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.

2 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 1Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi190Mumbai169Raipur80Bangalore66Chennai65Jaipur62Rajkot34Ahmedabad31Nagpur28Indore21Kolkata17Pune17Hyderabad15Jabalpur6Surat6Cuttack5Dehradun5Chandigarh4Ranchi3Jodhpur3Panaji3Guwahati3Visakhapatnam2Amritsar2Cochin2Agra2Lucknow1Patna1

Key Topics

Section 69A3Section 2713Section 562Section 142

SH. SHAM LAL,CHANDIGARH vs. D.C.I.T, CENTRAL CIRCLE , AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 267/ASR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 132Section 245C(1)Section 245DSection 245HSection 250Section 271Section 271A

271 AAA and as such the penalty levied by the DCIT at Rs.3545120/- should have been deleted. 7. That the authorities below did not appreciate that there was unfavourable and tight financial position in the market and there was no malafide intention on the part of the assessee for delaying the payment. There was reasonable and sufficient cause

MILLENNIUM REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD,JALANDHAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

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

ITA 653/ASR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: None (Written submission)For Respondent: Sh. Hitendra Bhauraoji Ninawe, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 14Section 14ASection 56Section 69Section 69ASection 71

penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA of the Act vis a vis the issue of substantiating the manner in which undisclosed 8 Millennium Real Estate Developers P. Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT income was derived have held in favour of the assessee company for the same asstt. year 2012-13, vide his orders dated 17.04.2018. the relevant Para (ii) at Page