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.

13 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 158clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi210Mumbai209Ahmedabad58Jaipur54Pune46Raipur43Chennai39Bangalore38Allahabad24Chandigarh23Hyderabad21Kolkata18Indore13Ranchi13Cochin12Nagpur10Agra8Lucknow8Surat8Jodhpur7Patna6Dehradun5Rajkot4Jabalpur3Amritsar3Panaji2Guwahati1SC1Visakhapatnam1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)46Section 27417Penalty10Addition to Income10Section 143(3)7Section 1485Section 142(1)4Section 2714Disallowance

GAURAV AJMERA,RATLAM vs. DCIT(CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

ITA 808/IND/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 234ASection 271ASection 274

271(1)(c) of the Act, it does not\ncontain the ingredients of section 271AAB of the Act.\nUnder these facts the notice is improper and is not in\naccordance with requirement of law. The assessing\nofficer is expected to make his direction clear as to which\nclause of section 271AAB of the Act, he wishes to invoke.\nThere

SRK DEV BUILD PVT LTD.,INDORE vs. DCIT/ACIT 5(1), INDORE

4
Section 803
Section 1473
Depreciation3

Appeal is allowed

ITA 471/IND/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2016-17 Srk Dev Build Pvt. Ltd, Dcit/Acit-5(1) 18/2, Lasudia Mori, Indore बनाम/ A.B. Road, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaqcs3387P Assessee By Shri Pranay Goyal & S.N. Goyal, Cas Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.06.2024

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 32Section 32(1)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 40

u/s 271(1)(c), which was upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal, however, held that the assessee was not guilty of any concealment or giving inaccurate particulars and had raised a debatable issue. In such a situation, penalty was deleted. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue. 4. In view of the finding of the Tribunal

TURNING POINT ESTATES P LTD ,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 354/IND/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniturning Point Estates Pvt. Ltd. Acit 5(1) 6Th Floor, Treasure Island, 11 Indore Vs Tukoganj Main Road . Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aacct 7457 R Assessee By Shri Manjeet Sachdeva & Avinash Gaur, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10.04.2023

Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 05. That the penalty levied is not based on the facts of the case and needs to be deleted. 06. That the assessee company craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or delete any of the grounds of appeal. 2. The assesse is a Private Limited Company and engaged in the business

RIYAZ QURESHI ,JHABUA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JHABUA

Appeals are allowed

ITA 664/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 May 2025AY 2014-15
Section 139(1)Section 139(2)Section 142(1)Section 22(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961, the penalty proceedings\nhad been initiated, i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or\nfurnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal while allowing the appeal of\nthe assessee, had relied on the decision of the Division Bench of Karnataka\nHigh Court decision in the case of CIT V/s. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning

RIYAZ QURESHI ,JHABUA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX

Appeals are allowed

ITA 663/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 May 2025AY 2013-14
Section 139(1)Section 139(2)Section 142(1)Section 22(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961, the penalty proceedings\nhad been initiated, i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or\nfurnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal while allowing the appeal of\nthe assessee, had relied on the decision of the Division Bench of Karnataka\nHigh Court decision in the case of CIT V/s. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning

ACIT CENTRAL-2 , BHOPAL vs. M/S BALAJI FARMS AND REALITY , BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed and assessee’s cross-

ITA 166/IND/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit (Central)-2, M/S.Balaji Farms & बनाम/ Bhopal Reality, Vs. 158,3Rd Floor, Zone-Ii, M.P.Nagar, Bhopal (Pan:Aalfb9630L) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 50C

158,3rd Floor, Zone-II, M.P.Nagar, Bhopal (PAN:AALFB9630L) (Assessee/Cross-Objector) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee by Ms.Nisha Lahoti and Shri Vijay Bansal, ARs Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 12.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement 22.03.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 21.03.2022 passed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal

