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.

2 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 56(2)(viib)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi43Mumbai24Indore8Pune7Kolkata5Raipur4Chandigarh3Ahmedabad2Amritsar2Hyderabad2Jaipur2Nagpur2Cochin1Bangalore1SC1Surat1Visakhapatnam1

Key Topics

Section 35D2Section 682Disallowance2Addition to Income2

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CIRCLE-3, FEROZEPUR vs. MEASAGE OM SONS MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, FARIDKOT

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

ITA 407/ASR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

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

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 37(1)Section 56(2)(viib)

section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, the amount of Rs.3,38,60,465/- is added back to the returned income of the assessee. I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Penalty proceedings u/s 271

M/S. KING ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,NAWANSHAHR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 523/ASR/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar19 Dec 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. N. K. Choudhry & Sh. O. P. Meenai.T.A. No. 523/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Written SubmissionsFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Kumar CIT-DR
Section 2Section 2(24)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35DSection 56Section 68

viib) of sub-section 2 of section 56 could be treated as income. However, no such exercise was done and addition was made. The Ld CIT(A) did not give any clear findings that the addition was deleted but from the order it is cleared that addition was deleted or intended to be deleted because he only confirmed addition