Which cases are most cited on Section 271(1)(b)?

Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa (83 ITR 26) — 502 citing judgments; 1. CIT v. Zoom Communication (P.) Ltd. (191 Taxmann 179) — 116 citing judgments; Velu Palandar v. DCIT (83 ITR 683) — 94 citing judgments; CIT v. Subodh Gupta (54 Taxmann.com 343) — 29 citing judgments; Vama Apparels (India) (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (102 Taxmann.com 398) — 22 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 271(1)(b)?

BharatTax indexes 703 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act

Q: What is the leading case on Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act?

Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa (83 ITR 26) is the decision most relied on for Section 271(1)(b), cited in 502 judgments. An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation results from quasi-criminal proceedings. Penalty is not ordinarily imposed unless the party acted deliberately in defiance of law, was guilty of contumacious or dishonest conduct, or acted in conscious disregard of their obligation.

The decision most relied on for Section 271(1)(b) is Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa (83 ITR 26), cited in 502 of the 703 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 271(1)(b)

Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa

83 ITR 26 · 1972 · Supreme Court

502

citing judgments

An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation results from quasi-criminal proceedings. Penalty is not ordinarily imposed unless the party acted deliberately in defiance of law, was guilty of contumacious or dishonest conduct, or acted in conscious disregard of their obligation.

1. CIT v. Zoom Communication (P.) Ltd.

191 Taxmann 179 · 2010 · High Court

116

citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is justified when an assessee deliberately and falsely claims expenses. The mere disallowance of a claim in assessment proceedings does not automatically warrant a penalty, unless the claim is found to be false or inaccurate.

Velu Palandar v. DCIT

83 ITR 683 · 1972 · High Court

citing judgments

The opportunity of hearing provided to an assessee must be real, effective, and realistic, not merely notional, and tax authorities are incumbent to decide cases on their merits after affording due opportunity.

CIT v. Subodh Gupta

54 Taxmann.com 343 · 2015 · High Court

citing judgments

Vama Apparels (India) (P) Ltd. v. ACIT

102 Taxmann.com 398 · 2019 · High Court

citing judgments

Smt. Rekha Rani v. DCIT

60 Taxmann.com 131 · 2015 · High Court

citing judgments

Rekha Rani v. DCIT

154 ITD 617 · 2015 · ITAT

citing judgments

Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. v. Union of India

134 Taxmann.com 187 · 2022 · High Court

citing judgments

M/S J.T. (India) Exports And Another v. Union Of India And Another

262 ITR 269 · 2003 · High Court

citing judgments

Oriental Investment Co. Ltd. v. CIT

32 ITR 664 · 1957 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Judgments on Section 271(1)(b)

DHRUV FURNITURES PRIVATE LIMITED ,. vs. ITO WARD-1(1), FARIDABAD, .

Appeal is allowed

ITA 8440/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukladhruvfurnitures Private Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1) Limited, C/O Ipso Legal C.R.Building 1St Floor, , Jangpura Faridabad Extension, New Delhi Haryana - 122001 110014 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcd0076K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Shyam Sunder, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(b)

ATC GLOBAL LOGISTICS PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 367/MUM/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti S. SharmaFor Respondent: Mr. Surendra Mohan, (SR. DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

FEMINA CONCEPT MARKETING & RETAIL TRADING (TEXTILES) CO P LIMITED,THANE vs. WARD 5(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8082/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Jagadish

For Appellant: Ms. Simran DhawanFor Respondent: Shri Abi Rama Karthikeyan, SR. DR

Section 249Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 271B

FEMINA CONCEPT MARKETING AND RETAIL TRADING (TEXTILES) CO P LIMITED,THANE vs. WARD 5(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8081/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Jagadish

For Appellant: Ms. Simran DhawanFor Respondent: Shri Abi Rama Karthikeyan, SR. DR

Section 249Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 271B

FEMINA CONCEPT MARKETING AND RETAIL TRADING (TEXTILES) CO P LIMITED,THANE vs. WARD 5(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8080/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Jagadish

For Appellant: Ms. Simran DhawanFor Respondent: Shri Abi Rama Karthikeyan, SR. DR

