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.

10 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 195(6)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi168Mumbai152Bangalore53Ahmedabad33Chandigarh33Jaipur30Raipur27Kolkata17Chennai14Indore13Pune11Amritsar10Lucknow8Hyderabad7Surat4Cochin4Allahabad3Nagpur2

Key Topics

Section 250(6)10Section 143(3)10Addition to Income10

MEASAGE G. G. OILS AND FATS PRIVATE LIMITED,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 1, BATHINDA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the appeals

ITA 494/ASR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

6. The ld. DR vehemently argued and invited our attention in assessment order page 8 para 12 is reproduced as below: “12. The assessee, vide notice u/s 142(1) dated 28.08.2018 was specifically required to Rs.32.17 lakh as other interest related to its business activities. The assessee failed to Similarly, the assessee failed to explain how interest

MEASAGE G. G. CONTINENTAL TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the appeals

ITA 495/ASR/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed
ITAT Amritsar
24 May 2023
AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

6. The ld. DR vehemently argued and invited our attention in assessment order page 8 para 12 is reproduced as below: “12. The assessee, vide notice u/s 142(1) dated 28.08.2018 was specifically required to Rs.32.17 lakh as other interest related to its business activities. The assessee failed to Similarly, the assessee failed to explain how interest

SHRI GURDAS GARG,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the appeals

ITA 498/ASR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

6. The ld. DR vehemently argued and invited our attention in assessment order page 8 para 12 is reproduced as below: “12. The assessee, vide notice u/s 142(1) dated 28.08.2018 was specifically required to Rs.32.17 lakh as other interest related to its business activities. The assessee failed to Similarly, the assessee failed to explain how interest

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA vs. MEASAGE G.G.OILS AND FAITS PRIVATE LIMITED, BATHINDA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the appeals

ITA 505/ASR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

6. The ld. DR vehemently argued and invited our attention in assessment order page 8 para 12 is reproduced as below: “12. The assessee, vide notice u/s 142(1) dated 28.08.2018 was specifically required to Rs.32.17 lakh as other interest related to its business activities. The assessee failed to Similarly, the assessee failed to explain how interest

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 1 , BATHINDA vs. MEASAGE G. G CONTINENTAL TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED, BATHINDA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the appeals

ITA 506/ASR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

6. The ld. DR vehemently argued and invited our attention in assessment order page 8 para 12 is reproduced as below: “12. The assessee, vide notice u/s 142(1) dated 28.08.2018 was specifically required to Rs.32.17 lakh as other interest related to its business activities. The assessee failed to Similarly, the assessee failed to explain how interest

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA vs. SHRI GURDAS GARG, BATHINDA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the appeals

ITA 507/ASR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

6. The ld. DR vehemently argued and invited our attention in assessment order page 8 para 12 is reproduced as below: “12. The assessee, vide notice u/s 142(1) dated 28.08.2018 was specifically required to Rs.32.17 lakh as other interest related to its business activities. The assessee failed to Similarly, the assessee failed to explain how interest

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 1, BATHINDA vs. SHRI GURDAS GARG, BATHINDA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the appeals

ITA 508/ASR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

6. The ld. DR vehemently argued and invited our attention in assessment order page 8 para 12 is reproduced as below: “12. The assessee, vide notice u/s 142(1) dated 28.08.2018 was specifically required to Rs.32.17 lakh as other interest related to its business activities. The assessee failed to Similarly, the assessee failed to explain how interest

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA vs. MEASAGE GURDAS AGRO PRIVATE LIMITED, BATHINDA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the appeals

ITA 510/ASR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

6. The ld. DR vehemently argued and invited our attention in assessment order page 8 para 12 is reproduced as below: “12. The assessee, vide notice u/s 142(1) dated 28.08.2018 was specifically required to Rs.32.17 lakh as other interest related to its business activities. The assessee failed to Similarly, the assessee failed to explain how interest

SHRI GURDAS GARG,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 1, BATHINDA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the appeals

ITA 516/ASR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

6. The ld. DR vehemently argued and invited our attention in assessment order page 8 para 12 is reproduced as below: “12. The assessee, vide notice u/s 142(1) dated 28.08.2018 was specifically required to Rs.32.17 lakh as other interest related to its business activities. The assessee failed to Similarly, the assessee failed to explain how interest

MEASAGE GURDAS AGRO PRIVATE LIMITED,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 1 , BATHINDA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the appeals

ITA 517/ASR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

6. The ld. DR vehemently argued and invited our attention in assessment order page 8 para 12 is reproduced as below: “12. The assessee, vide notice u/s 142(1) dated 28.08.2018 was specifically required to Rs.32.17 lakh as other interest related to its business activities. The assessee failed to Similarly, the assessee failed to explain how interest