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.

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

Sorted by relevance

Jaipur47Bangalore18Indore16Surat10Chandigarh10Pune7Ahmedabad7Mumbai6Chennai5Delhi4Cochin3Hyderabad3Allahabad2Raipur2Rajkot2Kolkata1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 1325Section 271A4Section 683Section 1313Section 143(3)3Section 153A3Section 271(1)(c)3Addition to Income3Section 115B

SHAVVA SUDHEER REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 402/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri KPRR Murthy, CIT(DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69B

69B of the IT Act of Rs. 36,50,000/- thereby assessing total income at Rs. 94,50,600/-. Were also initiated for Further, penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1) (c) Concealment of investment particulars. Accordingly, the AO has passed the penalty order u/s Page 2 of 17 ITA 402 of 2022 Shavva Sudheer Reddy 271

2
Penalty2

SRINIVAS CHOWDARY VALLABHANENI,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1461/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Phaneendra Nag, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. Reema Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271ASection 274

u/s\n271AAB(1A) of the Income Tax Act. (i) Ld CIT(A) also erred in\nlaw in not quashing the penalty levied on the basis of\nstereotyped Notice issued under section 271 read with\nsection 274 of the Income Tax Act which does not mention the\nspecific default committed by the appellant rendering the\nappellant liable to penalty under Income

SPECTRA EQUIPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 500/HYD/2023[Assessment Year 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2017-18 Spectra Equipment Private Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan No.Aaccs8677C. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Akanksha, C.A. For Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. Narmada, Cit-Dr For Shri Madan Mohan Meena, Sr.D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.12.2024

For Appellant: Ms. Akanksha, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Narmada, CIT-DR for Shri Madan Mohan Meena
Section 115BSection 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

u/s 115BBE was 30%+3% Cess as on first day of the Previous-Year i.e. 01.04.2016, therefore the tax-rate of 30%+3% Cess shall apply to the present case and not the higher rate, hence the assessment-order does not cause prejudice to the interest of revenue. The reason of projecting such a claim by assessee is that