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.

6 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 302clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi184Mumbai148Karnataka101Jaipur79Ahmedabad38Rajkot21Bangalore18Kolkata16Chandigarh15Surat14Ranchi14Kerala14Indore13Lucknow11Pune7Dehradun7Nagpur7Amritsar6Hyderabad6Chennai6Guwahati4Cochin3Raipur3Cuttack2Visakhapatnam2Rajasthan1Jodhpur1Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 269S12Section 271(1)(c)10Section 2716Section 271D6Penalty6Addition to Income6Section 143(3)5Section 274Section 44

M/S KASHMIR STEEL ROLLING MILLS,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 548/ASR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 548/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Bansal (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

u/s. 271(1)(c). This is precisely what stands clarified by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Madhushree Gupta & Ors v. Union of India [2009] 317 ITR 107 (Del), a copious decision rendered under writ jurisdiction on a challenge to the vires of the provision (section 271(1B)). Upholding its’ constitutionality, it again emphasized on the primacy

SHRI SUKHDEV SINGH PROP KARNAIL SINGH SUKHDEV SINGH,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(4), AMRITSAR

3
Section 272A2
Disallowance2

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

ITA 107/ASR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Ghansham Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 44

302/- declared by the appellant in the return of income. The argument of Ld. AR that the addition has been made on a mere difference of opinion is rejected. The addition to the returned income has been made in this case on the basis of cash credits in the bank account of the appellant which were far in excess

SHRI BALBIR SINGH M/S JAIDEEP GIFT CENTRE TAPTEJ SINGH MARKET,MOGA vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MOGA RANGE MOGA, MOGA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 746/ASR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Radhey Shyam Jaiswal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 27Section 271D

u/s 271 E/27 ID is not called for. In the case of CIT Vs. Sunil Kumar Goel, (2009) 315 ITR 163 (P&H) it has been mentioned that under section 273B, the assessee is permitted to show cause and tender explanation. The explanation of the assessee was found to be bona fide by the tribunal and it was also held

SHRI BALBIR SINGH M/S JAIDEEP GIFT CENTRE, TAPTEJ SINGH MARKET ,MOGA vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MOGA RANGE , MOGA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 745/ASR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Radhey Shyam Jaiswal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 27Section 271D

u/s 271 E/27 ID is not called for. In the case of CIT Vs. Sunil Kumar Goel, (2009) 315 ITR 163 (P&H) it has been mentioned that under section 273B, the assessee is permitted to show cause and tender explanation. The explanation of the assessee was found to be bona fide by the tribunal and it was also held

INDIAN TOOL TECHNOLOGY CENTRE,JALANDHAR vs. ITO, WARD 1(1) , JALANDHAR

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

ITA 262/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, C.A
Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 56

section 57(iii) of the Act 61. 9. Now, in course of hearing the Ld. AR, of the assessee submitted that an appeal has been filed against the tribunal order dated 21st February, 2022, before the Hon’ble jurisdictional Punjab and Haryana High court (ITA-249-2022) (DN 7297542) and the matter is still sub-judice

SHRI SUKHBIR SINGH BEDI,GURDASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, GURDASPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical

ITA 122/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri P.N. AroraFor Respondent: Shri Pardeep Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271A(1)(d)Section 272ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

u/s 69A. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant is on appeal. 4. The hearing in this case was fixed on the following dates with due intimation electronically: I.T.A. No. 122/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 4 SL. NO. SL. NO. SL. NO. SL. NO. DATE OF NOTICE DATE OF NOTICE DATE OF NOTICE DATE OF NOTICE DATE OF HEARING DATE