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.

407 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 12Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi95Bangalore50Mumbai50Calcutta34Hyderabad31Ahmedabad31Lucknow16Jaipur16Visakhapatnam12Chandigarh11Indore10Pune9Amritsar9Allahabad8Cochin6Patna4Kolkata4Rajkot3Jodhpur2Raipur2Surat2Nagpur2

Key Topics

Section 11124Section 12A96Addition to Income70Section 271(1)(c)57Exemption54Section 143(3)41Section 2(15)40Penalty33Section 1030Section 153C

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)\nwere satisfied or fulfilled so as to justify imposition of penalty-\nTribunal merely followed dictum of Supreme Court in several\ndecisions and thus penalty was rightly deleted by Tribunal—Penalty\nhas therefore been rightly deleted-Such a finding essentially based on\nfacts and circumstances peculiar to assessee, does not raise any\nsubstantial question of law-Court directed

RAKESH KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Showing 1–20 of 407 · Page 1 of 21

...
26
Section 80I21
Disallowance16
ITA 330/JPR/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 217BSection 271B

12A) as per the act which clearly stipulates as follows: 8 M/s Rakesh Kumar Agarwal vs. ITO "books or books of account" includes ledgers, day-books, cash books, account-books and other books, whether kept in the written form or as print-outs of data stored in a floppy, disc, tape or any other form of electro-magnetic data storage

BHAWANI SHANKAR GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 43/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

12A) as per the act which clearly stipulates as follows: "books or books of account" includes ledgers, day-books, cash books, account-books and other books, whether kept in the written form or as print-outs of data stored in a floppy, disc, tape or any other form of electro-magnetic data storage device; In the present case, the assessee

MR. MANOJ KUMAR GOUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD-4(3), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 247/JPR/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

271(1)(c ), but the ratio behind the same is that whenever any penal proceedings are initiated against the assessee, there must be a specific charge in the notice by which jurisdiction is assumed. In absence of same, the assessee is not able to reply to same and hence it vitiates the entire proceedings. With the above submissions, we hereby

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE vs. M/S VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY , BELAGAVI

In the result, the assessee’s cross objections for Assessment Years

ITA 2857/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanand Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri. Shivaprasad Reddy
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 3

penalty was levied by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee had not even furnished a return of income for the Asst. Year in question, till the Department issued a notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. iii) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the registration u/s 12A w.e.f. 01.04.1998 would

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE vs. M/S VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY , BELAGAVI

In the result, the assessee’s cross objections for Assessment Years

ITA 2856/BANG/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanand Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri. Shivaprasad Reddy
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 3

penalty was levied by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee had not even furnished a return of income for the Asst. Year in question, till the Department issued a notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. iii) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the registration u/s 12A w.e.f. 01.04.1998 would

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE vs. M/S VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY , BELAGAVI

In the result, the assessee’s cross objections for Assessment Years

ITA 2858/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanand Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri. Shivaprasad Reddy
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 3

penalty was levied by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee had not even furnished a return of income for the Asst. Year in question, till the Department issued a notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. iii) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the registration u/s 12A w.e.f. 01.04.1998 would

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE vs. M/S VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY , BELGAVI

In the result, the assessee’s cross objections for Assessment Years

ITA 2854/BANG/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Mar 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanand Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri. Shivaprasad Reddy
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 3

penalty was levied by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee had not even furnished a return of income for the Asst. Year in question, till the Department issued a notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. iii) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the registration u/s 12A w.e.f. 01.04.1998 would

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE vs. M/S VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY , BELAGAVI

In the result, the assessee’s cross objections for Assessment Years

ITA 2855/BANG/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Mar 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanand Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri. Shivaprasad Reddy
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 3

penalty was levied by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee had not even furnished a return of income for the Asst. Year in question, till the Department issued a notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. iii) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the registration u/s 12A w.e.f. 01.04.1998 would

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE vs. M/S VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY , BELAGAVI

In the result, the assessee’s cross objections for Assessment Years

ITA 2859/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanand Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri. Shivaprasad Reddy
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 3

penalty was levied by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee had not even furnished a return of income for the Asst. Year in question, till the Department issued a notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. iii) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the registration u/s 12A w.e.f. 01.04.1998 would

ITO WD 4(4), THANE vs. VIDYAVARDHINI TRUST, THANE

In the result, all these three appeals filed in all the above said years, involving identical facts, are dismissed

ITA 3840/MUM/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) in respect of the first type of additions.” 3.6. It is thus, noted that the Hon’ble ITAT has restored the benefit of registration u/s 12A to the assessee. Thus, as on date, impugned additions/disallowances do not survive any more. Thus, in our considered view, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the penalty levied

