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 260Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi60Mumbai34Indore23Jaipur21Nagpur17Chennai13Hyderabad9Ahmedabad7Pune7Raipur4Bangalore4Lucknow4Agra3Allahabad3Amritsar2Jodhpur1Kolkata1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)18Penalty6Addition to Income6Section 2635Section 684Section 1474Section 2644Section 143(3)3Section 250

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

3
Section 143(1)3
Unexplained Cash Credit3
Natural Justice3

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

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.),,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

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

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