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.

15 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Deemed Dividendclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi302Mumbai279Ahmedabad72Chennai46Bangalore40Raipur37Pune36Hyderabad35Kolkata26Jaipur25Chandigarh18Indore15Panaji14Lucknow10Surat9Agra6Guwahati5Amritsar3SC2Telangana1Nagpur1Visakhapatnam1Jabalpur1Cuttack1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)45Section 153A15Section 143(3)14Addition to Income14Penalty11Section 132(4)8Section 271A7Section 271(1)6Section 132

SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT -1(2), BHOPAL

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 229/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Jul 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1) (c) was imposed on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty was held to be illegally imposed by the tribunal since factual details of income furnished by the ‘Assessee’ were found to be correct. The M.P. State Tourism and others (ITA No.2/Ind/2015 and others) 20 matter ultimately reached

6
Section 1395
House Property3
Cash Deposit3

SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT -1(2), BHOPAL

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 228/IND/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Jul 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1) (c) was imposed on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty was held to be illegally imposed by the tribunal since factual details of income furnished by the ‘Assessee’ were found to be correct. The M.P. State Tourism and others (ITA No.2/Ind/2015 and others) 20 matter ultimately reached

SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT -1(2), BHOPAL

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 226/IND/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Jul 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1) (c) was imposed on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty was held to be illegally imposed by the tribunal since factual details of income furnished by the ‘Assessee’ were found to be correct. The M.P. State Tourism and others (ITA No.2/Ind/2015 and others) 20 matter ultimately reached

SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT -1(2), BHOPAL

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 227/IND/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Jul 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1) (c) was imposed on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty was held to be illegally imposed by the tribunal since factual details of income furnished by the ‘Assessee’ were found to be correct. The M.P. State Tourism and others (ITA No.2/Ind/2015 and others) 20 matter ultimately reached

SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT -1(2), BHOPAL

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 230/IND/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Jul 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1) (c) was imposed on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty was held to be illegally imposed by the tribunal since factual details of income furnished by the ‘Assessee’ were found to be correct. The M.P. State Tourism and others (ITA No.2/Ind/2015 and others) 20 matter ultimately reached

SHRIMATI SHASHI YADAV,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5 (3), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 446/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 249Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

penalty imposed by the Ld. A.O. u/s 271 (1 )(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for a sum of Rs. 1250000/- on account of additions made for treating the transactions of current in nature as loan to the assessee by M/s SSP Enterprises P Ltd and consequently treated the same as deemed dividend

VIJAY CHOUDHARY,ANDHERI MUMBAI vs. ACIT 1(2), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

ITA 483/IND/2023[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Apr 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 271(1)(c)

deemed dividend’ u/s 2(22)(e) and it is a settled law that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot

VIJAY CHOUDHARY,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 1(2), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

ITA 485/IND/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Apr 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 271(1)(c)

deemed dividend’ u/s 2(22)(e) and it is a settled law that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot

VIJAY CHOUDHARY,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 1(2), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

ITA 482/IND/2023[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Apr 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 271(1)(c)

deemed dividend’ u/s 2(22)(e) and it is a settled law that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot

VIJAY CHOUDHARY,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 1(2), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

ITA 484/IND/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Apr 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 271(1)(c)

deemed dividend’ u/s 2(22)(e) and it is a settled law that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 66/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

deemed to be the income of the assessee shall not be allowed as a deduction under any head of income. It is clear from the above referred provisions that if any income for which the assessee is unable to provide any explanation about the nature and its source then the same could be offered to tax as unexplained income which

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 57/IND/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

deemed to be the income of the assessee shall not be allowed as a deduction under any head of income. It is clear from the above referred provisions that if any income for which the assessee is unable to provide any explanation about the nature and its source then the same could be offered to tax as unexplained income which

SHRI VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE PR.CIT-1, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 350/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

deemed to be the income of the assessee shall not be allowed as a deduction under any head of income. It is clear from the above referred provisions that if any income for which the assessee is unable to provide any explanation about the nature and its source then the same could be offered to tax as unexplained income which

SHRI SURENDRA SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. THE JCIT-3, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 252/IND/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Advocate with Shri Gagan TiwariFor Respondent: 28.09.2022
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 271ASection 271DSection 274Section 41(1)

dividend income under Rule 8D r.w.s. 14A to the tune of Rs.8,83,383/- and personal expenses of Rs.6,18,746/-. Thus, the total income was assessed at Rs 40,15,16,900/-, upon making addition of Rs.15,02,129/- and penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA of the Act was initiated by issuing notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271D

CUMMINS TECHNOLOGIES INDIA (P) LTD.,DEWAS vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 982/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanicommins Technologies India Acit, Circle -1(1) Private Limited Ujjain Vs. Industrial Area No.2, A.B. Road, M.P. (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aabct2018B Assessee By Shri Ketan Ved & Pinkesh Vakharia Ars Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 29.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.11.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)

271(1)(c) without considering the fact that transfer pricing adjustment has been made on account of difference of opinion, interpretation of provisions of law, etc. and not due to any concealment of or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the Appellant.” 2. The assessee has also filed additional grounds of appeal vide application dated 14th August