ITO WD 4(4), THANE vs. VIDYAVARDHINI TRUST, THANE

In the result, all these three appeals filed in all the above said years, involving identical facts, are dismissed

ITA 3839/MUM/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) in respect of the first type of additions.” 3.6. It is thus, noted that the Hon’ble ITAT has restored the benefit of registration u/s 12A to the assessee. Thus, as on date, impugned additions/disallowances do not survive any more. Thus, in our considered view, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the penalty levied

M.M. PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1130/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2025
Section 12Section 127Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

penalty orders are passed for violations u/s 271(1)(c) and\n271B and 271D and 271(1)(b)... and so on. An exercise of missing two\nseparate orders under one common order, is besides the law and\nwholly incorrect.\nD. Mis-match of authorities (without prejudice to main challenges)\nFrom a collective perusal of sections 12AA/12AB, etc. it reveals that

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT MEERA DEVI

ITA/995/2010HC Delhi23 Aug 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 132Section 153Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

u/s 271(1)(c). Since the provisions of Explanation 5 are not attracted in the case of both the assessee, penalties imposed by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be deleted in all the appeals. We order accordingly.” 8. In these circumstances, when Meera Devi’s appeals (ITA 564- 568/Del/2008) were taken up for hearing

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT MEERA DEVI

ITA/997/2010HC Delhi23 Aug 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 132Section 153Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

u/s 271(1)(c). Since the provisions of Explanation 5 are not attracted in the case of both the assessee, penalties imposed by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be deleted in all the appeals. We order accordingly.” 8. In these circumstances, when Meera Devi’s appeals (ITA 564- 568/Del/2008) were taken up for hearing

M/S WHOLESALE CLOTH MERCHANT,KOTA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 688/JPR/2019[0]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Jan 2021

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 688/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: ………………………… M/S Wholesale Cloth Merchant Cuke Pr.C.I.T. (Central), Vs. Association, Jaipur (Rajasthan) New Cloth Market, Kota. Pan No.: Aaatw 0127 C Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Ranka & Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Advs) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 14/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Dated 22/03/2019 Passed U/S 12Aa(3) & 12Aa(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act). Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. That In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Pr. Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Has Grossly Erred In Cancelling The Registration Of The Assessee Appellant Trust Under Section 12A Of The Act By Invoking Section 12Aa(4) Of The Act W.E.F. 01/04/2013. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Modify Or Amend Any Ground On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Ranka &For Respondent: Shri Ambrish Bedi (CIT-DR)
Section 12ASection 133ASection 271F

Section 12AA(4) of the Act w.e.f. 01/04/2013. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or amend any ground on or before the date of hearing.” 2 ITA 688/JP/2019_ M/s Wholesale Cloth Merchant Association Vs Pr.CIT 3. In the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271F, 271

JAMNALAL BAJAJ FOUNDATION,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (E), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2033/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Section 271(l)(c) of the Act issued by the Ld. Assessing Officer does not indicate the specific charge for which penalty p,, mgs were initiated. It is submitted that the Order imposing penalty u/section 271(l)(c) is vitiated and may accordingly be quashed / struck/ b / set aside as bad in law and without jurisdiction. The appellant prays that

PRASAM RAKESH CHOUDHARY,GIRNAR SOCIETY, BAPURAO GALLI, ITWARI, NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1, BHOPAL , BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 529/IND/2025[2018 -2019]Status: HeardITAT Indore22 Dec 2025

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit Circle-1(1) M/S. Rashtriya Takniki Bhopal Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan बनाम/ Samiti, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aabar2266H Assessee By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Shri Vinod Joshi, Ar Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

Section 10Section 271(1)(c)Section 43(1)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act. 1961” 5. Now, we re-produce the order of first-appeal passed by Ld. CIT(A) deleting the penalty: “7. Decision :- 7.1 The appellant is a charitable trust registered under section 12A

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), BHOPOAL, BHOPAL vs. M/S RASHTRIYA TAKNIKI SHIKSHAK PRASHIKSHAN EVAM ANUNSANDHAN SANSTHAN, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 509/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit Circle-1(1) M/S. Rashtriya Takniki Bhopal Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan बनाम/ Samiti, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aabar2266H Assessee By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Shri Vinod Joshi, Ar Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

Section 10Section 271(1)(c)Section 43(1)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act. 1961” 5. Now, we re-produce the order of first-appeal passed by Ld. CIT(A) deleting the penalty: “7. Decision :- 7.1 The appellant is a charitable trust registered under section 12A

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), MANGALORE

In the result, all these 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 741/BANG/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ravish Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

section 11 & 12 of the Act. Further penalty proceedings were also initiated u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. 4. During the penalty proceedings the assessee made submission. 5. The ld. AO noted that assessee is a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, which is mainly engaged in undertaking civil contract work