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.

726 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 271Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai136Delhi83Bangalore77Indore69Jaipur63Chennai35Cochin30Ahmedabad28Kolkata28Pune27Lucknow27Karnataka21Hyderabad14Visakhapatnam13Raipur12Amritsar10Rajkot9Dehradun8Nagpur8Surat6Panaji5Allahabad4Agra2Chandigarh2Guwahati2Patna2SC2Jodhpur1Varanasi1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 271B137Penalty83Section 44A70Section 14850Section 143(3)50Section 14748Section 271(1)(c)48Addition to Income43Section 27438Section 142(1)

AMIT KHEMKA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 636/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Kumar Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250Section 271BSection 68

271(1)(c) which has to be initiated in the course of any proceeding, the penalty under section 271B also has to be initiated in the course of any proceeding. The penalty under section 271B relates to not getting the accounts audited under the Act and as the same is not related to the quantum of income assessed

Showing 1–20 of 726 · Page 1 of 37

...
36
Deduction18
Limitation/Time-bar16

AMIT KHEMKA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 635/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Kumar Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250Section 271BSection 68

271(1)(c) which has to be initiated in the course of any proceeding, the penalty under section 271B also has to be initiated in the course of any proceeding. The penalty under section 271B relates to not getting the accounts audited under the Act and as the same is not related to the quantum of income assessed

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

271B ought not to have been levied because the assessee admittedly did not maintain any books of account as has been recorded in the assessment order itself. We, therefore, order for the deletion of penalty. 1. As regards the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the addition of Rs.7.5o lac, we find that this addition

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

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

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

271B ought not to have been levied because the assessee admittedly did not maintain any books of account as has been recorded in the assessment order itself. We, therefore, order for the deletion of penalty. 1. As regards the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the addition of Rs.7.5o lac, we find that this addition

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

271B ought not to have been levied because the assessee admittedly did not maintain any books of account as has been recorded in the assessment order itself. We, therefore, order for the deletion of penalty. 4. As regards the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the addition of Rs.7.50 lac, we find that this addition

SHYAM SUNDER JINDAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6425/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai & Assessment Year:- 2006-07 Sh. Shyam Sunder Jindal Vs. Acit, Central Circle 30 12 A, Green Avenue New Delhi Sector D, Pocket 3 Vasant Kunj New Delhi 110 070 Pan: Aagpj 0184 N

For Appellant: Shri Rupesh Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A.K.Sharma, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

271B[,section 271BA, [section 271BB.} section 271C. [section 271CA.)section 271D, section 271E. [section 271 F. [section 271 FA.) section 271 FB. [section 271G.] {section 271 H. clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AAJ or [section 272B or [sub- section (1) [or sub-section

SH. VISHAL SETHI,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 865/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhua.Y. : 2011-12 Vishal Sethi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, S/O Sh. Tilak Raj Sethi, Ward 58(1), 246, 1St Floor, New Layalpur, New Delhi Chander Nagar, Delhi – 110 051 (Pan: Askps5232L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Shahank Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 271BSection 274

271B on which penalty has been levied and I also note that no penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(b) was initiated by the AO in the assessment order. I have also perused the Notice dated 29.3.2014 issued by the AO for initiation of penalty and directing the assessee to appear before him issued u/s. 274 read with section

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

271B, 271AA, 271G etc. The assessee also submitted that initiation and levy of penalty u/s. 271D/E of the Act for A.Y. 2003-04 is beyond reasonable period of time and therefore barred by limitation. Alternatively, the assessee submitted that even on merits the assessee has reasonable cause as envisaged u/s. 273B of the Act for not levying penalty u/s. 271D

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

271B, 271AA, 271G etc. The assessee also submitted that initiation and levy of penalty u/s. 271D/E of the Act for A.Y. 2003-04 is beyond reasonable period of time and therefore barred by limitation. Alternatively, the assessee submitted that even on merits the assessee has reasonable cause as envisaged u/s. 273B of the Act for not levying penalty u/s. 271D

