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.

7 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 194clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi124Jaipur57Mumbai57Raipur39Allahabad17Chennai16Bangalore15Amritsar10Kolkata8Chandigarh8Ahmedabad7Surat5Indore4Hyderabad4Nagpur4Visakhapatnam1Dehradun1Patna1Rajkot1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 201(1)8Addition to Income7Section 143(3)6Section 1486Section 271(1)(c)6Section 1944Section 69C4Section 115J4Penalty4

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VADODARA vs. GUJARAT STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LIMITED, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1289/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 271Section 271(1)(c)

194 taxman 387 (Delhi) in the case of Nalwa Sons Investment Ltd. (available in NJRS as 2010-LL-0826-2), held that when the tax payable on income computed under normal procedure is less than the tax payable under the deeming provisions of section 115IB of the Act, then penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act could

KESHAVPRIYA CORP PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL.CIT, TDS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Section 2713
Limitation/Time-bar3
Deduction2
ITA 182/AHD/2022[2015-16]Status: Disposed
ITAT Ahmedabad
20 May 2024
AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ankit Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271Section 271C

u/s 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) was not justified in passing the impugned Order without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the Appellant.” 4. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee filed request for adjournment. While seeking for adjournment, the assessee has given a vague

KESHAVPRIYA CORP PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 TDS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 181/AHD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ankit Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271Section 271C

u/s 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) was not justified in passing the impugned Order without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the Appellant.” 4. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee filed request for adjournment. While seeking for adjournment, the assessee has given a vague

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI SANJAY KISHANLAL BISHNOI,, AHMEDABAD

ITA 297/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Sh. Umedsingh Bhati & Sh. Abhimanyu SinghFor Respondent: Sh. Subhendu Das, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 253(3)Section 69C

271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. (Addition of Rs. 1,80,69,095/-)” AYs:2014-15 & 2015-16 Sh. Sanjay Kishanlal Bishnoi 4.4 The AO on examination of the details, material, SCN , concluded that the assessee was involved in the undervaluation of imports. The assessee was having understanding with the supplier wherein

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI SANJAY KISHANLAL BISHNOI,, AHMEDABAD

ITA 296/AHD/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Sh. Umedsingh Bhati & Sh. Abhimanyu SinghFor Respondent: Sh. Subhendu Das, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 253(3)Section 69C

271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. (Addition of Rs. 1,80,69,095/-)” AYs:2014-15 & 2015-16 Sh. Sanjay Kishanlal Bishnoi 4.4 The AO on examination of the details, material, SCN , concluded that the assessee was involved in the undervaluation of imports. The assessee was having understanding with the supplier wherein

SHIVAM BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 317/AHD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 317/Ahd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16) िनधा"रण वष" Shivam Builders Private Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ बनाम बनाम बनाम Limited Income Tax Vs. 802, 8Th Floor, Rajvi Circle 4(1)(1), Ahmedabad Arcade, Nr. Gurukul Drive In Road, Memnagar, Ahmedabad, Gujarat 380052 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccs0296D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Hem Chhajed, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri J L Bhatia, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/04/2024 09/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 27.07.2022 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds In This Appeal:

For Respondent: Shri J L Bhatia, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 145(3)

194 Taxman 61 (Cochin) (MAG). Findings and Order 9. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and have perused the materials brought on record. We do not find any merit in the objection of the assessee to the jurisdiction issue. The assesse has relied upon certain judicial pronouncements in this regard. The issue involved in the case

MUKESH NARPATLAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 597/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

section 151 of the act." Therefore, the sanction were not obtained before issuing the notice u/s 148 of the act. The reasons for passing order is totally wrong as the assessee fully complied with the notice u/s 148 of the IT Act by filing the ITR on 24/03/2021 similarly all the notice u/s 142(1) were properly responded. The assessing