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.

5 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 183clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi331Mumbai186Karnataka100Bangalore89Raipur52Jaipur42Ahmedabad36Pune26Indore25Allahabad23Chennai23Hyderabad22Chandigarh20Kolkata20Rajkot18Lucknow14Nagpur12Surat9Agra8Patna6Cuttack5Dehradun5Amritsar3Ranchi2Rajasthan2Telangana2Visakhapatnam1Varanasi1Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)22Section 2746Penalty5Section 69A2Section 1542Unexplained Money2Natural Justice2Rectification u/s 1542

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

penalty levied and confirmed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 02. Shri Niranjan panda represented on behalf the assessee and Shri Nishanth Rao B, represented on behalf of the Revenue. 03. In respect of the ITA No. 184/CTK/2025, being the quantum appeal, it was submitted by the Learned AR that the assessee

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

penalty levied and confirmed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 02. Shri Niranjan panda represented on behalf the assessee and Shri Nishanth Rao B, represented on behalf of the Revenue. 03. In respect of the ITA No. 184/CTK/2025, being the quantum appeal, it was submitted by the Learned AR that the assessee

VAIBHAV RAONKA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-4(1), BHUBANESWAR

ITA 193/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Shrichandra Mohan Garg, Judicial

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. .The Tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the assessee, has relied 01 the derision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered In the case of COMMISSIONER or INCOME TAX -VS- MANJUNATHA

VAIBHAV RAONKA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-4(1), BHUBANESWAR

ITA 192/CTK/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 May 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Shrichandra Mohan Garg, Judicial

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. .The Tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the assessee, has relied 01 the derision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered In the case of COMMISSIONER or INCOME TAX -VS- MANJUNATHA

VAIBHAV RAONKA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-4(1), BHUBANESWAR

ITA 191/CTK/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Shrichandra Mohan Garg, Judicial

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. .The Tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the assessee, has relied 01 the derision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered In the case of COMMISSIONER or INCOME TAX -VS- MANJUNATHA