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 “capital gains”+ Section 271Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Ahmedabad9Bangalore8Mumbai5Chennai3Delhi2SC2Varanasi1Dehradun1Indore1Jaipur1Kolkata1Pune1

Key Topics

Section 40A(3)10Section 2714Penalty3Addition to Income3Section 271A2Section 271B2Disallowance2

P.SENTHIL KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 3397/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3397 & 3398/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2012-13. Shri. P. Senthil Kumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, P-2, Hig Adyar Apartments, Non Corporate Ward 3(3) Kottur Gardens, Chennai. Circular Road, Kotturpuram, Chennai 600 086. [Pan Abbps 1019H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Durai Pandian, Sr. A.R
Section 271BSection 40A(3)

capital account 15,94,487 Purchases for which payments have been made 38,44,069 in cash As per ld. Assessing Officer assessee had violated Sec. 40A(3) of the Act in making cash payments of "38,44,069/-. He made an addition of the said amount and completed assessment. Aggrieved, assessee moved in appeal before ld. 4. Commissioner

P.SENTHIL KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 3398/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3397 & 3398/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2012-13. Shri. P. Senthil Kumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, P-2, Hig Adyar Apartments, Non Corporate Ward 3(3) Kottur Gardens, Chennai. Circular Road, Kotturpuram, Chennai 600 086. [Pan Abbps 1019H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Durai Pandian, Sr. A.R
Section 271BSection 40A(3)

capital account 15,94,487 Purchases for which payments have been made 38,44,069 in cash As per ld. Assessing Officer assessee had violated Sec. 40A(3) of the Act in making cash payments of "38,44,069/-. He made an addition of the said amount and completed assessment. Aggrieved, assessee moved in appeal before ld. 4. Commissioner

D.C.B.ASHOK KUMAR,SIVAKASI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI

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

ITA 2381/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.816/Chny/2013 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Smt. C. Vatsala, CITFor Respondent: 09.01.2019
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

271C of the Act stand on different footings. Further, the consideration under the provisions of s. 271AAA of the Act had come up before Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs. Smt. Ritu Singal 92 taxmann.com 224 (Del.), wherein it was held as follows: “12. Like in that case, the first condition under Section 271AAA