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.

4 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 112clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai149Delhi128Jaipur57Bangalore49Raipur41Chennai27Chandigarh24Visakhapatnam18Amritsar17Pune16Panaji13Hyderabad11Ahmedabad9Rajkot8Allahabad7Nagpur7Lucknow6Guwahati5Kolkata5Cuttack4Indore4Jodhpur4Surat3SC1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)8Section 686Section 56(2)(viib)5Section 2504Penalty3Condonation of Delay3Section 1442Section 80I2Addition to Income

SMT. KAVITA SACHDEV,INDORE vs. ITO-3(4), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 255/IND/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2011-12 Smt. Kavita Sachdev, Income-Tax Officer, 112,Jairampur Colony, 3(4), बनाम/ Indore. Indore. Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan : Arcps6793D Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.05.2024

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

112,Jairampur Colony, 3(4), बनाम/ Indore. Indore. Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) PAN : ARCPS6793D Assessee by Shri Milind Wadhwani, CA Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 14.05.2024 Date of Pronouncement 16.05.2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28th November

SHRI RAM BABU SINGH,INDORE vs. DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

2
ITA 328/IND/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Ram Babu Singh, Dcit-1(1) C/O Sv Agrawal & Associates, Bhopal Dadi Dham, 24, Joy Builders Colony, Vs. Near Rafael Tower, Old Palasia, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aelps9945K Assessee By S/Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.05.2024 & 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23 .07.2024

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of the addition made on account of disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB(10). In the assessment order the A.O has given the finding on three points which were considered as non-compliance of conditions prescribed u/s 80IB(10). The first point on which the A.O have given the finding

M/S OREF SECURITIES PRIVATE LTD. ,MANDSAUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 70/IND/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms.Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.70/Ind/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Vs. Ito, Mandsaur. M/S.Oref Securities P.Ltd. 69, Agrasen Nagar B/H. Mid India Mandsaur.

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Solanki, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5.22 As per above discussion, the addition u/s 68 is coming to Rs. 11,77,50,000/- and addition u/s. 56(2)(viib) is coming to Rs. 11,49,18,112/- only. As double addition cannot be made, therefore addition u/s 68 as discussed above

KALPANA NARWARE,BETUL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BETUL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 202/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Jan 2026AY 2017-18
Section 144Section 253

112\ndays and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the\nassessee is a lady who was having pregnancy at the relevant time and hence\nthere occurred delay in filing present appeal. The assessee has also placed\nbefore bench the copies of medical reports. In view of this situation, Ld. DR\nfor revenue does not have any objection