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

271B, 271AA, 271G etc. The assessee also submitted that initiation and levy of penalty u/s. 271D/E of the Act for A.Y. 2003-04 is beyond reasonable period of time and therefore barred by limitation. Alternatively, the assessee submitted that even on merits the assessee has reasonable cause as envisaged u/s. 273B of the Act for not levying penalty u/s. 271D

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

271B, 271AA, 271G etc. The assessee also submitted that initiation and levy of penalty u/s. 271D/E of the Act for A.Y. 2003-04 is beyond reasonable period of time and therefore barred by limitation. Alternatively, the assessee submitted that even on merits the assessee has reasonable cause as envisaged u/s. 273B of the Act for not levying penalty u/s. 271D

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

271B, 271AA, 271G etc. The assessee also submitted that initiation and levy of penalty u/s. 271D/E of the Act for A.Y. 2003-04 is beyond reasonable period of time and therefore barred by limitation. Alternatively, the assessee submitted that even on merits the assessee has reasonable cause as envisaged u/s. 273B of the Act for not levying penalty u/s. 271D

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

271B, 271AA, 271G etc. The assessee also submitted that initiation and levy of penalty u/s. 271D/E of the Act for A.Y. 2003-04 is beyond reasonable period of time and therefore barred by limitation. Alternatively, the assessee submitted that even on merits the assessee has reasonable cause as envisaged u/s. 273B of the Act for not levying penalty u/s. 271D

SHRI SANTOKH SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 2 (1), AMRITSAR

The appeals of the assessees are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 34/ASR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 151Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(b)

271(1)(b) of the Act for noncompliance of notices. 4. At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the appellant submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 10,95,406/- in each appeal on account of excess NP @ 5% on estimating turn over comprising of cash deposited

SHRI SANTOKH SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2 (1), AMRITSAR

The appeals of the assessees are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 31/ASR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 151Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(b)

271(1)(b) of the Act for noncompliance of notices. 4. At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the appellant submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 10,95,406/- in each appeal on account of excess NP @ 5% on estimating turn over comprising of cash deposited

SHRI SANTOKH SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 2 (1), AMRITSAR

The appeals of the assessees are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 32/ASR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 151Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(b)

271(1)(b) of the Act for noncompliance of notices. 4. At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the appellant submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 10,95,406/- in each appeal on account of excess NP @ 5% on estimating turn over comprising of cash deposited

SHRI SANTOKH SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 2 (1), AMRITSAR

The appeals of the assessees are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 33/ASR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 151Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(b)

271(1)(b) of the Act for noncompliance of notices. 4. At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the appellant submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 10,95,406/- in each appeal on account of excess NP @ 5% on estimating turn over comprising of cash deposited

SHRISHAILAMALLIKARJUN TRADERS,NARGUND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GADAG

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1357/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Anil Kumar H., A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 148Section 250Section 271BSection 271FSection 274Section 44A

271-G' by Finance Act, 2015 (No. 20 of 2015), dated 14.5.2015.][, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272-A, sub-section (1) of section 272-AA or ] [Inserted by Act 46 of 1986, Section 26 (w.e.f. 10.9.1986).][section 272-B or] [ Inserted by Act 20 of 2002, Section 106 (w.e.f

LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD-4(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 278/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.

For Appellant: Ms Suhani Meharwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271B

271B ought not to have been levied because the assessee admittedly did not maintain any books of account as has been recorded in the assessment order itself. We, therefore, order for the deletion of penalty. 4. As regards the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the addition of Rs.7.5o lac, we find that this addition

BHADRAVATHI RAMALINGASETTY MANJUNATH SETTY,BHADRAVATHI vs. ITO WARD-1 TPS , SHIMOGA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1459/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri Sachin S Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R
Section 139Section 139(4)Section 139(9)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271BSection 44A

271-G' by Finance Act, 2015 (No. 20 of 2015), dated 14.5.2015.][, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272-A, sub-section (1) of section 272-AA or ] [Inserted by Act 46 of 1986, Section 26 (w.e.f. 10.9.1986).][section 272-B or] [ Inserted by Act 20 of 2002, Section 106 (w.e.f