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.

6 results for “reassessment”+ Section 276Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Patna7Mumbai7Jaipur6Delhi6Pune3Bangalore2Ranchi2Indore2Chennai2SC1Hyderabad1Jodhpur1Kolkata1Nagpur1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)20Section 270A8Section 153A6Penalty6Addition to Income6Section 2744Section 276C3Section 2713Section 43B3Limitation/Time-bar

AJAY PAL SINGH,NOIDA GAUTOM BUDDH NAGAR vs. ITO WARD 1(1) NOIDA GBN, NOIDA

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

ITA 2253/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaajay Pal Singh, Vs. Ito, Ward 1 (1), Village Gadi, Near Dadri Noida. Gautam Budh Nagar - 201 301 Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Axgps6679A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Kumar Singla, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2025 Date Of Order : 26.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 12.02.2025 For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Had Originally Filed His Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.43,88,320/-. Subsequently, Assessee Filed Revised Return On 30.03.2021 Declaring Revised Total Income Of Rs.31,26,700/-. The Return Of Income Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’). Subsequently, The Case

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Kumar Singla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 156Section 249Section 270ASection 270M
3
Section 143(1)2
Section 276C

276C or section 276CC, where the proceedings for penalty under section 270A has not been initiated under the circumstances referred to in sub-section (9) of the said section 270A (4) The Assessing Officer shall, within a period of one month from the end of the month in which the application under sub-section (1) is received, pass an order

AMIT BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, DELHI

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

ITA 3664/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

276C. 6. Khandelwal Steel And Tube Traders Vs ITO [2018] 95 taxmann.com 15 (Madras) where Hon'ble Madras High Court held that explanation as to why there was an omission or wrong statement in Amit Bansal and Suresh Chand Bansal vs. ACIT original return must be due to bona fide inadvertence or bona fide mistake on part of assessee

AMIT BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, DELHI

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

ITA 3665/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

276C. 6. Khandelwal Steel And Tube Traders Vs ITO [2018] 95 taxmann.com 15 (Madras) where Hon'ble Madras High Court held that explanation as to why there was an omission or wrong statement in Amit Bansal and Suresh Chand Bansal vs. ACIT original return must be due to bona fide inadvertence or bona fide mistake on part of assessee

SURESH CHAND BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16 , DELHI

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

ITA 3666/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

276C. 6. Khandelwal Steel And Tube Traders Vs ITO [2018] 95 taxmann.com 15 (Madras) where Hon'ble Madras High Court held that explanation as to why there was an omission or wrong statement in Amit Bansal and Suresh Chand Bansal vs. ACIT original return must be due to bona fide inadvertence or bona fide mistake on part of assessee

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. ARCOTECH LTD (FORMERLY SKS LTD.)

The appeal is disposed of

ITA/71/2013HC Delhi12 Sept 2013
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 43B

276C of the Income Tax Act.” 16. Thus, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is imposed when an assessee conceals his income or furnishes incorrect particulars. In 2013:DHC:4611-DB ITA No. 71/2013 Page 14 of 21 terms of explanation I, we have to examine whether the case in question falls within the two limbs viz. clause

GEORGE KUTTY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3788/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] George Kutty, Vs Dcit, C/O-M/S. Oasis Tours India (P.) Circle-13(1), Ltd., C-40, Middle Circle, Dwarka New Delhi. Sadan, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aajpk4005H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Manish Malik, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2022

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 276CSection 68

276C 2. R L Traders Vs ITO (2017-TIOL-2583-HC-DEL-IT) where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that citing of past instance or lack of absence of cross-examination, cannot vitiate the initiation and culmination of penalty proceedings in case of accommodation entry 3. CIT Vs Zoom Communication (P.) Ltd. [191 Taxman 179 (Delhi