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 254(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai511Delhi437Surat184Karnataka103Jaipur99Ahmedabad76Pune54Chandigarh46Indore43Kolkata42Bangalore38Raipur37Calcutta34Chennai33Hyderabad30Rajkot21Lucknow21Varanasi9Guwahati6Patna6Allahabad5Visakhapatnam5Nagpur4Amritsar3Cochin3Panaji2Dehradun2Rajasthan2Jodhpur1Jabalpur1Agra1Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 27110Penalty3Section 44A2Section 442Section 2(22)(e)2Section 2742Addition to Income2

M/S. SURYA AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED,ABOHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 348/ASR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Krinwant Sahayaftfrcf ^T./Ita No. 348/Asr/2023 / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Surya Automobiles Pvt The Dcit, <Shh Circle Ii, Ltd., Near Dav Campus, Bhatinda Hanumangarh Road, Abohar ^|41<^H./Pan No: Aafcs271 In Ul^^Ff/Respondent Appellant

For Appellant: Shri P.N. Arora, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Neelam Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 44

penalty 4. of Rs. 6,90,000/- imposed u/s Section Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income t Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') of the Act. During the proceeding before us, the Id. Counsel for the Assessee has filed written submissions which is reproduced as under: - “That the appellant is a private limited, company engaged in the business

SH. PREM PAL GANDHI,NAWANSHAHR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- II, JALANDHAR

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

ITA 455/ASR/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar04 May 2022AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: None (Written submission)For Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 2(22)(e)Section 27Section 271Section 274

2(22)(e), the company stated that the advance was given for the personal needs of the director and also the payment had been made to a third party. Accordingly, this advance to the assessee by M/s. Walia Traders Limited was treated as deemed dividend and taxed in his hands. 3.1 In the penalty proceeding, the AO stated that

JAGTAR SINGH BRAR PROP. JAGTAR SINGH SADHU SINGH,BAGAPURANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, MOGA, MOGA

In the result, the penalty imposed u/s 271(1) (c) amounting to Rs

ITA 70/ASR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Abhinav Vijh, C.A
Section 133(6)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

u/s 274 dated 22/12/2017, being technically defective. 9. The Ld AR has filed a written submission in course of the hearing and submitted that no penalty can be levied in cases where income has been estimated and has relied on the decision of the jurisdictional High court in the case of CIT vs Sangrur Vanaspati Mills