Search: penalty u/s 271 | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

4 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Long Term Capital Gainsclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai733 Delhi622 Jaipur218 Ahmedabad194 Bangalore119 Karnataka103 Kolkata103 Hyderabad92 Pune81 Indore72 Chennai67 Surat66 Visakhapatnam57 Chandigarh47 Raipur44 Calcutta35 Lucknow28 Rajkot26 Ranchi21 Amritsar15 Nagpur14 Agra13 Cuttack11 Patna10 Guwahati6 Jodhpur5 Allahabad4 Telangana4 Dehradun3 Cochin3 Jabalpur2 Varanasi1 Rajasthan1 Gauhati1 Panaji1 SC1

Key Topics

Section 119 Section 2(15)9 Section 143(3)4 Addition to Income4 Section 123 Section 260A3 Section 50C3 Exemption3

M/S GANGA NURSING HOME,,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 186/ALLD/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad10 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 50C

long-term capital gain. Penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is issued on this point

ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 89/ALLD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR

Section 11Section 12Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 260A

u/s section 11. (3) Because the CIT(A) erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of net excess of income over expenditure of Rs.3,00,11,855/ under the head Income from business or profession. (4) Because the CIT(A) erred both on facts and in law in sustaining the addition of Rs.36

ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 87/ALLD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR

Section 11Section 12Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 260A

u/s section 11. (3) Because the CIT(A) erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of net excess of income over expenditure of Rs.3,00,11,855/ under the head Income from business or profession. (4) Because the CIT(A) erred both on facts and in law in sustaining the addition of Rs.36

ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 88/ALLD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR

Section 11Section 12Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 260A

u/s section 11. (3) Because the CIT(A) erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of net excess of income over expenditure of Rs.3,00,11,855/ under the head Income from business or profession. (4) Because the CIT(A) erred both on facts and in law in sustaining the addition of Rs.36