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”+ Section 246clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi261Mumbai155Karnataka129Jaipur76Kolkata50Bangalore45Hyderabad36Ahmedabad35Pune34Chennai32Raipur28Lucknow22Indore21Nagpur12Surat10Agra9Chandigarh7Cuttack7Visakhapatnam6Cochin6Allahabad5Jodhpur4SC3Amritsar3Rajkot3Dehradun2Telangana2Guwahati1Varanasi1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)20Section 142(1)20Section 269S8Addition to Income7Section 1475Section 1445Section 92C5Transfer Pricing5Section 271D

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. HOTEL SUKHAMAYA PVT. LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 205/CTK/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Sept 2024AY 2009-10
Section 132Section 269SSection 271D

246), the assessee, a credit co-operative society, had repaid deposits to the tune of Rs.74,08,545/- in cash to various persons during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1998-99. The Joint Commissioner issued a notice under section 274 read with section 271E of the Income-tax Act to the assessee. The assessee's submission

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. HOTEL SUKHAMAYA PVT. LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 206/CTK/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack
4
Section 1322
Penalty2
Search & Seizure2
18 Sept 2024
AY 2012-13
Section 132Section 269SSection 271D

246), the assessee, a credit co-operative society, had repaid deposits to the tune of Rs.74,08,545/- in cash to various persons during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1998-99. The Joint Commissioner issued a notice under section 274 read with section 271E of the Income-tax Act to the assessee. The assessee's submission

ACIT,CIRCLE-1(1), SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. TRL KROSAKI REFRACTORIES LIMITED, JHARASUGUDHA

In the result, appeals of the revenue for the assessment years 2010-

ITA 262/CTK/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No.260 260/Ctk/2020: Assessment Year Assessment Year :2010-2011

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajit Korde/Bunty SharmaFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 92C

penalty notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(l)(c ) of the Act. In nutshell, order cannot be said an invalid one because the sum and substance of the order regarding proposed adjustment is on a strong footing and cannot be challenged. The procedural lapse is a rectifiable mistake without altering the crux of the case. b) The failure to adhere

ACIT(CIRCLE-1(1),, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. TRL KROSAKI REFRACTORIES LIMITED, JHARSUGUDHA

In the result, appeals of the revenue for the assessment years 2010-

ITA 261/CTK/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No.260 260/Ctk/2020: Assessment Year Assessment Year :2010-2011

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajit Korde/Bunty SharmaFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 92C

penalty notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(l)(c ) of the Act. In nutshell, order cannot be said an invalid one because the sum and substance of the order regarding proposed adjustment is on a strong footing and cannot be challenged. The procedural lapse is a rectifiable mistake without altering the crux of the case. b) The failure to adhere

ACIT,CIRCLE-1(1), SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. TRL KROSAKI REFRACTORIES LIMITED, JHARSUGUDHA

In the result, appeals of the revenue for the assessment years 2010-

ITA 263/CTK/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No.260 260/Ctk/2020: Assessment Year Assessment Year :2010-2011

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajit Korde/Bunty SharmaFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 92C

penalty notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(l)(c ) of the Act. In nutshell, order cannot be said an invalid one because the sum and substance of the order regarding proposed adjustment is on a strong footing and cannot be challenged. The procedural lapse is a rectifiable mistake without altering the crux of the case. b) The failure to adhere

ACIT,CIRCLE-1(1),, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. TRL KROSAKI REFRACTORIES LIMITED, JHARSUGUDHA

In the result, appeals of the revenue for the assessment years 2010-

ITA 264/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No.260 260/Ctk/2020: Assessment Year Assessment Year :2010-2011

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajit Korde/Bunty SharmaFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 92C

penalty notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(l)(c ) of the Act. In nutshell, order cannot be said an invalid one because the sum and substance of the order regarding proposed adjustment is on a strong footing and cannot be challenged. The procedural lapse is a rectifiable mistake without altering the crux of the case. b) The failure to adhere

ACIT,CIRCLE-1(!), SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. TRL KROSAKI REFRACTORIES LIMITED, JHARSUGUDHA

In the result, appeals of the revenue for the assessment years 2010-

ITA 260/CTK/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No.260 260/Ctk/2020: Assessment Year Assessment Year :2010-2011

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajit Korde/Bunty SharmaFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 92C

penalty notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(l)(c ) of the Act. In nutshell, order cannot be said an invalid one because the sum and substance of the order regarding proposed adjustment is on a strong footing and cannot be challenged. The procedural lapse is a rectifiable mistake without altering the crux of the case. b) The failure to adhere