RIYAZ QURESHI ,JHABUA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JHABUA

Appeals are allowed

ITA 665/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 May 2025AY 2015-16
Section 139(1)Section 139(2)Section 142(1)Section 22(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961, the penalty proceedings\nhad been initiated, i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or\nfurnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal while allowing the appeal of\nthe assessee, had relied on the decision of the Division Bench of Karnataka\nHigh Court decision in the case of CIT V/s. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning

SWAN PETRCHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. NFAC DELHI, DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 496/IND/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Jul 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Swan Petrochemicals Dcit (Central), Pvt.Ltd, Indore Unit No.308 Acme Plaza, Opp. Sangam Cinema, Vs. Andheri Kurlka, Maharashtra (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcr9592C Assessee By Shri Ajay Tulsiyan & Ms. Ruchira Singhal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.07.2024 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 43(5)

u/s 43(5) and further amendment of Clause-e to the said sub-section by Finance Act 2/2013 w.e.f 1.4.2014. Hence it was a bona fide claim of the assessee. He has further submitted that the entire loss of Rs.44.57 lakhs was incurred in the month of April 2013 and therefore, it cannot be planned to set off against

R.M CHEMICALS P LTD ,INDORE vs. THE DCIT/AIT 4 (1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

ITA 353/IND/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore05 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S.R.M. Chemicals Acit , 4(1), Pvt.Ltd., Bhopal बनाम/ 74,Jumerati, Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aaacr7154D Assessee By Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Ca & Shri Yash Kukreja, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 03.07.2023

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80

271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961 is not sustainable in law, as no specific charge was levied in penalty show-cause notices and allowed the appeal No.ITA (Appeal) 414/Ind/2012 and other five appeals. 11. On due consideration of the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, so also considering the fact that the ground mentioned in show

RAMA GARG,SEHORE vs. DCIT-3(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 90/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani(Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Rama Garg, Dcit-3(1), Gadhi Chok, Bhopal Chota Bazar, Vs. Nasrullaganj, Sehore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abcpg1140J Assessee By Shri R.K. Mangal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26.06.2024

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

158 and submitted that the disallowance of expenses cannot be mean that the assessee have furnished inaccurate 3 Smt. Rama Garg particulars of income. He has further contended that sorting and packaging is an essential part of the business of the assessee. The assessee has not claimed any other electricity expenses except the electricity expenses which are incurred exclusively

NAVIN KUMAR JAIN,INDORE vs. ITO ACIT DYCIT FACELESS ASSESSMENT, INDORE

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 469/IND/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 May 2024AY 2014-15

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

Section 148

158 CTR (Guj) 372: (2002) 258 ITR 654 (Guj) and Man Mohan Sadani vs. CIT (2008) 304 ITR 0052 and in recent case of Dwarka Prasad Tayal and another vs. ITO and Another, (2020) 60 CCH 0589 Indore Trib, (2021) 87 ITR (Trib) 0675 (Indore). Honourable Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Gurubachhan Singh J Juneja reported

NAVIN KUMAR JAIN,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, INDORE

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 468/IND/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 May 2024AY 2013-14

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

Section 148

158 CTR (Guj) 372: (2002) 258 ITR 654 (Guj) and Man Mohan Sadani vs. CIT (2008) 304 ITR 0052 and in recent case of Dwarka Prasad Tayal and another vs. ITO and Another, (2020) 60 CCH 0589 Indore Trib, (2021) 87 ITR (Trib) 0675 (Indore). Honourable Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Gurubachhan Singh J Juneja reported

ACIT-1(1), INDORE vs. KRITI NUTRIENTS LIMITED, INDORE

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 780/IND/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Jan 2026AY 2021-22
Section 246ASection 250Section 253

158 (Trib.Raipur)\ne) Waidhan Engg. & Industries P. Ltd vs. JCIT (2015) 26 ITJ 505\n(Trib.Jabalpur)\n(IV) Disallowance of Foreign Currency Fluctuation loss : ₹\n60,63,000/-\nWe submit that export sale invoices raised by the Co. are either discounted by\nthe bank or realized against Letter of Credit opened by buyers &\naccounted for based on prevailing Foreign Currency rate