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.

2,752 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 40clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi662Mumbai623Jaipur202Ahmedabad175Hyderabad127Bangalore122Raipur118Chennai112Indore87Rajkot68Pune64Chandigarh57Kolkata55Amritsar48Surat43Allahabad42Cochin23Nagpur21Lucknow20Visakhapatnam17Patna16Ranchi14Jabalpur7Guwahati7Cuttack6Agra4Dehradun4Jodhpur4Panaji3Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)61Addition to Income59Section 143(3)41Section 153A33Penalty31Section 25027Section 13225Section 6825Section 14824Disallowance

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)

section\n271 (1) (c) are not applicable. Therefore when returned income u/s 153A is\naccepted there is no default u/s 271 (1) (c) and deleted the penalty u/s 271 (1)\n(c). The case is covered from this judgement. The appellant further relies on the\nfollowing judicial pronouncements:\nThe Hon'ble ITAT, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in the case of Poonam

Showing 1–20 of 2,752 · Page 1 of 138

...
23
Section 14720
Survey u/s 133A20

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)

section\n271 (1) (c) are not applicable. Therefore when returned income u/s 153A is\naccepted there is no default u/s 271 (1) (c) and deleted the penalty u/s 271 (1)\n(c). The case is covered from this judgement. The appellant further relies on the\nfollowing judicial pronouncements:\nThe Hon'ble ITAT, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in the case of Poonam

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

40,000/- being the difference of Rs.49,99,000/- surrendered\nbut only Rs.47,59,000/- declared in return; (ii) invoked higher rate of tax u/s\n115BBE to the entire income of Rs.49,99,000/-; (iii) charged interest u/s 234A,\n234B and 234C; and (iv) also recorded to initiate penalty proceeding u/s\n271AAB for concealment of income of Rs.49

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

40,42,000 + 37,19,337/-) and thus imposed penalty of Rs.26,38,078/-, being 100% of the amount of tax sought to be evaded. 5.3 In appeal before Ld. CIT(A), assessee filed detailed submission challenging the legality of order passed by AO u/s 271(1)(c) and also on merits. The Ld. CIT(A), however, without deciding

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

40,42,000 + 37,19,337/-) and thus imposed penalty of Rs.26,38,078/-, being 100%\nof the amount of tax sought to be evaded.\n\n5.3 In appeal before Ld. CIT(A), assessee filed detailed submission challenging\nthe legality of order passed by AO u/s 271(1)(c) and also on merits. The Ld.\nCIT(A), however, without deciding

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act if the assesse fails to offer any explanation which is bonafide. Similar is the situation with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P.Madhusudanan vs CIT (2001) 251 ITR 99 (SC). 8.7 In the present case before us, the assesse has explanation which is supported by the documentary

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

40,46,529/- and granted relief to the assessee of\nRs.31,35,85,433/-. Therefore, assessing officer proposed to levy the penalty u/s\n271(1)(c) of the Act, on Rs.1,04,61,096/-.\n12.\nDuring the penalty proceedings, the assessee submitted reply before the\nassessing officer, the relevant portion of the assessee's submission is reproduced\nas under

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

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

ITA 56/PAT/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

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

Penalty u/s Amount 54/PAT/2021 2011-12 271AAA 36,48,167 55/AT/2021 2012-13 271AAA 25,47,388 52/PAT/2021 2009-10 271(1)(c) 1,93,52,140 53/PAT/2021 2010-11 271(1)(c) 1,13,77,978 56/PAT/2021 2013-14 271(1)(c) 90,09,772 57/PAT/2021 2014-15 271(1)(c) 1,33,60,445 013. We note that

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

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

ITA 54/PAT/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

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

Penalty u/s Amount 54/PAT/2021 2011-12 271AAA 36,48,167 55/AT/2021 2012-13 271AAA 25,47,388 52/PAT/2021 2009-10 271(1)(c) 1,93,52,140 53/PAT/2021 2010-11 271(1)(c) 1,13,77,978 56/PAT/2021 2013-14 271(1)(c) 90,09,772 57/PAT/2021 2014-15 271(1)(c) 1,33,60,445 013. We note that

