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.

4 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 251(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi437Mumbai312Karnataka109Jaipur100Indore85Ahmedabad80Raipur74Hyderabad64Bangalore59Kolkata51Chennai49Chandigarh44Pune37Allahabad20Lucknow17Rajkot16Cochin15Surat15Nagpur11Patna11Dehradun10Agra10Guwahati7Jabalpur6Jodhpur4Amritsar4Telangana2Varanasi2Rajasthan1Ranchi1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)13Section 2744Penalty4Addition to Income4Section 143(3)2

MESERS MALWA MOTORS,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 131/ASR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 131/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13 vide order dated 17.7.2015. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee, a firm in the business of sale and service of vehicles, returned its’ income for the year on 30/9/2012 at Rs.2625, setting off brought forward

SH. MANINDER SINGH PROP. M/S DASHMESH BRICKS,BATHINDA vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 440/ASR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A No.440/Asr/2017 Assessment Year:2011-12

For Appellant: Written SubmissionsFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R)
Section 268ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

u/s. 271(1)(c), also exhibiting as to how these are, thus, different from the assessment proceedings. A plausible explanation, thus, saves penalty. The requirement of substantiation, it may be appreciated, is toward establishing the truth of the explanation furnished. The burden to so explain is though on the assessee, failing which the assessee is deemed by law to have

SH. RUCHI SHARMA,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 135/ASR/2017[200910]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar08 Mar 2019

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 135/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Pankaj Gandotra (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11 vide order dated 26.03.2015. 2. The assessee, a manufacturer of resin and turpentine oil from resin procured from the forest department, was during assessment proceedings found to have advanced loan/s to its’ sister concern, M/s. P.R. Chemicals, on interest free

SMT. KAMAL GANDHI,NAWANSHEHAR vs. A.C.I.T, CENTRAL CIRCLE- II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 458/ASR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 458/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. M. R. Bhagat & Rajinder Kumar ChopraFor Respondent: Smt. Parwinder Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

2 Kamal Gandhi v. Asst. CIT The assessee explained the same to be her streedhan, for which a credit of Rs.6 lacs was allowed by the Assessing Officer (AO), making an addition for the balance Rs.13.29 lacs vide order u/s. 144 dated 28.12.2011. In appeal, the ld. CIT(A) allowed a further relief of Rs.8.29 lacs on the basis that