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.

5 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 234Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi316Mumbai261Ahmedabad95Bangalore60Hyderabad34Kolkata24Raipur19Surat18Rajkot18Jaipur18Pune10Dehradun10Indore5Jodhpur2Cochin2Nagpur2Chandigarh2Jabalpur1Guwahati1Agra1Patna1

Key Topics

Section 143(2)6Section 271(1)(c)4Penalty4Section 143(3)3Addition to Income3Section 1472Section 1532Section 234B2Reopening of Assessment

DCIT-5(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. M P STATE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 774/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Jun 2025AY 2014-15
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) are being initiated separately for\nfurnishing inaccurate particulars of income.”\nTherefore, the penalty-order of AY 2012-13 is unsustainable for this very\nreason also that there is no satisfaction recorded by AO in assessment-order\nqua any default having been committed by assessee attracting penalty\nproceedings of section 271(1)(c). In fact

DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. M P STATE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 773/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore
2
Disallowance2
26 Jun 2025
AY 2013-14
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

234D as per rules if\nany. Give credit to prepaid taxes, if any, after necessary verification.\n(KN. SONKAR)\nAssistant Commissioner of Income Tax - 2(1),\nBhopal\nCopy to the Assessee\n(KIM SONKAR)\nAssistant Commissioner of Income Tax - 2(1),\nBhopal\nCERTIFIED\nDy.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)\nBhopal\n4. Thereafter, the AO passed penalty order u/s 271

LILASONS BREWERIES LTD. ,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 (1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 132/IND/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore05 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

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

Section 147Section 153Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

234D is not justified. Page 2 of 6 ITANo.132 & 133/Ind/2023 Lilasons Breweries Ltd. 7.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is not justified. 8. That the appellate craves, leave to add, to urge, to alter or to amend any of the grounds of appeal on or before

LILASONS BREWERIES LTD. ,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 (1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 133/IND/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore05 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

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

Section 147Section 153Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

234D is not justified. Page 2 of 6 ITANo.132 & 133/Ind/2023 Lilasons Breweries Ltd. 7.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is not justified. 8. That the appellate craves, leave to add, to urge, to alter or to amend any of the grounds of appeal on or before

M/S. M. LODHA IMPEX,RATLAM vs. THE ITO-1, RATLAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 185/IND/2016[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jun 2018AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 185/Ind/2016 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2000-01 M/S.M.Lodha Impex, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, 117-118, Manak Chowk, Ward 1, Ratlam. Ratlam.

For Appellant: Shri Satiksh Solanki, DRFor Respondent: 29.05.2018
Section 119(1)(b)Section 119(2)(b)Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234A

234D of the Income tax act, 1961. 6. In view of the above, huge additions of Rs. 10,29,121/- are wrong, without any basis and without looking to the facts of the case. Hence, needs to be deleted. ” -: 18 :- M.LODHA IMPEX,RATLAM. 5. Apropos ground no.1, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that