Section 249Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 271B

BANCO CONSTRUCTION,BANSAL KOTHI, NEHRU COLONY THATIPUR vs. ACIT, FACELESS

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 64/AGR/2026[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra02 Apr 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhbanco Construction, Vs. Acit, Bansal Kothi, Nehru Faceless, Gwalior Colony, Thatipur, Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabfb7336D Assessee By : Shri Anurag Singh, Adv Revenue By: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18/03/2026

For Appellant: Shri Anurag singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 194ASection 271(1)(b)

MD. BABAR ALI,MALDA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1), MALDA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3174/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

MD. BABAR ALI,MALDA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1), MALDA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3173/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

MAHESH PRAKASH BENDE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE 27(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8028/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarmahesh Prakash Ito Circle - 27(2), Bende 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6, 302, 3Rd Floor, Prithvi Vs. It Office, Vashi Park, Sector-30, Vashi Railway Station Navi Mumbai-400 075 Building, Navi Mubmai – 400 703 Pan/Gir No. Alnpb2531M (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Devendra Jain, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2026

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 249Section 249(3)Section 250

AKSHIT MAHESH KARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 3(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 6052/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

PLATINUM SALES,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD2(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1156/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1156/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Platinum Sales, The Ito, Scf-10, Sector 9-D, बनाम Ward 2(1), Chandigarh Chandigarh Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aanfp7207P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Phsyical Hearing) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Ms. Ekakshra Mandhar, Advocate & Sh. Atul Mandhar, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr.Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2026 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2026 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am : Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 14.07.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi.

For Appellant: Ms. Ekakshra Mandhar, Advocate, and Sh. Atul Mandhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr.DR

Section 147Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

DANDEBOINA RAMESH,WARANGAL vs. ITO, WARD-(1), WARANGAL

ITA 1661/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

AWLA INFRA,FEROZEPUR vs. ASSITANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, FEROZEPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 53/ASR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, C. A

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

PAWAN KUMAR CHANDRAKAR, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI vs. ITO, WARD-DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 687/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 685, 686 & 687/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16) Pawan Kumar Chandrakar, Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward Dhamtari, Gandhi Chowk, Kurud, Shankardan Road, Village:Haraftarai, Dhamtari-493663, Chhattisgarh. Dhamtari-493773, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Aqdpc2033J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Veekas S Sharma, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 12/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Veekas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 2(14)(iii)Section 250

PAWAN KUMAR CHANDRAKAR, DHAMTARI,DHAMTARI vs. ITO, WARD-DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 686/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Veekas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 2(14)(iii)Section 250

PAWAN KUMAR CHANDRAKAR, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI vs. ITO,WARD-DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 685/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Veekas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 2(14)(iii)Section 250

KUMAR TALKIES,BAREILLY, UTTAR PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), BAREILLY-NEW, BAREILLY, UTTAR PRADESH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 588/LKW/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshrakumar Talkies V. Income Tax Officer-1(1) Punjabi Market, Hospital Road, Fashion Point, 56, Civil Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Lines Near Prasad Cinema, Bareily-243001. Pan:Aaafk0045M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 254(3)Section 271Section 50C(2)

NORTHERN REALTY INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ITO, DELHI

ITA 7434/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Hardeep Singh Chawla, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 250

SUNIL SURESH RANE,DOMBIVLI vs. ITO WARD 42(3)(4), MUMBAI

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

ITA 7729/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarsunil Suresh Rane Vs. Ito Ward 42(3)(4) 301 Amrita, Apts, Rajaji Kautilya Bhawan C41- Path Lane 43, Avenue 3, Near No.4 Dombivli Videsh Bhavan, G Block Mumbai - 421201 Bkc, Gilban Area, Bkc, Bandra East Mumbai - 400051 Pan/Gir No. Abtpr2589P (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Aakash Parekh (Virtually Present) Revenue By Shri Brajendra Kumar (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 29.09.2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2016-17. The Following Grounds Are Reproduced Below: “1. Ground No. 1: Gross Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251

BARAIYA GALAJI KALAJI,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 2180/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

Showing 1–20 of 703 · Page 1 of 36

...