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.

12 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 260clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai280Delhi263Karnataka117Jaipur49Ahmedabad42Kolkata36Calcutta34Chennai29Indore29Pune27Bangalore24Visakhapatnam15Chandigarh14Cuttack12Panaji12Lucknow12Hyderabad10Agra8Guwahati7Cochin7Surat7Rajkot4Amritsar4Allahabad2Raipur2SC2Telangana2Jodhpur1Patna1Rajasthan1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)12Penalty10Addition to Income9Section 1478Section 269S8Section 143(1)5Section 1484Section 271D4Section 21(5)

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

260 ITR 590), it was held by Honourable Rajasthan High Court that when section 271D of the Income-tax Act, is read with section 273B of the Act of 1961 which begins with the non obstante clause "notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of section 271D", it is clear that in spite of the provisions of section 271D, the enactment

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
2
Section 1492
Reopening of Assessment2
Search & Seizure2
18 Sept 2024
AY 2012-13
Section 132Section 269SSection 271D

260 ITR 590), it was held by Honourable Rajasthan High Court that when section 271D of the Income-tax Act, is read with section 273B of the Act of 1961 which begins with the non obstante clause "notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of section 271D", it is clear that in spite of the provisions of section 271D, the enactment

MIRA DEVI DASRAPURIA,KHURDA vs. ITO, KHURDA WARD, KHURDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 363/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack31 Aug 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.363/Ctk/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Smt. Mira Devi Dasrapuria, Vs. Ito, Khurda Main Road, Khurda-752055 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abkpm 8607 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Mahesh Kumar Agarwalla,Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Pradhan,Citdr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 24/08/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 31/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 15.7.2016, Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0317/15-16, U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2011- 2012. 2. The Assessee Has Challenged The Action Of Cit(A) In Confirming The Penalty Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act, Though The Assessee Has Furnished Information & Accepted The Income In The Course Of Assessment Proceedings. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is In The Business Of Retail Trading In Cement & Iron Materials & Wholesale Distributor Of Airtel Rcv & Filed The Return Of Income Electronically For The Assessment Year 2010-2011 On 29.09.2011 With Total Income Of Rs.1,81,000/- & The Return Of Income Was Processed U/S.143(1) Of The Act. Subsequently

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Kumar Agarwalla,ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan,CITDR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274(1)

260/- and passed the order u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 26.3.2014. Subsequently the AO issued 3 penalty notice u/s.274(1) r.w.s.275(1)(c) of the Act and the assessee has filed written submissions and prayed for dropping the penalty proceedings. The AO considered the findings of assessment and the submissions made in the course of assessment proceedings and explanations

JAGADISH LAL GUGNANI,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, BHUBANESWAR

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

ITA 2/CTK/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack10 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri C.Parida, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

penalty of Rs.1,23,796/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual derives income from trading of shares & stocks and filed the return of income for Asse ssment Year : 20 06- 07 the assessment year 2006-07 on 30.10.2006 disclosing total income of Rs.97

BIKASH DEB,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 388/CTK/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.357 & 388/Ctk/2019 /2019 Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010 10 & 2010-11 Bikash Dev Bikash Dev, Flat No.101, Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle-2(1), Haraprity Haraprity Apar Apartment, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Vivekananda Vivekananda Marg, Marg, Old Old Town, Bhubaneswar. Town, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Ahepd 0737 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.K.Bal, Adv K.K.Bal, Adv Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/01 01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/01 /01/2023 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri K.K.Bal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 21(5)

section 149 in fact require a quantification to be in excess of amount of Rs.1 lakh. It was the submission that even this has not been mentioned by the Assessing Officer. It was the submission that though the Assessing Officer mentions a show cause notice in respect of penalty of Rs.243.48 crores issued by the State Government, the assessee

BIKASH DEB,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT CIRCLE- 2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 357/CTK/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.357 & 388/Ctk/2019 /2019 Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010 10 & 2010-11 Bikash Dev Bikash Dev, Flat No.101, Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle-2(1), Haraprity Haraprity Apar Apartment, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Vivekananda Vivekananda Marg, Marg, Old Old Town, Bhubaneswar. Town, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Ahepd 0737 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.K.Bal, Adv K.K.Bal, Adv Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/01 01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/01 /01/2023 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri K.K.Bal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 21(5)

section 149 in fact require a quantification to be in excess of amount of Rs.1 lakh. It was the submission that even this has not been mentioned by the Assessing Officer. It was the submission that though the Assessing Officer mentions a show cause notice in respect of penalty of Rs.243.48 crores issued by the State Government, the assessee

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE,, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. MAA TARINI MINERALS PVT.LIMITED, SUNDARGARH

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 269/CTK/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri S.C.BhadraFor Respondent: N o n e
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

u/s. 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, related to illegal mining without referring to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P. (C) No. 114/2014 (2017) in the case of Common Cause Vs. Union of India and Ors. 4. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 9. Perusal of Ground No.1 shows

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. TARINI MINERALS PVT. LIMITED, SUNDARGARH

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 271/CTK/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri S.C.BhadraFor Respondent: N o n e
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

u/s. 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, related to illegal mining without referring to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P. (C) No. 114/2014 (2017) in the case of Common Cause Vs. Union of India and Ors. 4. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 9. Perusal of Ground No.1 shows

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. TARINI MINERALS PVT. LIMITED, SUNDARGARH

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 270/CTK/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri S.C.BhadraFor Respondent: N o n e
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

u/s. 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, related to illegal mining without referring to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P. (C) No. 114/2014 (2017) in the case of Common Cause Vs. Union of India and Ors. 4. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 9. Perusal of Ground No.1 shows

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. TARINI MINERALS PVT. LIMITED, SUNDARGARH

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 272/CTK/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri S.C.BhadraFor Respondent: N o n e
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

u/s. 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, related to illegal mining without referring to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P. (C) No. 114/2014 (2017) in the case of Common Cause Vs. Union of India and Ors. 4. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 9. Perusal of Ground No.1 shows

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. TARINI MINERALS PVT. LIMITED, SUNDARGARH

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 268/CTK/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri S.C.BhadraFor Respondent: N o n e
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

u/s. 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, related to illegal mining without referring to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P. (C) No. 114/2014 (2017) in the case of Common Cause Vs. Union of India and Ors. 4. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 9. Perusal of Ground No.1 shows

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. TARINI MINERALS PVT. LTD., ROURKELA

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 273/CTK/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri S.C.BhadraFor Respondent: N o n e
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

u/s. 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, related to illegal mining without referring to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P. (C) No. 114/2014 (2017) in the case of Common Cause Vs. Union of India and Ors. 4. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 9. Perusal of Ground No.1 shows