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.

2,175 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 274clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi502Mumbai428Jaipur165Surat125Chennai101Bangalore97Ahmedabad81Hyderabad80Kolkata75Indore71Pune67Allahabad44Ranchi42Rajkot41Chandigarh40Raipur34Amritsar30Cochin23Visakhapatnam20Nagpur17Patna16Guwahati14Agra14Dehradun12Lucknow11Cuttack11Jodhpur7Jabalpur4Panaji2Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)179Section 271(1)(b)103Section 143(3)86Penalty76Section 27475Section 142(1)67Addition to Income57Section 153A38Section 27137Section 147

ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PHI SEEDS PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and both the Rule 27 application of the assessee are allowed for A

ITA 3084/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 1Section 10(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

274 of the Act read with Section 271 of the Act did not specifically state as to under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, penalty proceedings were intended to be proceeded. Section 271(1)(c) of the Act has two limbs: the first is where the allegation is at the assessee has concealed income

Showing 1–20 of 2,175 · Page 1 of 109

...
36
Search & Seizure22
Deduction10

ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PHI SEEDS PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and both the Rule 27 application of the assessee are allowed for A

ITA 3083/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 1Section 10(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

274 of the Act read with Section 271 of the Act did not specifically state as to under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, penalty proceedings were intended to be proceeded. Section 271(1)(c) of the Act has two limbs: the first is where the allegation is at the assessee has concealed income

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)

u/s 274 of the Act\nshould specifically state as to whether penalty is being proposed for concealment\nof particulars of income or inaccurate particulars of income. In the present case\nnotice under section 274 dated 25/3/2015 enclosed at paper book page 16 reads\nas under: -\n“Penalty Notice Under Section 274. Read with Section 271

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)

u/s 274 of the Act\nshould specifically state as to whether penalty is being proposed for concealment\nof particulars of income or inaccurate particulars of income. In the present case\nnotice under section 274 dated 25/3/2015 enclosed at paper book page 16 reads\nas under: -\n\"Penalty Notice Under Section 274. Read with Section 271

ARTI SHAILEN TOPIWALA,ANDHERI WEST, MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 34(1)(1), MUMBAI, BKC, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

ITA 4383/MUM/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Om Prakash Kant () Ita No. 4383 & 4384/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Arti Shailen Topiwala Ito, Ward 34(1)(1), Mumbai B-701, Parimal Apartment, C.D. Income Tax Appellate Barfiwala Road, Andheri West, Vs. Tribunal, Mumbai- 400058 Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aacpt 3505 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Mr. Surendra Mohan –SR. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, therefore there was no confusion as to the said appeal was against quantum order was no confusion as to the said appeal was against quantum order was no confusion as to the said appeal was against quantum order or penalty order and the ground of the quantum addition or penalty order

ARTI SHAILEN TOPIWALA,ANDHERI WEST, MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 34(1)(1), MUMBAI, BKC, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

ITA 4384/MUM/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Om Prakash Kant () Ita No. 4383 & 4384/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Arti Shailen Topiwala Ito, Ward 34(1)(1), Mumbai B-701, Parimal Apartment, C.D. Income Tax Appellate Barfiwala Road, Andheri West, Vs. Tribunal, Mumbai- 400058 Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aacpt 3505 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Mr. Surendra Mohan –SR. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, therefore there was no confusion as to the said appeal was against quantum order was no confusion as to the said appeal was against quantum order was no confusion as to the said appeal was against quantum order or penalty order and the ground of the quantum addition or penalty order

GAURAV AJMERA,RATLAM vs. DCIT(CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

ITA 808/IND/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 234ASection 271ASection 274

274\nr.w.s.271 of the Act for initiating penalty proceedings to which\nassessee submitted written reply. Assessing Officer having rejected\nassessee's explanation, passed a penalty order u/s 271AAB.\nTribunal proceeding on presumption that penalty proceedings had\n18\n\nGaurav Ajmera\nITA No. 808/Ind/2024 – AY 2017-18\n\nbeen initiated u/s 271(1)(c), set aside penalty order. High Court\ntook

JAR METAL INDUSTRIES(P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-13(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

ITA 9694/DEL/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2025AY 2005-06
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

section 271(1)(c) in\nthe penalty notice dated 28.12.2007 for AY 2005-06 for which the\npenalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated. On\nsimilar facts, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above cited case\nheld that the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in the case

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 274 r.w.s.271(1)(c) was bad in law, as it did\nnot specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) penalty

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 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) was bad in law, as it did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) penalty

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DICT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

ITA 1052/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)

u/s 271 read with s. 274 of the Act." with s. 274 of the Act." (ix) Further the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Zoom (ix) Further the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Zoom (ix) Further the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd. vide

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

ITA 1051/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)

u/s 271 read with s. 274 of the Act." with s. 274 of the Act." (ix) Further the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Zoom (ix) Further the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Zoom (ix) Further the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd. vide

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

ITA 1054/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)

u/s 271 read with s. 274 of the Act." with s. 274 of the Act." (ix) Further the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Zoom (ix) Further the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Zoom (ix) Further the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd. vide

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

ITA 1053/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)

u/s 271 read with s. 274 of the Act." with s. 274 of the Act." (ix) Further the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Zoom (ix) Further the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Zoom (ix) Further the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd. vide

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

ITA 212/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

For Appellant: Shri C.L. Yadav, CA and Shri Vikas Yadav AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary
Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty order u/s 271(1)©r.w.s. 274 of the I.T. Act on 18-04-2017 by observing as under:- ‘’05. In view of the totality of the facts and keeping in view the provisions of section

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

274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 20 16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K. P. Madhusudhanan 251 ITR 99affirmed the decision of the Kerala High Court. The Kerala High Court observed as follows: "Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is attracted where, in the course of any proceedings under

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAKJOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 78/RJT/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2010-11
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') to be bad in law as it did not specify which\nlimb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated ie,\nwhether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate\nparticulars of income. The Tribunal

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

u/s 271(1)(c) vide order\ndated 27.03.2022.\n8.1 Before us, the ld. A/R has submitted that in the show cause notice\nissued under section 274 read with section 271 read with section\n271(1)(c) of the IT Act the AO has not specified the ground for initiation\nof penalty

PATLIPUTRA BUILDERS LTD,PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 52/PAT/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Jha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rinku Singh, DR
Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

Section 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act as neither there is any reference to any assessment order having been passed for the impugned assessments nor there is any reference to any notice issued u/s 274 of the Act which is a mandatory requirement prior to initiation of penalty

PATLIPUTRA BUILDERS LIMITED,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 53/PAT/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Jha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rinku Singh, DR
Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

Section 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act as neither there is any reference to any assessment order having been passed for the impugned assessments nor there is any reference to any notice issued u/s 274 of the Act which is a mandatory requirement prior to initiation of penalty