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.

158 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 48clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,232Mumbai1,062Ahmedabad334Jaipur300Bangalore210Indore158Karnataka126Pune125Kolkata122Raipur117Chennai104Hyderabad91Chandigarh72Surat58Visakhapatnam52Allahabad49Rajkot47Amritsar39Nagpur35Calcutta34Cochin33Lucknow27Cuttack14Kerala14Agra12Dehradun12Jodhpur10Panaji10Patna10Jabalpur10Guwahati9SC4Telangana4Varanasi3Ranchi2Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 271D184Section 271(1)(b)138Section 142(1)95Section 269S78Penalty76Section 13257Section 14447Section 26335Section 153A24

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. Keti Construction (India) Ltd & Kalyan Toll Infrastructure Ltd. ITA Nos. 877 & 878/Ind/2019 17.6Additional income of Rs. 28,90,450/- was offered on account of certain notings found on loose papers, which the respondent could not readily reconcile with its books of accounts. This income was offered suo-moto by the respondent during the search without having been

Showing 1–20 of 158 · Page 1 of 8

...
Addition to Income21
Disallowance18
Long Term Capital Gains8

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. Keti Construction (India) Ltd & Kalyan Toll Infrastructure Ltd. ITA Nos. 877 & 878/Ind/2019 17.6Additional income of Rs. 28,90,450/- was offered on account of certain notings found on loose papers, which the respondent could not readily reconcile with its books of accounts. This income was offered suo-moto by the respondent during the search without having been

SHRI KULWANT SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-3, INDORE

In the result, all the ix appeals as mentioned above are

ITA 414/IND/2012[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Aug 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ /. सं . अ .

Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

48,650/- including additional income of Rs.9,28,400/-.The assessment was completed u/s. 153A on December 18, 2009 by accepting returned income under section 153A for A.Y. 2002-03. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noted that the assessee has shown additional income due to search hence, penalty proceeding under section 271

PRAKASH ASPHALTINGS AND TOLL HIGHWAYS (INDIA) LIMITED,MHOW vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, INDORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 720/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Guptaassessment Year: 2014-15 Prakash Asphalting & Toll Acit Central Circle -1 Highways (India) Limited, Indore बनाम/ 76, Mall Road, Vs. Mhow (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aabcp0398N Assessee By Shri Anup Garg & Vikas Guru, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2025

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271ASection 274Section 80

48,480/-. 2.2 From the statement of Shri Ashok Shrotriya, director of PATH, the assessee company. During the AY 2014-15 total amount of payment was made as per Page 2 of 21 Prakash Asphalting and Toll Highways (India) Limited ITA No. 720/Ind/2024 – AY 2014-15 seized document page

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)

u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. 7. Ld. counsel for all these assessees commonly submitted that all the assessee(s) were prevented for reasonable cause for non- appearance because copies of seized documents was given very late and the time given to furnish the reply was very short for making due compliance and thus it was a reasonable cause

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)

u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. 7. Ld. counsel for all these assessees commonly submitted that all the assessee(s) were prevented for reasonable cause for non- appearance because copies of seized documents was given very late and the time given to furnish the reply was very short for making due compliance and thus it was a reasonable cause

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)

u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. 7. Ld. counsel for all these assessees commonly submitted that all the assessee(s) were prevented for reasonable cause for non- appearance because copies of seized documents was given very late and the time given to furnish the reply was very short for making due compliance and thus it was a reasonable cause

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)

u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. 7. Ld. counsel for all these assessees commonly submitted that all the assessee(s) were prevented for reasonable cause for non- appearance because copies of seized documents was given very late and the time given to furnish the reply was very short for making due compliance and thus it was a reasonable cause

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

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

ITA 380/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)

u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. 7. Ld. counsel for all these assessees commonly submitted that all the assessee(s) were prevented for reasonable cause for non- appearance because copies of seized documents was given very late and the time given to furnish the reply was very short for making due compliance and thus it was a reasonable cause

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)

u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. 7. Ld. counsel for all these assessees commonly submitted that all the assessee(s) were prevented for reasonable cause for non- appearance because copies of seized documents was given very late and the time given to furnish the reply was very short for making due compliance and thus it was a reasonable cause

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)

u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. 7. Ld. counsel for all these assessees commonly submitted that all the assessee(s) were prevented for reasonable cause for non- appearance because copies of seized documents was given very late and the time given to furnish the reply was very short for making due compliance and thus it was a reasonable cause

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)

u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. 7. Ld. counsel for all these assessees commonly submitted that all the assessee(s) were prevented for reasonable cause for non- appearance because copies of seized documents was given very late and the time given to furnish the reply was very short for making due compliance and thus it was a reasonable cause

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)

u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. 7. Ld. counsel for all these assessees commonly submitted that all the assessee(s) were prevented for reasonable cause for non- appearance because copies of seized documents was given very late and the time given to furnish the reply was very short for making due compliance and thus it was a reasonable cause

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)

u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. 7. Ld. counsel for all these assessees commonly submitted that all the assessee(s) were prevented for reasonable cause for non- appearance because copies of seized documents was given very late and the time given to furnish the reply was very short for making due compliance and thus it was a reasonable cause

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)

u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. 7. Ld. counsel for all these assessees commonly submitted that all the assessee(s) were prevented for reasonable cause for non- appearance because copies of seized documents was given very late and the time given to furnish the reply was very short for making due compliance and thus it was a reasonable cause

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)

u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. 7. Ld. counsel for all these assessees commonly submitted that all the assessee(s) were prevented for reasonable cause for non- appearance because copies of seized documents was given very late and the time given to furnish the reply was very short for making due compliance and thus it was a reasonable cause

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)

u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. 7. Ld. counsel for all these assessees commonly submitted that all the assessee(s) were prevented for reasonable cause for non- appearance because copies of seized documents was given very late and the time given to furnish the reply was very short for making due compliance and thus it was a reasonable cause

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)

u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. 7. Ld. counsel for all these assessees commonly submitted that all the assessee(s) were prevented for reasonable cause for non- appearance because copies of seized documents was given very late and the time given to furnish the reply was very short for making due compliance and thus it was a reasonable cause

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)

u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. 7. Ld. counsel for all these assessees commonly submitted that all the assessee(s) were prevented for reasonable cause for non- appearance because copies of seized documents was given very late and the time given to furnish the reply was very short for making due compliance and thus it was a reasonable cause

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)

u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. 7. Ld. counsel for all these assessees commonly submitted that all the assessee(s) were prevented for reasonable cause for non- appearance because copies of seized documents was given very late and the time given to furnish the reply was very short for making due compliance and thus it was a reasonable cause