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.

21 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 270A(3)(i)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai119Delhi75Jaipur56Chennai50Bangalore49Pune28Cochin28Indore26Ahmedabad21Hyderabad21Rajkot16Cuttack15Patna12Agra11Raipur11Surat8Nagpur8Lucknow7Amritsar7Visakhapatnam4Kolkata4Ranchi3Chandigarh3Guwahati2Dehradun2Allahabad2Jodhpur2

Key Topics

Section 271A49Section 92C28Penalty21Section 271(1)(c)19Addition to Income19Section 270A14Section 143(3)9Section 92D8Section 143

MAHAVEER SINGH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 840/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234FSection 263(1)Section 270ASection 270A(2)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 44A

3. The order u/s 263 passed by the PCIT -1 on 25/03/2025 modifying the assessment order for initiation and levy of penalty is submitted to be erroneous and without jurisdictional. 4. The decisions mentioned in the order are submitted to be not applicable to the facts of the assessee. 5. On the facts of the assessee no order u/s

Showing 1–20 of 21 · Page 1 of 2

7
Section 1327
Transfer Pricing7
Cash Deposit6

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 319/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 92CSection 92D

270A or section 271 or section 271BA if any person in respect of an international transaction or specified domestic transaction, - (i) fails to keep and maintain any such information and document as required by sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 920, (ii) fails to report such transaction which he is required to do so, or (iii) maintains

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), GUJARAT vs. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 321/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 92CSection 92D

270A or section 271 or section 271BA if any person in respect of an international transaction or specified domestic transaction, - (i) fails to keep and maintain any such information and document as required by sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 920, (ii) fails to report such transaction which he is required to do so, or (iii) maintains

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 322/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 92CSection 92D

270A or section 271 or section 271BA if any person in respect of an international transaction or specified domestic transaction, - (i) fails to keep and maintain any such information and document as required by sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 920, (ii) fails to report such transaction which he is required to do so, or (iii) maintains

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 324/AHD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 92CSection 92D

270A or section 271 or section 271BA if any person in respect of an international transaction or specified domestic transaction, - (i) fails to keep and maintain any such information and document as required by sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 920, (ii) fails to report such transaction which he is required to do so, or (iii) maintains

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD, GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 323/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 92CSection 92D

270A or section 271 or section 271BA if any person in respect of an international transaction or specified domestic transaction, - (i) fails to keep and maintain any such information and document as required by sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 920, (ii) fails to report such transaction which he is required to do so, or (iii) maintains

VIKAS VIJAY GUPTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby\ndismissed

ITA 404/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President\nAnd Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member\nITA No. 404/Ahd/2024\nAssessment Year 2017-18\nVikas Vijay Gupta\nPrincipal Commissioner\n604 Sarap,\nof Income Tax,\nOpp. Navjivan Press Vs Ahmedabad-1,\nP.O. Navjivan,\nAhmedabad\nAhmedabad-380014,\nGujarat\n(Respondent)\nPAN: AEOPG6723L\n(Appellant)\nAssessee Represented: Shri Jaimin Shah, A.R.\nRevenue Represented: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT-DR\nDate of hearing : 27-02-2025\nDate of pronouncement : 27-05-2025\nआदे

Section 115BSection 147Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 69A

3. As per section 263 of the Act, the PCIT when found the\nassessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of\nRevenue, after offerding opportunity of hearing to the assessee,\npass revision order to enhance or modify the assessment, or\ncancel and direct to pass fresh assessment. In the present case\nLd PCIT in exercise of power conferred

NARAYANBHAI SHIVABHAI PATEL,MEHSANA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1357/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(6)Section 270A(6)(a)Section 270A(6)(b)Section 56(2)(x)

3. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming penalty of Rs 4,75,800/- u/s.270A of the 1.T. Act 1961 levied by Ld. AO as appellant case falls under Section 270A(6)(a) of the Act, i.e., exception to underreported income

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 320/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, Judicial Member\nAnd Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 92CSection 92D

270A or\nsection 271 or section 271BA if any person in respect of an\ninternational transaction or specified domestic transaction, -\n(i) fails to keep and maintain any such information and document as\nrequired by sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 920,\n(ii) fails to report such transaction which he is required

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD, GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 318/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, Judicial Member\nAnd Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 92CSection 92D

270A or\nsection 271 or section 271BA if any person in respect of an\ninternational transaction or specified domestic transaction, -\n\n(i) fails to keep and maintain any such information and document as\nrequired by sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 920,\n(ii) fails to report such transaction which he is required

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 2616/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 234ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is also allowed for statistical purposes. 22. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal for A.Y. 2018-19: “1. The Learned CIT(A) also erred in dismissing the appeal as time-barred without appreciating that the delay was due to bona fide belief of exemption under section

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 2613/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 234ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is also allowed for statistical purposes. 22. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal for A.Y. 2018-19: “1. The Learned CIT(A) also erred in dismissing the appeal as time-barred without appreciating that the delay was due to bona fide belief of exemption under section

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 2614/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 234ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is also allowed for statistical purposes. 22. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal for A.Y. 2018-19: “1. The Learned CIT(A) also erred in dismissing the appeal as time-barred without appreciating that the delay was due to bona fide belief of exemption under section

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 2615/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 234ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is also allowed for statistical purposes. 22. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal for A.Y. 2018-19: “1. The Learned CIT(A) also erred in dismissing the appeal as time-barred without appreciating that the delay was due to bona fide belief of exemption under section

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 2612/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 234ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is also allowed for statistical purposes. 22. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal for A.Y. 2018-19: “1. The Learned CIT(A) also erred in dismissing the appeal as time-barred without appreciating that the delay was due to bona fide belief of exemption under section

UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,MEHSANA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, Ground No

ITA 292/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT DR
Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)

271(1)(c) of the Act, the same are consequential, hence not adjudicated at this juncture. 48. Therefore, ITA No. 446/Ahd/2018 for A.Y. 2014-15 filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.” 18. In the result, Ground No. 3 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Ground No. 4: claim of set off of brought forward business

UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,MEHSANA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, Ground No

ITA 294/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT DR
Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)

271(1)(c) of the Act, the same are consequential, hence not adjudicated at this juncture. 48. Therefore, ITA No. 446/Ahd/2018 for A.Y. 2014-15 filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.” 18. In the result, Ground No. 3 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Ground No. 4: claim of set off of brought forward business

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED, MEHSANA

In the result, Ground No

ITA 269/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT DR
Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)

271(1)(c) of the Act, the same are consequential, hence not adjudicated at this juncture. 48. Therefore, ITA No. 446/Ahd/2018 for A.Y. 2014-15 filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.” 18. In the result, Ground No. 3 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Ground No. 4: claim of set off of brought forward business

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED, MEHSANA

In the result, Ground No

ITA 270/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT DR
Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)

271(1)(c) of the Act, the same are consequential, hence not adjudicated at this juncture. 48. Therefore, ITA No. 446/Ahd/2018 for A.Y. 2014-15 filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.” 18. In the result, Ground No. 3 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Ground No. 4: claim of set off of brought forward business

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED, MEHSANA

In the result, Ground No

ITA 271/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT DR
Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)

271(1)(c) of the Act, the same are consequential, hence not adjudicated at this juncture. 48. Therefore, ITA No. 446/Ahd/2018 for A.Y. 2014-15 filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.” 18. In the result, Ground No. 3 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Ground No. 4: claim of set off of brought forward business