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.

12 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 260Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi191Mumbai89Calcutta38Indore31Jaipur23Chennai21Nagpur17Karnataka12Ahmedabad12Hyderabad10Cochin10Kolkata9Pune7Lucknow7Chandigarh6Bangalore6Raipur6SC5Amritsar3Allahabad3Agra3Telangana2Punjab & Haryana2Rajasthan1Kerala1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)32Section 4211Penalty11Addition to Income10Section 546Section 143(3)5Section 2755Section 2635Section 274

MS. VARSHA JITENDRA TEKWANI,,BARODA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4), BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 1623/AHD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1623/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Ms Varsha Jitendra Tekwani, Income-Tax Officer, Flat No.302, Vs. Ward-3(1)(4), Jay Ranchod Avenue, Vadodara. Harni-Varasiya Ring Road, Vadodara.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Sr.D.R
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 50C

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. Thus the appellant tails on this ground. 7. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 7.1 The assessee in the ground of appeal submitted that she has received consideration of ₹11 Lacs only against the amount alleged

4
Section 1474
Long Term Capital Gains4
Unexplained Cash Credit3

MARDIA COPPER EXTRUTIONS PVT.LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 229/AHD/2018[1990-91]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2019AY 1990-91

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 229/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 1990-1991 M/S Mardia Copper Extrusions Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T, C/O Mehta Lodha & Co., Vs. Circle-2(1)(2), 105, Sakar-I, Near Gandhigram Railway Ahmedabad. Station, Off Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aabcm3848G

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act at Rs. 16,66,271/- only being 100% of the amount of tax sought to be evaded. 3. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A). The assessee before the Ld. CIT (A) reiterated the submission as before the AO. Page 4 of 11 Asstt. Year

SHRI HASMUKHBHAI BACHUBHAI RADADIA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2742/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2742/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Hashmukhbhai Bachubhai Vs. Dcit, Radadia, Circle – 3(3), 492, Avadh, Opp. Amul Ice- Ahmedabad. Cream Parlour, Lad Society Road, Vastrapur, Ahmedabad. (Pan No. Aaqpr 7176 N) , , अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri U. S. Bhati & Abhimanyu Bhati, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02.08.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2018 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Appellate Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Ahmedabad [“Cit(A)” In Short] Dated 22.09.2016 Relevant To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1.0 The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Penalty Order. 2.0 The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Concluding That Mistake Committed By The Appellant Was Intentional. He Has Further Erred In Not Considering The Explanation Of The Appellant Duly Supported By The Affidavits To The Effect That The Advocate

For Appellant: Shri U. S. Bhati & AbhimanyuFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s. 148, penalty on additional income confirmed in the case laws PC Joseph & Bros. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 818 (Ker.) Naram Das Suraj Bhan Vs CST 21 STC 104 (SC) The dictionary meaning of the word concealment is to hide, to keep secret. The Explanation to section 27l(1)(c) does not alter or extend this meaning. It only assumes

THE ADIT.,(INTNL.TAXN.), AHMEDABAD vs. JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC.,, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 2739/AHD/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jan 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed"नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2005-2006 & "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2001-2002

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, A.R
Section 271(1)(c)Section 42

260A. In this view of the matter, in our opinion, it is not a fit case to levy the penalty under section 271 (1)(c). Therefore, penalty confirmed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in respect of both the items of additions/ disallowances is hereby deleted." In view of the above and after considering the facts in totality

NIRAJ PRATAPBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(2)(FORMERLY ITO, WARD-3(3)(3)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 87/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench

For Appellant: Shri Kushal Fofaria, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Trupti Patel, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 139Section 143(1)Section 147Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the facts and law on the issue. The action of the lower authorities is in clear breach of law and Principles of Natural Justice and therefore deserves to be quashed. I.T.A Nos. 85 & 87/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2013-14 Page

NIRAJ PRATAPBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(3)(2), (FORMERLY ITO, WARD-3(3)(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 85/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench

For Appellant: Shri Kushal Fofaria, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Trupti Patel, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 139Section 143(1)Section 147Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the facts and law on the issue. The action of the lower authorities is in clear breach of law and Principles of Natural Justice and therefore deserves to be quashed. I.T.A Nos. 85 & 87/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2013-14 Page

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PINAC STOCK BROKERS PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 858/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar & Shri T.R Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Deepak R Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri R N Dsouza, CIT.DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 275Section 68

260A or appeal before Supreme Court passed u/s. 261 or Revision order passed u/s. 263 of the Act by giving effect to the quantum order. For ready reference section 275 [1A] is reproduced as under: I.T.A No. 858/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 7 DCIT Vs. Pinac Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. “… [(1-A) In a case where the relevant assessment

VADODARA ENVIRO CHANNEL LTD.,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS EFFLUENT CHANNEL PROJECT LTD.),VADODARA vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2),, VADODARA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2094/AHD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

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

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

u/s 271(1)(c) was levied by him vide order dated 19-06- I.T.A Nos. 2387/Ahd/15 & 2094/Ahd/17 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 3 Vadodara Enviro Channel Ltd. vs. ACIT 2015 (which is subject matter of ITA No. 2387/Ahd/2015). Subsequently, the AO provided another opportunity of being heard to the assessee and then levied a penalty of Rs.1

VADODARA ENVIRO CHANNEL LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EFFLUENT CHANNEL PROJECT LTD.),,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2387/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

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

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

u/s 271(1)(c) was levied by him vide order dated 19-06- I.T.A Nos. 2387/Ahd/15 & 2094/Ahd/17 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 3 Vadodara Enviro Channel Ltd. vs. ACIT 2015 (which is subject matter of ITA No. 2387/Ahd/2015). Subsequently, the AO provided another opportunity of being heard to the assessee and then levied a penalty of Rs.1

THE CO. OP. CRE SOC. OF VIS LIMITED,MEHSANA vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 786/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

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

Section 246Section 246ASection 253Section 260ASection 261Section 263Section 264Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2016-17. I.T.A No. 786/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2016-17 Page No 2 The Co.op Credit Society of VIS Ltd. vs. DCIT 2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case

JADE GRANITES INDUSTRIES,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 81/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad Which Has Arisen From The Appellate Order Dated 23-11-2023 In Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1058173176(1)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act are also initiated separately. [Addition Rs.30,00,000] In support of above discussion relied on following judicial decision: In Tolaram Daga v. CIT (1966) 59 ITR 632 (Gau.) the High Court held that requiring the firm or the individual partner to go further and adduce proof of the sources from which

VINODCHANDRA T PARIKH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 457/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 457/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014 Vinodchandra T. Parikh, I.T.O, 31, Shail, Vs. Ward-2(1)(2), Opp. Madhusudan House, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Shah, A.R with Shri Aman K. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Deelip Kumar Sr., DR
Section 27lSection 54Section 54ESection 54F

penalty proceedings u/s 27l(l)(c). The addition confirmed by the learned CIT(A) deserves to be deleted. The same be deleted now. 2. The Learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not admitting the additional ground and also not considering additional ground raised during the course of Appellate Proceedings. The Additional ground raised be admitted