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 46Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi212Mumbai131Jaipur60Ahmedabad56Kolkata26Hyderabad26Allahabad19Pune18Amritsar13Indore12Chandigarh12Chennai12Rajkot11Lucknow11Bangalore9Agra9Raipur7Guwahati5Dehradun5Surat5Cochin4Panaji3Visakhapatnam2Jodhpur2Patna1SC1Jabalpur1Varanasi1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 153A20Section 153D8Addition to Income5Section 1324Section 153A(1)(a)4Section 153A(1)(b)4Section 1534Section 1442

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN vs. SWARNGANGA CONSTRUCTION P.LTD, BHILWARA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 186/DDN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun14 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri V.P. Rao

For Appellant: Sh. N.S. Jangpangi, CIT/DRFor Respondent: Sh. Kapil Goel, Advocate
Section 144Section 153CSection 249(3)Section 250(4)Section 271(1)(c)

section 144 and penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act respectively for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. In the quantum appeal, the assessee raised following grounds : “1. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in condoning the delay of more than 2 years merely on ground that the erstwhile

SANJAY BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 166/DDN/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad

Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 153A(1)(b)Section 153D

46A has ignored the said evidences and have not dealt with merits of such evidences and has also failed to appreciate the contents of such evidences. 21. That the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the income assessed by the AO at Rs.36,50,140/- for the relevant assessment year as against the returned income

SANJAY BANSAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 164/DDN/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad

Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 153A(1)(b)Section 153D

46A has ignored the said evidences and have not dealt with merits of such evidences and has also failed to appreciate the contents of such evidences. 21. That the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the income assessed by the AO at Rs.36,50,140/- for the relevant assessment year as against the returned income

SANJAY BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 163/DDN/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad

Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 153A(1)(b)Section 153D

46A has ignored the said evidences and have not dealt with merits of such evidences and has also failed to appreciate the contents of such evidences. 21. That the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the income assessed by the AO at Rs.36,50,140/- for the relevant assessment year as against the returned income

SANJAY BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 165/DDN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad

Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 153A(1)(b)Section 153D

46A has ignored the said evidences and have not dealt with merits of such evidences and has also failed to appreciate the contents of such evidences. 21. That the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the income assessed by the AO at Rs.36,50,140/- for the relevant assessment year as against the returned income