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.

11 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 80Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Ahmedabad24Mumbai12Hyderabad11Delhi7Guwahati5Pune5Jaipur4Cochin3Rajkot3Bangalore2Indore1

Key Topics

Section 80I40Deduction11Addition to Income10Section 143(3)9Section 153A7Section 139(1)6Section 139(4)6Section 1486Section 80A6

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 606/HYD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri A. Srinivas, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

271(1)(c) of the Act. Further, he submitted that the recent decision of the Tribunal in the case of NEC NCC Maytas JV (supra) had elaborately discussed various aspects of the matter and thereafter, had decided the issue in favour of the Revenue. 14. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

Section 115J4
Cash Deposit3
Reopening of Assessment3

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 603/HYD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri A. Srinivas, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

271(1)(c) of the Act. Further, he submitted that the recent decision of the Tribunal in the case of NEC NCC Maytas JV (supra) had elaborately discussed various aspects of the matter and thereafter, had decided the issue in favour of the Revenue. 14. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 605/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri A. Srinivas, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

271(1)(c) of the Act. Further, he submitted that the recent decision of the Tribunal in the case of NEC NCC Maytas JV (supra) had elaborately discussed various aspects of the matter and thereafter, had decided the issue in favour of the Revenue. 14. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 604/HYD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri A. Srinivas, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

271(1)(c) of the Act. Further, he submitted that the recent decision of the Tribunal in the case of NEC NCC Maytas JV (supra) had elaborately discussed various aspects of the matter and thereafter, had decided the issue in favour of the Revenue. 14. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 239/HYD/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapany, C.AFor Respondent: Smt.Mamata Choudhary
Section 115JSection 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

80A (5) of the Act in the context of the power of the CIT or the Appellate Tribunal. 11. In the result, we do not find any merit in the Writ Petition, the same is therefore dismissed.” 34 M/s. HES Infra Pvt. Ltd. 33. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the assessee cannot be permitted

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 241/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapany, C.AFor Respondent: Smt.Mamata Choudhary
Section 115JSection 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

80A (5) of the Act in the context of the power of the CIT or the Appellate Tribunal. 11. In the result, we do not find any merit in the Writ Petition, the same is therefore dismissed.” 34 M/s. HES Infra Pvt. Ltd. 33. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the assessee cannot be permitted

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 240/HYD/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapany, C.AFor Respondent: Smt.Mamata Choudhary
Section 115JSection 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

80A (5) of the Act in the context of the power of the CIT or the Appellate Tribunal. 11. In the result, we do not find any merit in the Writ Petition, the same is therefore dismissed.” 34 M/s. HES Infra Pvt. Ltd. 33. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the assessee cannot be permitted

NSL RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 988/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sri Aliasghar RampurwalaFor Respondent: Sri Rajendra Kumar, DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 271(1)Section 80I

271(1)( c) of the Act. The Appellant therefore prays that the action of the Ld. AO in initiating penalty proceedings be quashed. The above grounds of anneal are without prejudice to each other. That the appellant reserves its right to add, alter, amend, delete or withdraw any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing

ITO WARD-1,, NELLORE vs. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY RASAM, NELLORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue i

ITA 384/HYD/2022[2014-15]Status: PendingITAT Hyderabad28 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri E.Phalguna Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Swapna, Sr.AR
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 69ASection 80Section 80A

80A of the Act, as there is no return of income claiming such deduction. 4. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing. 3 Ramakrishna Reddy Rasam CO.No.26/Hyd/2022(Grounds of appeal) 3. 1. The order passed by CIT(A)NFAC is as per law only 2. At the stage of Asst only the Appellant

ITO WARD-1, NELLORE vs. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY RASAM , NELLORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue i

ITA 383/HYD/2022[2013-14]Status: PendingITAT Hyderabad28 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri E.Phalguna Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Swapna, Sr.AR
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 69ASection 80Section 80A

80A of the Act, as there is no return of income claiming such deduction. 4. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing. 3 Ramakrishna Reddy Rasam CO.No.26/Hyd/2022(Grounds of appeal) 3. 1. The order passed by CIT(A)NFAC is as per law only 2. At the stage of Asst only the Appellant

ITO WARD-1, NELLORE vs. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY RASAM, NELLORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue i

ITA 385/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: PendingITAT Hyderabad28 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri E.Phalguna Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Swapna, Sr.AR
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 69ASection 80Section 80A

80A of the Act, as there is no return of income claiming such deduction. 4. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing. 3 Ramakrishna Reddy Rasam CO.No.26/Hyd/2022(Grounds of appeal) 3. 1. The order passed by CIT(A)NFAC is as per law only 2. At the stage of Asst only the Appellant