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.

28 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 260Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi198Mumbai85Calcutta38Indore28Chennai21Nagpur17Jaipur17Karnataka12Ahmedabad12Cochin10Kolkata9Pune7Lucknow7Bangalore6Raipur6Chandigarh6Hyderabad5SC5Amritsar3Allahabad3Agra3Telangana2Punjab & Haryana2Rajasthan1Kerala1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)31Section 1030Section 271D29Section 143(3)26Penalty21Addition to Income18Section 14813Section 153A11Section 132

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

Accordingly, Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is allowed

ITA 808/IND/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 115BSection 131Section 132(4)Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 234ASection 271ASection 274

u/s 274. Therefore, the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court is not applicable. (ii) Veena Estate (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2024) 158 taxmann.com 341 (Bombay) This case had unique facts. The assessee raised the legal plea of 'absence of charge' in the notice issued by AO after 30 years after filing appeal before Hon'ble High Court. Therefore

Showing 1–20 of 28 · Page 1 of 2

10
Section 1479
Disallowance9
Exemption7

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

ITA 188/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshishri Vimal Todi, Additional Commissioner बनाम/ 501, Darshan Residency, Of Income-Tax, Vs. 104-105, Anand Bazar, Indore Indore

Section 132Section 254(2)Section 271DSection 275Section 275(1)(c)

271(1)(c) is reckoned from the date of the assessment order dated 6.11.2007, the penalty order passed by the Joint Commissioner on 29.7.2008 is beyond the time permitted in the above section. As we have already held, the initiation of the penalty proceedings is not by the Assessing Officer but by the Joint Commissioner and if that

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeals are allowed

ITA 189/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

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

Section 132Section 153ASection 253(5)Section 269SSection 271D

271(1)(c) is reckoned from the date of the assessment order dated 6.11.2007, the penalty order passed by the Joint Commissioner on 29.7.2008 is beyond the time permitted in the above section. As we have already held, the initiation of the penalty proceedings is not by the Assessing Officer but by the Joint Commissioner and if that

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeals are allowed

ITA 190/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

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

Section 132Section 153ASection 253(5)Section 269SSection 271D

271(1)(c) is reckoned from the date of the assessment order dated 6.11.2007, the penalty order passed by the Joint Commissioner on 29.7.2008 is beyond the time permitted in the above section. As we have already held, the initiation of the penalty proceedings is not by the Assessing Officer but by the Joint Commissioner and if that

THE ACIT-4(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. R. K. GUPTA CONSTRACTORS & ENGINEERS PVT. LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 598/IND/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

260A has been admitted in the matter of addition made or deduction permissible under Section 80(1)(a)(4) and after taking note of certain judgments of the Tribunal and the Bombay High Court in the case of Nayan Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Taxing Authorities, concurrent finding s are recorded by the Commissioner (Appeal) and the Tribunal

PRASAM RAKESH CHOUDHARY,GIRNAR SOCIETY, BAPURAO GALLI, ITWARI, NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1, BHOPAL , BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 529/IND/2025[2018 -2019]Status: HeardITAT Indore22 Dec 2025

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit Circle-1(1) M/S. Rashtriya Takniki Bhopal Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan बनाम/ Samiti, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aabar2266H Assessee By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Shri Vinod Joshi, Ar Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

Section 10Section 271(1)(c)Section 43(1)

u/s 40A(7) and was required to be added back. However, the same has not been added by the assessee in its computation, thereby leading to underassessment of income by Rs. 23,70,306/-." 9. Soon after the assessee was communicated the reasons for reopening the assessment, it realized that a mistake had been committed and accordingly by a letter

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), BHOPOAL, BHOPAL vs. M/S RASHTRIYA TAKNIKI SHIKSHAK PRASHIKSHAN EVAM ANUNSANDHAN SANSTHAN, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 509/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit Circle-1(1) M/S. Rashtriya Takniki Bhopal Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan बनाम/ Samiti, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aabar2266H Assessee By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Shri Vinod Joshi, Ar Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

Section 10Section 271(1)(c)Section 43(1)

u/s 40A(7) and was required to be added back. However, the same has not been added by the assessee in its computation, thereby leading to underassessment of income by Rs. 23,70,306/-." 9. Soon after the assessee was communicated the reasons for reopening the assessment, it realized that a mistake had been committed and accordingly by a letter

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ACIT-3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 275/IND/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 May 2024AY 2008-09

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271E

260A or an appeal to the Supreme Court under section 261 or revision under section 263 or section 264 and an order imposing or enhancing or reducing or cancelling penalty or dropping the proceedings for the imposition of penalty is passed before the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal or the High Court or the Supreme Court

