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.

3 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Survey u/s 133Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi85Bangalore83Mumbai82Hyderabad65Pune58Jaipur55Rajkot40Indore29Chennai29Ahmedabad23Kolkata22Amritsar19Chandigarh19Patna16Ranchi15Surat15Nagpur8Lucknow7Jodhpur7Raipur6Visakhapatnam5Cuttack4Guwahati4Allahabad3Panaji3Cochin3Jabalpur1Dehradun1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)3Addition to Income3Survey u/s 133A3Section 145(3)2

NEERAJ AGRAWAL,,MIRZAPUR vs. DCIT, MIRZAPUR

ITA 100/ALLD/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad14 Mar 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri. Divyanshu Agrawal, Adv.,Shri RajeevFor Respondent: Shri. A.K. Singh Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is being initiated separately for concealment of income. Addition of Rs. 78,059/-/” 4c. The AO further observed that there are cash deposits recorded in the cash books maintained by the assessee, which were found during the course of survey operations u/s 133A

DCIT CIRCLE-3, MIRZAPUR vs. SHRI NEERAJ AGRAWAL, MIRZAPUR

ITA 138/ALLD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad14 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri. Divyanshu Agrawal, Adv.,Shri RajeevFor Respondent: Shri. A.K. Singh Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is being initiated separately for concealment of income. Addition of Rs. 78,059/-/” 4c. The AO further observed that there are cash deposits recorded in the cash books maintained by the assessee, which were found during the course of survey operations u/s 133A

M/S JYOTI ERECTORS PVT LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 77/ALLD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad27 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 M/S Jyoti Erectors Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Near Amar Ujala Press Gt, Road, Circle-2, Allahabad Bamrauli, Allahabad, U.P. Pan:Aaccj0409K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.12.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Allahabad Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 18.02.2020. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Were As Under:- “1. That In Any View Of The Matter The Assessment Order Dated 30/12/2018 Framed U/S 143(3) Of The It Act Is Bad Both On The Facts & In Law & Vide Such Order The Income So Determined At Rs. 63,12,477/- In Arbitrary Manner Is Unjustified & Wrong Hence The Declared Income Of Rs. 18,86,600/- On The Basis Of Closed Books Of Accounts Should Have Been Accepted In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2- That In Any View Of The Matter The Addition Of Rs. 44,25,877/- As Made By The Assessing Officer By Applying A Net Rate Of 7 Percent On Declared Receipt Of Rs. 9,01,78,242/- By Ignoring Closed Books Of Accounts Is Highly Unjustified & Wrong & Also Provisions Of Section 145(3) Of The It Act Has Been Wrongly Invoked. Moreover No Comparable Case Has Been Cited By The Assessing Officer In The Assessment Order For Applying Such Higher Net Profit Rate Nor Past History In Assessee Own Case Was Considered Hence The Addition So Made By The Assessing Officer & Confirmed By Cit(A) Is Highly Unjustified.

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250

u/s 143(3) of the IT Act is bad both on the facts and in law and vide such order the income so determined at Rs. 63,12,477/- in arbitrary manner is unjustified and wrong hence the declared income of Rs. 18,86,600/- on the basis of closed books of accounts should have been accepted