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.

7 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Penny Stockclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai123Delhi37Jaipur36Calcutta35Ahmedabad29Kolkata23Indore13Hyderabad12Bangalore7Surat6Pune6Raipur4Lucknow3Cuttack2Rajkot2Ranchi2Gauhati1Guwahati1Jodhpur1Chennai1Nagpur1Agra1

Key Topics

Capital Gains7Long Term Capital Gains7Exemption6Section 2505Section 271(1)(c)5Penalty5Natural Justice5Section 10(38)3

SHRI. UTTAMCHAND KHATRI,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(2),, BENGALURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 823/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri T. Srinivasa, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Venkatesh, JDIT
Section 10(28)Section 68

penny stock company is negligible. Even though the networth of the company and the business activity of the company is negligible the share prices have been artificially rigged to unusual high. h. Cash trail in the accounts of the entry providers: The investigations in the fund flow analysed in the accounts of the entry providers have established that the cash

SHRI. SUNIL KUMAR JALAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 337/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Shri Sunil Kumar Jalan Vs The Income Tax Officer - 6(3)(1) No.703, 7Th Floor, Ebony Bmtc Building, 80Ft Road A Wing, Godrej Woods Apts 6Th Block, Koramangla Near Hebbal Flyover Bengaluru 560095 Bangalore 560024 Pan – Acdpj0966D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P.K. Prasad, Advocate Revenue By: Dr. Sankar Ganesh K., Addl. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.02.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Cit(A)’S Order Dated 25.11.2019. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: - The Assessee Is An Individual Engaged In Granite Business. For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Return Of Income Was Filed On 28.11.2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.13,52,370/- Consisting Of Income From House Property, Capital Gains & Business Income. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Was Issued On 18.09.2015. The Assessee’S Ar Attended Hearing On 30.12.2016 & 2 Shri Sunil Kumar Jalan Produced The Books Of Accounts & Other Details. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Concluded The Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 30.12.2016 Making The Following Addition: -

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Prasad, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sankar Ganesh K., Addl. CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income – Ta Act.” 5. No contentions were raised with regard to ground Nos. 9 & 10, hence the same are rejected. By Ground Nos. 1 to 5 assessee has raised technical grounds that the AO who passed the assessment order at Madurai did not have inherent and substantive jurisdiction over the assessee

SRI DINESH KUMAR R PATEL (HUF),BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1825/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Respondent: Dr.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Council for DR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of the Act as there was no furnishing of inaccurate particulars at all and the conclusion of the learned AO that penalty is to be initiated is not in accordance with law on the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver with the Hon’ble Chief Commissioner of Income

SRI SHANTHILAL R PATEL,BENGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(4), BENGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1827/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Respondent: Dr.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Council for DR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of the Act as there was no furnishing of inaccurate particulars at all and the conclusion of the learned AO that penalty is to be initiated is not in accordance with law on the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver with the Hon’ble Chief Commissioner of Income

SRI SHATHILAL R PATEL (HUF),BENGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(4), BENGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1828/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Respondent: Dr.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Council for DR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of the Act as there was no furnishing of inaccurate particulars at all and the conclusion of the learned AO that penalty is to be initiated is not in accordance with law on the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver with the Hon’ble Chief Commissioner of Income

SRI DINESH KUMAR R PATEL,BENGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(4), BENGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1826/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Respondent: Dr.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Council for DR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of the Act as there was no furnishing of inaccurate particulars at all and the conclusion of the learned AO that penalty is to be initiated is not in accordance with law on the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver with the Hon’ble Chief Commissioner of Income

SRI DHARAMSI R PATEL (HUF),BENGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(4), BENGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1824/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Respondent: Dr.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Council for DR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of the Act as there was no furnishing of inaccurate particulars at all and the conclusion of the learned AO that penalty is to be initiated is not in accordance with law on the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver with the Hon’ble Chief Commissioner of Income