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ITO-2(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 277/IND/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 May 2024AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271E

260A or an appeal to the Supreme Court under section 261 or revision under section 263 or section 264 and an order imposing or enhancing or reducing or cancelling penalty or dropping the proceedings for the imposition of penalty is passed before the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal or the High Court or the Supreme Court

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ADDL. CIT-RANGE-3, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 276/IND/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 May 2024AY 2009-10

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271E

260A or an appeal to the Supreme Court under section 261 or revision under section 263 or section 264 and an order imposing or enhancing or reducing or cancelling penalty or dropping the proceedings for the imposition of penalty is passed before the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal or the High Court or the Supreme Court

SHRI UMAKANT SHARMA,JHABUA vs. THE JCIT , RATLAM

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 366/IND/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

260A or an appeal to the Supreme Court under section 261 or revision under section 263 or section 264 and an order imposing or enhancing or reducing or cancelling penalty or dropping the proceedings for the imposition of penalty is passed before the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal or the High Court or the Supreme Court

SHRI UMAKANT SHARMA,JHABUA vs. THE JCIT , RATLAM

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 365/IND/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

260A or an appeal to the Supreme Court under section 261 or revision under section 263 or section 264 and an order imposing or enhancing or reducing or cancelling penalty or dropping the proceedings for the imposition of penalty is passed before the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal or the High Court or the Supreme Court

SHRI UMAKANT SHARMA,JHABUA vs. THE JCIT , RATLAM

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 364/IND/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jul 2023AY 2008-09

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

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

260A or an appeal to the Supreme Court under section 261 or revision under section 263 or section 264 and an order imposing or enhancing or reducing or cancelling penalty or dropping the proceedings for the imposition of penalty is passed before the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal or the High Court or the Supreme Court

M/S. M.P. RAJYA OPEN SCHOOL,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 379/IND/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Mar 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri O.P. Meena, Am

Section 10Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act could not be levied as the admission of appeal and the substantial question of law framed credence to the bona fide of the assessee to say that there was no deliberate concealment. For ready M.P. Rajya Open School, Bhopal (ITA Nos.376 to 382/Ind/2015) Page 6 of 8 reference, the relevant portion

M/S. M.P. RAJYA OPEN SCHOOL,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 378/IND/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri O.P. Meena, Am

Section 10Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act could not be levied as the admission of appeal and the substantial question of law framed credence to the bona fide of the assessee to say that there was no deliberate concealment. For ready M.P. Rajya Open School, Bhopal (ITA Nos.376 to 382/Ind/2015) Page 6 of 8 reference, the relevant portion

M/S. M.P. RAJYA OPEN SCHOOL,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 380/IND/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri O.P. Meena, Am

Section 10Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act could not be levied as the admission of appeal and the substantial question of law framed credence to the bona fide of the assessee to say that there was no deliberate concealment. For ready M.P. Rajya Open School, Bhopal (ITA Nos.376 to 382/Ind/2015) Page 6 of 8 reference, the relevant portion

M/S. M.P. RAJYA OPEN SCHOOL,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 381/IND/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri O.P. Meena, Am

Section 10Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act could not be levied as the admission of appeal and the substantial question of law framed credence to the bona fide of the assessee to say that there was no deliberate concealment. For ready M.P. Rajya Open School, Bhopal (ITA Nos.376 to 382/Ind/2015) Page 6 of 8 reference, the relevant portion

M/S. M.P. RAJYA OPEN SCHOOL,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 382/IND/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri O.P. Meena, Am

Section 10Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act could not be levied as the admission of appeal and the substantial question of law framed credence to the bona fide of the assessee to say that there was no deliberate concealment. For ready M.P. Rajya Open School, Bhopal (ITA Nos.376 to 382/Ind/2015) Page 6 of 8 reference, the relevant portion

M/S. M.P. RAJYA OPEN SCHOOL,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 376/IND/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Mar 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri O.P. Meena, Am

Section 10Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act could not be levied as the admission of appeal and the substantial question of law framed credence to the bona fide of the assessee to say that there was no deliberate concealment. For ready M.P. Rajya Open School, Bhopal (ITA Nos.376 to 382/Ind/2015) Page 6 of 8 reference, the relevant portion

M/S. M.P. RAJYA OPEN SCHOOL,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 377/IND/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Mar 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri O.P. Meena, Am

Section 10Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act could not be levied as the admission of appeal and the substantial question of law framed credence to the bona fide of the assessee to say that there was no deliberate concealment. For ready M.P. Rajya Open School, Bhopal (ITA Nos.376 to 382/Ind/2015) Page 6 of 8 reference, the relevant portion