section 14733 Exemption32 Section 234E

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 310/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80

u/s 14A when exempt income is earned constitutes furnishing of inaccurate particulars, inviting penalty under Section 271(1)(c). C. More

Showing 1–20 of 4,350 · Page 1 of 218

...

27

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

exempt income. Hence, this amount was also disallowed u/s 14A of the Act. In this regard, we note that the penalty has been levied only with respect to that limb of the disallowance in which the A.O has held that amount was disallowed u/s 36(1) (Hi) of the Act. 20. In this connection, we note that all the particulars

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated\nhereinabove

ITA 309/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80

u/s 14A when exempt income is earned\nconstitutes furnishing of inaccurate particulars, inviting penalty under Section\n271(1)(c).\n\nC. More Penalty-Supporting Precedents\n\nReliance PetroproductsPvt. Ltd. v. CIT\nCitation:\n(2010)\n322\nITR\n158\n(SC)\nNote:This case is often cited by assessees for relief, but limited to cases where\nthe claim was legally debatable

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 u/s 271(1)(c) was deleted by learned CIT(A). The assessee relied on several decisions wherein deduction u/s. 80IC was allowed keeping in view part manufacturing being done at premises of job contractors but in the instant case no part of manufacturing was done at assessee’s unit as the same was under installation and infact the complete

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)

exemptions and deductions claimed by it should be accepted. By that time it is too late and the assessee has missed the boat. At that late a stage, well past the critical stage, the assesee cannot get away by merely paying taxes and the assessee must, in addition, also pay penalty u/s 271

DCIT, CIRCLE 22(2), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. SAHIL VACHANI, DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2604/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice Presdient (), Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shriavdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.2604/िद"ी/2023(िन.व. 2016-17)

For Appellant: S/Shri Anuj Garg & Narpat Singh, Sr.DRFor Respondent: S/Shri Rohan Khare & Priyam

Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

exemption u/s. 54F of the Act, as the new asset had never come into existence within the timespecified u/s. 54F of the Act. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271

ILA JITENDRA MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5219/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Ganatra, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 133Section 139(1)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

exemption made u/s 54F of the IT Act and also initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars

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)

u/s. 271(1)(c) on account o f a s s e s s e e a c c e p t i n g l o n g t e r m c a p i t a l g a i n o f R s . 40,79,195/- requires to be deleted as the assessee has demonstrated

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

271(1)(c)\nof I.T. Act, 1961 imposing penalty being 100% of tax leviable on\nfollowing income treating same as concealed income of assessee-\nFurther AO also imposed penalty u/s 271AAA by passing separate\norder on alleged undisclosed income which she determined by treating\nland under JV as outright sale on income therefore on same income\ntwo different penalties were

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

penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) – contents of the notice – requirements of. Assessee is a trust and running a school – income of assessee is exempt

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

Exemption) PAN: ATFPS6366M Ahmedabad Assessee by: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. & Shri Parimalsinh, B. Parmar, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 21-03-2022 Date of pronouncement : 30-03-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- These six appeals have been filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

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

Exemption) PAN: ATFPS6366M Ahmedabad Assessee by: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. & Shri Parimalsinh, B. Parmar, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 21-03-2022 Date of pronouncement : 30-03-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- These six appeals have been filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

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

Exemption) PAN: ATFPS6366M Ahmedabad Assessee by: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. & Shri Parimalsinh, B. Parmar, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 21-03-2022 Date of pronouncement : 30-03-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- These six appeals have been filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

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

Exemption) PAN: ATFPS6366M Ahmedabad Assessee by: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. & Shri Parimalsinh, B. Parmar, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 21-03-2022 Date of pronouncement : 30-03-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- These six appeals have been filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

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

Exemption) PAN: ATFPS6366M Ahmedabad Assessee by: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. & Shri Parimalsinh, B. Parmar, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 21-03-2022 Date of pronouncement : 30-03-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- These six appeals have been filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

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

Exemption) PAN: ATFPS6366M Ahmedabad Assessee by: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. & Shri Parimalsinh, B. Parmar, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 21-03-2022 Date of pronouncement : 30-03-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- These six appeals have been filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

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

penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act, in respect of quantum addition on account of addition to Book Profit U/s 115JB of I.T. Act. (4) The Ld. Counsel for Assessee has filed copy of judicial precedents in the case of M/s Neha Home Builders (P) Ltd. (supra), in which view was taken that the amount of Page

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)

u/s 271(1.)(c) was a "complete non-starter". A mere erroneous claim made by an assessee, though under a bonafide belief that, it was a claim which was maintainable in law cannot lead to an imposition of penalty. The claim for deduction was made in a bona fide manner and the information with respect to the claims was provided

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), NEW DELHI vs. ASIAN CONSOLIDATED INDS.LTD), REWARI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 3013/DEL/2018[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2024AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 1997-98

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 264Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) especially the limb -fumishing inaccurate particulars of income in spite of the fact that the claim of deduction/ exemption

ACIT, AMRAVATI CIRCLE, AMRAVATI vs. CHANDRAPUR DIST CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 398/NAG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Salonkhe

Section 271(1)(c)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

u/s 271(1)(c) of IT. Act 1961 is unjustified and unsustainable. 6.12 The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of M/s Reliance Petro Products Pvt Ltd. reported at 322ITR 158 (SC) while considering the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of IT. Act 1961 has held as under. "9 A mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable