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.

14 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 272Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai120Delhi108Surat100Indore97Mumbai92Bangalore59Karnataka25Kolkata24Jaipur23Lucknow22Ahmedabad18Cuttack17Kerala14Hyderabad14Visakhapatnam8Pune8Allahabad7Rajkot7Amritsar6Panaji5Raipur5Jabalpur4Chandigarh3SC2Cochin2Nagpur2Patna1Guwahati1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(b)17Section 1449Penalty9Addition to Income9Section 272A(1)(d)7Section 1725Section 1945Section 142(1)4Section 148

MOHHAMAD WAJAHAT ALI KHAN ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INT TAXN)-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 848/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 848/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Mohd. Wajahat Ali Vs. Income Tax Officer Khan (International Taxation)-1 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Eampk7060N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 28/10/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 272ASection 272A(1)(d)
2
Section 69A

272A(1)(d) of the Act and levied penalty for non-furnishing of return of income. As regards the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b), the learned DR submitted that it is a clear case of non-compliance of the statutory notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act and for this failure, the provisions of section

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

u/s 172 of the Act either before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) or before the Tribunal. He had drawn our attention to section 246 of the I.T. Act which provides as under : “Appealable orders. 246. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), any assessee aggrieved by any of the following orders of an Assessing Officer (other than

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

u/s 172 of the Act either before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) or before the Tribunal. He had drawn our attention to section 246 of the I.T. Act which provides as under : “Appealable orders. 246. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), any assessee aggrieved by any of the following orders of an Assessing Officer (other than

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

u/s 172 of the Act either before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) or before the Tribunal. He had drawn our attention to section 246 of the I.T. Act which provides as under : “Appealable orders. 246. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), any assessee aggrieved by any of the following orders of an Assessing Officer (other than

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

u/s 172 of the Act either before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) or before the Tribunal. He had drawn our attention to section 246 of the I.T. Act which provides as under : “Appealable orders. 246. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), any assessee aggrieved by any of the following orders of an Assessing Officer (other than

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

u/s 172 of the Act either before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) or before the Tribunal. He had drawn our attention to section 246 of the I.T. Act which provides as under : “Appealable orders. 246. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), any assessee aggrieved by any of the following orders of an Assessing Officer (other than

GRR HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 366/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri T. Sunil Goutam
Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

u/s 271(1)(b) and 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]. Heard both the parties. Case file(s) perused. 2. We notice at the outset that these twin assessees’ instant eight appeals raise an identical issue of correctness of both the learned lower authorities’ action imposing section 271(1)(b) penalty

GRR HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 368/HYD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri T. Sunil Goutam
Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

u/s 271(1)(b) and 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]. Heard both the parties. Case file(s) perused. 2. We notice at the outset that these twin assessees’ instant eight appeals raise an identical issue of correctness of both the learned lower authorities’ action imposing section 271(1)(b) penalty

GRR HOLDINGS ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 371/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri T. Sunil Goutam
Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

u/s 271(1)(b) and 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]. Heard both the parties. Case file(s) perused. 2. We notice at the outset that these twin assessees’ instant eight appeals raise an identical issue of correctness of both the learned lower authorities’ action imposing section 271(1)(b) penalty

GRR HOLDINGS ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 372/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri T. Sunil Goutam
Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

u/s 271(1)(b) and 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]. Heard both the parties. Case file(s) perused. 2. We notice at the outset that these twin assessees’ instant eight appeals raise an identical issue of correctness of both the learned lower authorities’ action imposing section 271(1)(b) penalty

GRR HOLDINGS ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 373/HYD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri T. Sunil Goutam
Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

u/s 271(1)(b) and 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]. Heard both the parties. Case file(s) perused. 2. We notice at the outset that these twin assessees’ instant eight appeals raise an identical issue of correctness of both the learned lower authorities’ action imposing section 271(1)(b) penalty

GRR HOLDINGS ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 369/HYD/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri T. Sunil Goutam
Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

u/s 271(1)(b) and 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]. Heard both the parties. Case file(s) perused. 2. We notice at the outset that these twin assessees’ instant eight appeals raise an identical issue of correctness of both the learned lower authorities’ action imposing section 271(1)(b) penalty

GRR HOLDINGS ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 370/HYD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri T. Sunil Goutam
Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

u/s 271(1)(b) and 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]. Heard both the parties. Case file(s) perused. 2. We notice at the outset that these twin assessees’ instant eight appeals raise an identical issue of correctness of both the learned lower authorities’ action imposing section 271(1)(b) penalty

GRR HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 367/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri T. Sunil Goutam
Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

u/s 271(1)(b) and 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]. Heard both the parties. Case file(s) perused. 2. We notice at the outset that these twin assessees’ instant eight appeals raise an identical issue of correctness of both the learned lower authorities’ action imposing section 271(1)(b) penalty