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.

3 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Rectification u/s 154clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai71Chennai47Delhi43Jaipur31Visakhapatnam20Indore17Chandigarh13Ahmedabad13Kolkata12Hyderabad10Bangalore10Agra9Lucknow8Nagpur6Raipur6Rajkot6Pune5Allahabad4Cochin3Jabalpur3Cuttack3Surat1Amritsar1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)10Section 1545Section 271(1)(b)5Section 69A4Section 543Unexplained Money3Penalty3Rectification u/s 1543Section 2502

PRAFULLA KUMAR ROUTRAY,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

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

ITA 175/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 154Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 54Section 69A

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) was initiated. Thereafter, an order u/s 154 dated 29/05/2020 was passed which stated that a mistake has crept in the assessment order wherein inadvertently section 271(1)(b) was mentioned in place of correct section 272A(1)(d). It stated that provisions of section 271(1)(b) were applicable till

Section 272A(1)(d)2
Natural Justice2

MONALISA PRADHAN,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO WARD-3(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

ITA 184/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Niranjan panda, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nishanth Rao B, DR
Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

u/s 154 of the Act filed by the assessee, the AO instead of verifying the details questioned the assessee as to why the assessee did not provide the clarifications before the NaFAC and rejected the rectification application. It was the submission that he had no objections if the issue was restored to the file

MONALISA PRADHAN,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO WARD-3(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

ITA 183/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Niranjan panda, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nishanth Rao B, DR
Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

u/s 154 of the Act filed by the assessee, the AO instead of verifying the details questioned the assessee as to why the assessee did not provide the clarifications before the NaFAC and rejected the rectification application. It was the submission that he had no objections if the issue was restored to the file