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.

134 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 115clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi453Mumbai356Indore134Karnataka120Bangalore111Chennai107Jaipur104Surat93Ahmedabad81Kolkata58Hyderabad42Raipur40Chandigarh34Calcutta34Pune24Allahabad20Rajkot19Nagpur16Lucknow15Visakhapatnam14Agra10Amritsar10Dehradun10Guwahati10Cuttack8Panaji7Cochin6Jabalpur5Rajasthan2Telangana2Jodhpur2

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(b)217Section 271D182Section 142(1)144Section 153A121Penalty88Section 14483Section 143(3)81Section 269S78Section 132

THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE vs. M/S KETI CONSTRUCTION (INDIA) LTD. , INDORE

In the result all the grounds raised by Revenue in the case of

ITA 877/IND/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Sept 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36

section 271(1)(c) and in the - instant case also the same explanation has been invoked. In the case before the Honourable High Court, the penalties were deleted by the Keti Construction (India) Ltd & Kalyan Toll Infrastructure Ltd. ITA Nos. 877 & 878/Ind/2019 Tribunal holding that the same as not sustainable in law, as no specific charge was levied in penalty

Showing 1–20 of 134 · Page 1 of 7

66
Search & Seizure17
Addition to Income15
Disallowance11

THE DCIT-CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. KALYAN TOLL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., INDORE

In the result all the grounds raised by Revenue in the case of

ITA 878/IND/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36

section 271(1)(c) and in the - instant case also the same explanation has been invoked. In the case before the Honourable High Court, the penalties were deleted by the Keti Construction (India) Ltd & Kalyan Toll Infrastructure Ltd. ITA Nos. 877 & 878/Ind/2019 Tribunal holding that the same as not sustainable in law, as no specific charge was levied in penalty

SH. RAMSWAROOP SHIVHARE,GWALIOR vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL- 1, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of the assessee(s) in ITANo

ITA 393/IND/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

115 TTJ 419 (Del), it was held that where the assessee had not complied with notice u/s142(1) but assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) and not u/s 144, that meant that subsequent compliance in assessment proceedings was considered as good compliance and defaults committed earlier were ignored by the Assessing Officer, therefore, levy of penalty u/s 271

VAISHALI SHIVHARE,GWALIOR vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of the assessee(s) in ITANo

ITA 379/IND/2018[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jan 2019

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

115 TTJ 419 (Del), it was held that where the assessee had not complied with notice u/s142(1) but assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) and not u/s 144, that meant that subsequent compliance in assessment proceedings was considered as good compliance and defaults committed earlier were ignored by the Assessing Officer, therefore, levy of penalty u/s 271

PATEL EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY,INDORE vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)- !, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of the assessee(s) in ITANo

ITA 356/IND/2018[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jan 2019

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

115 TTJ 419 (Del), it was held that where the assessee had not complied with notice u/s142(1) but assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) and not u/s 144, that meant that subsequent compliance in assessment proceedings was considered as good compliance and defaults committed earlier were ignored by the Assessing Officer, therefore, levy of penalty u/s 271

SH. RAMSWAROOP SHIVHARE,GWALIOR vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL- 1, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of the assessee(s) in ITANo

ITA 390/IND/2018[11-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jan 2019

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

115 TTJ 419 (Del), it was held that where the assessee had not complied with notice u/s142(1) but assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) and not u/s 144, that meant that subsequent compliance in assessment proceedings was considered as good compliance and defaults committed earlier were ignored by the Assessing Officer, therefore, levy of penalty u/s 271

VAISHALI SHIVHARE,GWALIOR vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of the assessee(s) in ITANo

ITA 376/IND/2018[11-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jan 2019

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

115 TTJ 419 (Del), it was held that where the assessee had not complied with notice u/s142(1) but assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) and not u/s 144, that meant that subsequent compliance in assessment proceedings was considered as good compliance and defaults committed earlier were ignored by the Assessing Officer, therefore, levy of penalty u/s 271

SUNIT MADHOK,INDORE vs. DCIT,CENTRAL-1, , BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of the assessee(s) in ITANo

ITA 344/IND/2018[16-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jan 2019

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

115 TTJ 419 (Del), it was held that where the assessee had not complied with notice u/s142(1) but assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) and not u/s 144, that meant that subsequent compliance in assessment proceedings was considered as good compliance and defaults committed earlier were ignored by the Assessing Officer, therefore, levy of penalty u/s 271

PATEL EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY,INDORE vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)- !, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of the assessee(s) in ITANo

ITA 355/IND/2018[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jan 2019

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

115 TTJ 419 (Del), it was held that where the assessee had not complied with notice u/s142(1) but assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) and not u/s 144, that meant that subsequent compliance in assessment proceedings was considered as good compliance and defaults committed earlier were ignored by the Assessing Officer, therefore, levy of penalty u/s 271

