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.

9 results for “house property”+ Section 273Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Bangalore27Jaipur21Mumbai21Karnataka21Ahmedabad18Delhi9Visakhapatnam9Chennai8Cochin7Amritsar6Cuttack6Pune5Hyderabad4Kolkata2Guwahati2Surat2SC1Nagpur1Varanasi1Rajkot1

Key Topics

Section 271D13Section 269S12Addition to Income8Deduction6Section 143(3)5Section 1475Depreciation5Reassessment5Section 27I4Penalty

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. JAY BHARAT MARUTI LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 909/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Circle-4(1), 601, Hemkunt Chamber, New Delhi 89-Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No.113/Del/2012 [Arising Out Of Ita No.908/Del/2012] Assessment Year: 2005-06 & C.O. No.114/Del/2012 [Arising Out Of Ita No.909/Del/2012] Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Vs. Acit, 601, Hemkunt Chamber, Circle-4(1), 89-Nehru Place, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Vs. Acit, Neel House, Lado Sarai, Circle-4(1), Opp. Qutab Minar, Mehrauli, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147

273B of the Act. Even, otherwise also, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been imposed alleging furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. However, facts on record reveal that all material facts relating to investments in shares and mutual funds as well as capital gain/loss derived therefrom have been furnished by the assessee before the Assessing Officer

4
House Property3
Section 273B2

M/S. JAY BHARAT MARUTI LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 4672/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Circle-4(1), 601, Hemkunt Chamber, New Delhi 89-Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No.113/Del/2012 [Arising Out Of Ita No.908/Del/2012] Assessment Year: 2005-06 & C.O. No.114/Del/2012 [Arising Out Of Ita No.909/Del/2012] Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Vs. Acit, 601, Hemkunt Chamber, Circle-4(1), 89-Nehru Place, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Vs. Acit, Neel House, Lado Sarai, Circle-4(1), Opp. Qutab Minar, Mehrauli, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147

273B of the Act. Even, otherwise also, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been imposed alleging furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. However, facts on record reveal that all material facts relating to investments in shares and mutual funds as well as capital gain/loss derived therefrom have been furnished by the assessee before the Assessing Officer

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. JAY BHARAT MARUTI LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 908/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Circle-4(1), 601, Hemkunt Chamber, New Delhi 89-Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No.113/Del/2012 [Arising Out Of Ita No.908/Del/2012] Assessment Year: 2005-06 & C.O. No.114/Del/2012 [Arising Out Of Ita No.909/Del/2012] Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Vs. Acit, 601, Hemkunt Chamber, Circle-4(1), 89-Nehru Place, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Vs. Acit, Neel House, Lado Sarai, Circle-4(1), Opp. Qutab Minar, Mehrauli, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147

273B of the Act. Even, otherwise also, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been imposed alleging furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. However, facts on record reveal that all material facts relating to investments in shares and mutual funds as well as capital gain/loss derived therefrom have been furnished by the assessee before the Assessing Officer

M/S. JAY BHARAT MARUTI LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2180/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Circle-4(1), 601, Hemkunt Chamber, New Delhi 89-Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No.113/Del/2012 [Arising Out Of Ita No.908/Del/2012] Assessment Year: 2005-06 & C.O. No.114/Del/2012 [Arising Out Of Ita No.909/Del/2012] Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Vs. Acit, 601, Hemkunt Chamber, Circle-4(1), 89-Nehru Place, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Vs. Acit, Neel House, Lado Sarai, Circle-4(1), Opp. Qutab Minar, Mehrauli, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147

273B of the Act. Even, otherwise also, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been imposed alleging furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. However, facts on record reveal that all material facts relating to investments in shares and mutual funds as well as capital gain/loss derived therefrom have been furnished by the assessee before the Assessing Officer

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. JAY BHARAT MARUTI LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1885/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Circle-4(1), 601, Hemkunt Chamber, New Delhi 89-Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No.113/Del/2012 [Arising Out Of Ita No.908/Del/2012] Assessment Year: 2005-06 & C.O. No.114/Del/2012 [Arising Out Of Ita No.909/Del/2012] Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Vs. Acit, 601, Hemkunt Chamber, Circle-4(1), 89-Nehru Place, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Vs. Acit, Neel House, Lado Sarai, Circle-4(1), Opp. Qutab Minar, Mehrauli, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147

273B of the Act. Even, otherwise also, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been imposed alleging furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. However, facts on record reveal that all material facts relating to investments in shares and mutual funds as well as capital gain/loss derived therefrom have been furnished by the assessee before the Assessing Officer

KULDEEP SOOD,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1745/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Satyan Sethi &For Respondent: Ms Parul Singh, Sr. DR
Section 269SSection 271DSection 27I

273B of the Act, he must be deemed to have 4 established sufficient cause for not invoking the penal provisions of sections 271D and 271E of the Act against him. The deletion of penalty by the Tribunal was valid.” 7. Then Delhi Bench in the case of Shri Sunil Kumar Sood Vs JCIT (ITA No. 1831/Del/2016) has held that Section

SONIA MALIK,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, RANGE- 69, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 7792/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2012-13 Sonia Malik, Vs. Jcit, 229, Ground Floor, Range-69, Avtar Enclave, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Anqpm9150J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pramod Jain, Fca Revenue By : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2019 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 6Th Septemfebr, 2018 Passed By The Cit(A)-21, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee In Various Grounds Has Challenged The Order Of The Cit(A) In Sustaining The Penalty Of Rs.3,25,000/- Levied By The Jcit U/S 271D Of The It Act.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 269SSection 271DSection 273BSection 54F

house property for her own living, therefore, I am of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act and the provisions of section 273B

DCIT CIRCLE-76(1), NEW DELHI vs. OMAXE LTD. , NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue/Department stands

ITA 9282/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 194CSection 250Section 271C

houses, colleges, hospitals, stadium/sports complex, fire stations, grid sub-stations etc, and any other work which the Director may specify to be executed in the periphery of/or outside colony/area for the benefit of the colony/area. EDC is worked out for a particular urban estate on the basis of the cost of external development services such as Master Water Supply, Master

REKHA ,GURGAON vs. JCIT, RANGE 3, GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 815/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: C. AFor Respondent: Shri S. M. Singh
Section 2(14)Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

273B while imposing the penalty u/s 271D of the Act. 5. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law by upholding the penalty order without appreciating the fact that cash accepted was only Rs.40,000/- whereas penalty imposed of Rs.90000/-. 5. It is therefore prayed that order of Ld. CIT(A) be kindly set aside