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.

4 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 69Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Jaipur47Bangalore18Indore16Surat10Chandigarh10Pune7Ahmedabad7Mumbai6Chennai5Delhi4Cochin3Hyderabad3Allahabad2Raipur2Rajkot2Kolkata1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 69B6Section 1475Section 271(1)(c)4Penalty4Section 143(3)3Section 2713Unexplained Investment3Addition to Income3Section 142(1)2

PRATEEK GUPTA,GHAZIABAD vs. PR, CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 785/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16 Prateek Gupta, Vs. Pr. Cit 152, Chanderpuri, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201001 Pan Atbpg8602J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3(i) That on facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT was not justified in directing the assessing officer to re-compute tax liability in accordance with section 115BBE of the Act even though the computation of tax in the assessment order is neither erroneous

Short Term Capital Gains2
Disallowance2

M/S. H.B. LEASING & FINANCE COMPANY LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2323/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshand, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69B

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) on the impugned enhancement on account of allegedly wrong claim of losses and understatement of income attributable to derivative transactions for Assessment Year 2009-10 in question. 2. We shall first take up the quantum appeal in ITA No.2323/Del/2015 for adjudication purposes. I.T.As.2323 & 5089/Del/2015 2 ITA No.2323/Del/2015 for Assessment Year

M/S H.B. LEASING & FINANCE COMPANY LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5089/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshand, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69B

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) on the impugned enhancement on account of allegedly wrong claim of losses and understatement of income attributable to derivative transactions for Assessment Year 2009-10 in question. 2. We shall first take up the quantum appeal in ITA No.2323/Del/2015 for adjudication purposes. I.T.As.2323 & 5089/Del/2015 2 ITA No.2323/Del/2015 for Assessment Year

JAI PRAKASH SAINI,DELHI vs. ITO, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3996/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Jai Prakash Saini Vs Ito 4240, Arya Pura Sabzi Nfac, New Delhi Mandi, Roshanara Road, New Delhi-110007. Pan-Bbwps4100D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Mohit Bansal, Ca Respondent By Ms. Rajinder Kaur, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.11.2025

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)Section 69B

u/s 69B in respect of cash deposited in saving bank without considering the fact that entire credit cannot be income of assessee and the same was also a part of advance received as mentioned supra. 5. That the Ld. AO has passed order under section 147 dated 29.03.2022 on account of non-reply of notice without considering the fact that