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

Penalty u/s Amount 54/PAT/2021 2011-12 271AAA 36,48,167 55/AT/2021 2012-13 271AAA 25,47,388 52/PAT/2021 2009-10 271(1)(c) 1,93,52,140 53/PAT/2021 2010-11 271(1)(c) 1,13,77,978 56/PAT/2021 2013-14 271(1)(c) 90,09,772 57/PAT/2021 2014-15 271(1)(c) 1,33,60,445 013. We note that

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

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

ITA 55/PAT/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

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

Penalty u/s Amount 54/PAT/2021 2011-12 271AAA 36,48,167 55/AT/2021 2012-13 271AAA 25,47,388 52/PAT/2021 2009-10 271(1)(c) 1,93,52,140 53/PAT/2021 2010-11 271(1)(c) 1,13,77,978 56/PAT/2021 2013-14 271(1)(c) 90,09,772 57/PAT/2021 2014-15 271(1)(c) 1,33,60,445 013. We note that

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

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

ITA 57/PAT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

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

Penalty u/s Amount 54/PAT/2021 2011-12 271AAA 36,48,167 55/AT/2021 2012-13 271AAA 25,47,388 52/PAT/2021 2009-10 271(1)(c) 1,93,52,140 53/PAT/2021 2010-11 271(1)(c) 1,13,77,978 56/PAT/2021 2013-14 271(1)(c) 90,09,772 57/PAT/2021 2014-15 271(1)(c) 1,33,60,445 013. We note that

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

Penalty u/s Amount 54/PAT/2021 2011-12 271AAA 36,48,167 55/AT/2021 2012-13 271AAA 25,47,388 52/PAT/2021 2009-10 271(1)(c) 1,93,52,140 53/PAT/2021 2010-11 271(1)(c) 1,13,77,978 56/PAT/2021 2013-14 271(1)(c) 90,09,772 57/PAT/2021 2014-15 271(1)(c) 1,33,60,445 013. We note that

DWARKA GEMS LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 847/JPR/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2024AY 2010-2011
For Appellant: Shri Harshit Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40Section 80I

40(a)(ia)\nhas been deleted. Further, tradition addition of Rs. 3,00,000 which is being\nconfirmed by ld. CIT(A) is solely on estimate basis and accordingly no penalty\nwas levied by ld. AO on this issue. However, ld AO in his penalty order dated\n25.03.2019 has levied penalty against disallowance of Rs. 15,672/- related to\ndeduction

M/S. CONCORDE HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 531/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

40,364/-, which was on the basis of revised computation filed by the assessee on 10.11.2017. 5.2 Later, the ld. AO invoked the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and issued a notice u/s 274 of the Act on 27.12.2017 and finally after hearing the assessee, the ld. AO levied penalty at Rs.1

DCIT, CENTRALCIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. SUBRAMANIAM THANU, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

ITA 785/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

For Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 271E

40-43/Chny/23 initiated under Section 271 (l)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 19. The abovementioned decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered with reference to penalty u/s

DCIT, CENTRALCIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. SUBRAMANIAM THANU, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

ITA 786/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

For Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 271E

40-43/Chny/23 initiated under Section 271 (l)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 19. The abovementioned decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered with reference to penalty u/s

DCIT, CENTRALCIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. SUBRAMANIAM THANU, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

ITA 788/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

For Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 271E

40-43/Chny/23 initiated under Section 271 (l)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 19. The abovementioned decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered with reference to penalty u/s

DCIT, CENTRALCIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. SUBRAMANIAM THANU, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

ITA 787/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

For Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 271E

40-43/Chny/23 initiated under Section 271 (l)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 19. The abovementioned decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered with reference to penalty u/s

GHANSHYAM TAK,NAYA GHAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 167/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)
Section 250Section 271Section 271ASection 274

271 are mentioned would not satisfy the requirement of law ; The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, the principles of natural justice are offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee ; ) taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb