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 “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 271Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai136Delhi83Bangalore77Indore68Jaipur59Chennai35Cochin30Kolkata28Pune27Lucknow27Ahmedabad26Karnataka21Visakhapatnam13Raipur12Amritsar10Hyderabad9Rajkot9Dehradun8Nagpur8Surat6Panaji5Allahabad4Agra2Chandigarh2Guwahati2Patna2SC2Jodhpur1Varanasi1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 271B22Section 44A19Section 1725Section 1945Section 271A4Penalty4Section 1442Section 2712Section 271(1)(c)2Cash Deposit

ASWARTHANARAYANA VENKATA RENIGUNTLA,DHARMAVARAM vs. ITO, WARD-1, ANANTAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 143/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Aswarthanarayana Venkata Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Anantapur. Reniguntla, Dharmavaram, Andhra Pradesh. Pan : Alrpr5400R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri M. Chandramouleswara Rao, Ca Revenue By: Sri A. Sitarama Rao. Date Of Hearing: 11.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.04.2023

For Appellant: Sri M. ChandramouleswaraFor Respondent: Sri A. Sitarama Rao
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 270ASection 271Section 271BSection 274Section 44A

u/s. 271 B of the Act for failure to comply with the provisions of section 44AB of the I.T. Act and directed the assessee to pay by way of penalty a sum of Rs. 84,316/- vide order under section 271B

2
Demonetization2
Business Income2

PACC CONTAINER LINE PTE LIMITED,NELLOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NELLORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 25/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri T. Sunil Goutam
Section 172Section 194

271B or section 271BB; (ee) an order made by a Deputy Commissioner imposing a penalty under section 271C, section 271D or section 271E; (f) an order made by a Deputy Commissioner or a Deputy Director imposing a penalty under section 272A; (ff) an order made by a Deputy Commissioner imposing a penalty under section 272AA; (g) an order imposing

PACC CONTAINER LINE PTE LIMITED,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NELLORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 26/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri T. Sunil Goutam
Section 172Section 194

271B or section 271BB; (ee) an order made by a Deputy Commissioner imposing a penalty under section 271C, section 271D or section 271E; (f) an order made by a Deputy Commissioner or a Deputy Director imposing a penalty under section 272A; (ff) an order made by a Deputy Commissioner imposing a penalty under section 272AA; (g) an order imposing

PACC CONTAINER LINE PTE LIMITED,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NELLORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 27/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri T. Sunil Goutam
Section 172Section 194

271B or section 271BB; (ee) an order made by a Deputy Commissioner imposing a penalty under section 271C, section 271D or section 271E; (f) an order made by a Deputy Commissioner or a Deputy Director imposing a penalty under section 272A; (ff) an order made by a Deputy Commissioner imposing a penalty under section 272AA; (g) an order imposing

PACC CONTAINER LINE PTE LIMITED ,SINGAPORE REP BY ITS INDIAN AGENT M/S J M BAXI & CO ,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) , NELLORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 550/HYD/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri T. Sunil Goutam
Section 172Section 194

271B or section 271BB; (ee) an order made by a Deputy Commissioner imposing a penalty under section 271C, section 271D or section 271E; (f) an order made by a Deputy Commissioner or a Deputy Director imposing a penalty under section 272A; (ff) an order made by a Deputy Commissioner imposing a penalty under section 272AA; (g) an order imposing

PACC CONTAINER LINE PTE LIMITED ,SINGAPORE REP BY ITS INDIAN AGENT M/S J M BAXI & CO,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NELLORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 551/HYD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri T. Sunil Goutam
Section 172Section 194

271B or section 271BB; (ee) an order made by a Deputy Commissioner imposing a penalty under section 271C, section 271D or section 271E; (f) an order made by a Deputy Commissioner or a Deputy Director imposing a penalty under section 272A; (ff) an order made by a Deputy Commissioner imposing a penalty under section 272AA; (g) an order imposing

NAVEEN KUMAR KAPARTHY,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1660/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey
Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

section 271B of the Act would not apply. 5.1 In the instant case, when the books of account are not maintained, the AO did not initiate any proceedings for not maintaining the books of account. The AO obviously satisfied that the books of account were not maintained for good and sufficient reasons. When the AO accepted the fact that

NAVEEN KUMAR KAPARTHY,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1659/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey
Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

section 271B of the Act would not apply. 5.1 In the instant case, when the books of account are not maintained, the AO did not initiate any proceedings for not maintaining the books of account. The AO obviously satisfied that the books of account were not maintained for good and sufficient reasons. When the AO accepted the fact that

KONATHAM KOTIREDDY,WARANGAL vs. ITO, WARD-1, WARANGAL

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 245/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Konatham Kotireddy Vs. Income Tax Officer Warangal Ward-1 Pan:Atupk6883E Warangal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Assessee By: Shri Vamseedhar, Ca Revenue By: Shri Kprr Murthy, Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: Shri Vamseedhar, CAFor Respondent: Shri KPRR Murthy, CIT(DR)
Section 271Section 271BSection 44A

271 B of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The learned CIT (A) is not justified in dismissing the appeal without giving a reasonable opportunity to the appellant. 3. The learned CIT (A) erred in ignoring the impeccable documentary evidence filed a letter from the Principal Page 1 of 7 ITA 245 of 2023 Konatham Kotireddy Dealer viz. M/s. Anika Bajaj