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.

2 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 292Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi115Mumbai111Bangalore69Kolkata31Chennai19Pune17Jaipur16Chandigarh16Indore13Cochin10Cuttack8Ahmedabad6Nagpur6Hyderabad5Jabalpur5Amritsar4Visakhapatnam3Lucknow2Patna2Agra2Raipur1Rajkot1SC1Surat1Karnataka1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)7Section 2715Section 2744Section 292B2Penalty2

TAHIR KHAN,JHANSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 468/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292BSection 56(2)(vii)

292B cured the defect in the penalty notice; whereas, the said section cannot cure a jurisdictional defect which goes to the root of the matter and affects the validity of the proceedings. 5. BECAUSE, the Ld. 'CIT(A)' grossly erred in upholding the levy of penalty of Rs.83,45,158/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, ignoring

RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA,MAINPURI vs. ITO-2(5), MAINPURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed with the observation as above

ITA 289/AGR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra14 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292B

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the I.T.A No.289/Agra/2018 4 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) assessee. All those principles along with the decisions relied upon by the revenue were considered by the coordinate bench in the matter of Sachin Arora (supra) and thereafter had decided the matter in favour of the assessee. Though the argument prejudice to the assessee and also