VAISHALI SHIVHARE,GWALIOR vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of the assessee(s) in ITANo

ITA 378/IND/2018[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jan 2019

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

115 TTJ 419 (Del), it was held that where the assessee had not complied with notice u/s142(1) but assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) and not u/s 144, that meant that subsequent compliance in assessment proceedings was considered as good compliance and defaults committed earlier were ignored by the Assessing Officer, therefore, levy of penalty u/s 271

PATEL EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY,INDORE vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)- !, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of the assessee(s) in ITANo

ITA 354/IND/2018[12-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jan 2019

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

115 TTJ 419 (Del), it was held that where the assessee had not complied with notice u/s142(1) but assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) and not u/s 144, that meant that subsequent compliance in assessment proceedings was considered as good compliance and defaults committed earlier were ignored by the Assessing Officer, therefore, levy of penalty u/s 271

PATEL EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY,INDORE vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)- !, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of the assessee(s) in ITANo

ITA 353/IND/2018[11-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jan 2019

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

115 TTJ 419 (Del), it was held that where the assessee had not complied with notice u/s142(1) but assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) and not u/s 144, that meant that subsequent compliance in assessment proceedings was considered as good compliance and defaults committed earlier were ignored by the Assessing Officer, therefore, levy of penalty u/s 271

SH. RAMSWAROOP SHIVHARE,GWALIOR vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL- 1, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of the assessee(s) in ITANo

ITA 389/IND/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

115 TTJ 419 (Del), it was held that where the assessee had not complied with notice u/s142(1) but assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) and not u/s 144, that meant that subsequent compliance in assessment proceedings was considered as good compliance and defaults committed earlier were ignored by the Assessing Officer, therefore, levy of penalty u/s 271

SUNIT MADHOK,INDORE vs. DCIT,CENTRAL-1, , BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of the assessee(s) in ITANo

ITA 339/IND/2018[11-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jan 2019

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

115 TTJ 419 (Del), it was held that where the assessee had not complied with notice u/s142(1) but assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) and not u/s 144, that meant that subsequent compliance in assessment proceedings was considered as good compliance and defaults committed earlier were ignored by the Assessing Officer, therefore, levy of penalty u/s 271

SUNIT MADHOK,INDORE vs. DCIT,CENTRAL-1, , BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of the assessee(s) in ITANo

ITA 343/IND/2018[15-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jan 2019

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

115 TTJ 419 (Del), it was held that where the assessee had not complied with notice u/s142(1) but assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) and not u/s 144, that meant that subsequent compliance in assessment proceedings was considered as good compliance and defaults committed earlier were ignored by the Assessing Officer, therefore, levy of penalty u/s 271

VAISHALI SHIVHARE,GWALIOR vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of the assessee(s) in ITANo

ITA 375/IND/2018[10-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jan 2019

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

115 TTJ 419 (Del), it was held that where the assessee had not complied with notice u/s142(1) but assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) and not u/s 144, that meant that subsequent compliance in assessment proceedings was considered as good compliance and defaults committed earlier were ignored by the Assessing Officer, therefore, levy of penalty u/s 271

M/S REGENT BEERS AND WINES LTD. ,INDORE vs. DCIT,CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of the assessee(s) in ITANo

ITA 346/IND/2018[11-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jan 2019

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

115 TTJ 419 (Del), it was held that where the assessee had not complied with notice u/s142(1) but assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) and not u/s 144, that meant that subsequent compliance in assessment proceedings was considered as good compliance and defaults committed earlier were ignored by the Assessing Officer, therefore, levy of penalty u/s 271

M/S REGENT BEERS AND WINES LTD. ,INDORE vs. DCIT,CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of the assessee(s) in ITANo

ITA 348/IND/2018[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jan 2019

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

115 TTJ 419 (Del), it was held that where the assessee had not complied with notice u/s142(1) but assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) and not u/s 144, that meant that subsequent compliance in assessment proceedings was considered as good compliance and defaults committed earlier were ignored by the Assessing Officer, therefore, levy of penalty u/s 271

M/S REGENT BEERS AND WINES LTD. ,INDORE vs. DCIT,CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of the assessee(s) in ITANo

ITA 349/IND/2018[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jan 2019

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

115 TTJ 419 (Del), it was held that where the assessee had not complied with notice u/s142(1) but assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) and not u/s 144, that meant that subsequent compliance in assessment proceedings was considered as good compliance and defaults committed earlier were ignored by the Assessing Officer, therefore, levy of penalty u/s 271

VAISHALI SHIVHARE,GWALIOR vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of the assessee(s) in ITANo

ITA 377/IND/2018[12-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jan 2019

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

115 TTJ 419 (Del), it was held that where the assessee had not complied with notice u/s142(1) but assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) and not u/s 144, that meant that subsequent compliance in assessment proceedings was considered as good compliance and defaults committed earlier were ignored by the Assessing Officer, therefore, levy of penalty u/s 271