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.

3 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 50C(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai109Delhi101Jaipur44Ahmedabad39Pune19Surat12Chennai12Indore11Hyderabad10Lucknow10Agra9Bangalore8Dehradun7Kolkata7Visakhapatnam6Rajkot5Chandigarh4Ranchi3Nagpur3Allahabad3Raipur2Jodhpur2Amritsar2Patna1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 50C5Section 143(3)3Addition to Income3Section 234A2Section 234B2Section 2712Penalty2Disallowance2

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

50C Rs. 3359000 Total Capital Gain -Rs 6747780 The amount of Rs. 6747780 is added in the total income of the assessee as long-term capital gain. Penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is issued on this point.” 4. The assessee being aggrieved by an assessment framed by the AO filed first appeal with

M/S.H.K.INFRAVENTURES PVT. LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

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

ITA 28/ALLD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. H. K. Infraventure Pvt V. Acit, Central Circle Ltd Allahabad 17, Industrial Colony, Naini 38, Mahatma Gandhi Allahabad-211008. Marg, Allahabad-211001. Pan:Aacch6249K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. H. K. Infraventure Pvt V. Assistant Commissioner Ltd Of Income Tax (Appeals) 17, Industrial Colony, Naini Income Tax Department Allahabad-211008. Nfac Delhi. Pan: Aacch6249K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Praveen Godbole, (Application) Respondent By: Shri. Amalendu Nath Mishra, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 09 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 10 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Godbole, (Application)For Respondent: Shri. Amalendu Nath Mishra
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 271Section 50C

271 (1) (C) by imposition of penalty is totally incorrect, illegal rather baseless, hence penalty is unwarranted. 2. That in any view of the matter the CIT(A) NFAC it totally wrong in directing AO to reduce the penalty instead of CIT(A) NFAC is bound to delete the penalty in the facts and circumstances of the case, hence

H K INFRAVENTURE PVT. LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

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

ITA 120/ALLD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. H. K. Infraventure Pvt V. Acit, Central Circle Ltd Allahabad 17, Industrial Colony, Naini 38, Mahatma Gandhi Allahabad-211008. Marg, Allahabad-211001. Pan:Aacch6249K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. H. K. Infraventure Pvt V. Assistant Commissioner Ltd Of Income Tax (Appeals) 17, Industrial Colony, Naini Income Tax Department Allahabad-211008. Nfac Delhi. Pan: Aacch6249K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Praveen Godbole, (Application) Respondent By: Shri. Amalendu Nath Mishra, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 09 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 10 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Godbole, (Application)For Respondent: Shri. Amalendu Nath Mishra
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 271Section 50C

271 (1) (C) by imposition of penalty is totally incorrect, illegal rather baseless, hence penalty is unwarranted. 2. That in any view of the matter the CIT(A) NFAC it totally wrong in directing AO to reduce the penalty instead of CIT(A) NFAC is bound to delete the penalty in the facts and circumstances of the case, hence