BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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 273Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Bangalore56Indore45Delhi43Cochin40Mumbai35Surat32Chennai30Jaipur28Hyderabad24Kolkata16Amritsar13Rajkot13Visakhapatnam8Pune8Ahmedabad7Allahabad4Jabalpur4Guwahati3Nagpur3Agra2Raipur2Chandigarh2Cuttack2Jodhpur2

Key Topics

Section 271F8Section 271A4Section 139(1)3Section 92C2Section 143(3)2Section 1392Penalty2

BALWINDER SINGH,SANGRUR vs. ITO, WARD, SUNAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 252/CHANDI/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dev Ahuja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 271F

penalties u/s. 271(1)(b) and u/s. 271F of the Act without considering u/s. 273B of the Act. Applying the provisions of Section

M/S YAMUNA POWER & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,JAGADHRI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1229/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 80ISection 92C

271 AA o f the Act the appellant was asked to provide any details/copies o f account of such transactions. No such notice/questionnaire/order sheet entry in this regard is available on record/file o f the appellant with the department. The Ld. Assessing Officer while levying the impugned penalty has time and again referred to the failure on part