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.

2 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ House Propertyclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi283Mumbai281Jaipur145Bangalore92Ahmedabad70Chennai60Hyderabad51Chandigarh46Pune40Raipur35Kolkata29Indore29Lucknow17Surat16Nagpur12Visakhapatnam9Rajkot9Guwahati7Amritsar7Agra7Cuttack4Patna4Cochin3Allahabad3Dehradun2Ranchi2

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)8Section 153A2Penalty2Addition to Income2

RAJU VERMA,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeals are allowed as indicated above

ITA 7797/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun10 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Juneja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.S. Jangpangi, CIT/DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for nine assessment years, viz., 1998-99 and 2004-05 to 2011- 12. However, presently, we are concerned with assessment years 2010- 11 and 2011-12. 2. Briefly, the facts are, the assessee is a resident individual deriving income from salary, house property

MAYANK SINGH MEHRA,NAINITAL vs. ITO, NAINITAL

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 100/DDN/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M Balaganesh[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Mayank Singh Mehra V Ito Oak Over Cottage, Mallital, S Nainital Nainital, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand Pan: Abipm5085E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Sharad Kumar Vishnoi, Adv Respondent By Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.11.2023 Date Of 23.11.2023 Pronouncement

Section 27(1)Section 271(1)(c)

property amounting to Rs. 28,00,000/-.In response to the statutory notices, the Ld. Representative of the assessee attended the proceedings. The Assessing Officer finding that the assessee failed to explain the source of investment of Rs. 8,99,067/-, he added this amount. Further, he made addition out of low house hold withdrawal and non disclosure of interest