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 53Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai25Delhi13Chandigarh7Bangalore6Indore5Agra5Surat4Ahmedabad4Patna4Amritsar3Pune3Kolkata2Hyderabad1

Key Topics

Section 54B12Section 271(1)(c)8Section 153A8Penalty5Addition to Income5Section 1474Section 2504Section 80I4Disallowance3

SHRI RAM BABU SINGH,INDORE vs. DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 328/IND/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Ram Babu Singh, Dcit-1(1) C/O Sv Agrawal & Associates, Bhopal Dadi Dham, 24, Joy Builders Colony, Vs. Near Rafael Tower, Old Palasia, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aelps9945K Assessee By S/Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.05.2024 & 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23 .07.2024

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of the addition made on account of disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB(10). In the assessment order the A.O has given the finding on three points which were considered as non-compliance of conditions prescribed u/s 80IB(10). The first point on which the A.O have given the finding

AG-8 VENTURES LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

Section 1482
Section 27(1)(c)2
Exemption2
ITA 922/IND/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

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

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40A(3)Section 80I

penalty levied by the Ld. CIT(A) vide his order dated 09.08.2019. 2. Briefly stated facts as culled out from the records are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of real estate developer and builder. On 06.08.2013, a survey u/s. 133A was carried out at the premises and Buidling Projects run by the assessee-company. Subsequently

AG-8 VENTURES LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

ITA 923/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

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

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40A(3)Section 80I

penalty levied by the Ld. CIT(A) vide his order dated 09.08.2019. 2. Briefly stated facts as culled out from the records are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of real estate developer and builder. On 06.08.2013, a survey u/s. 133A was carried out at the premises and Buidling Projects run by the assessee-company. Subsequently

THE ITO 2 (2), BHOPAL vs. SHRI MUNSHIRAM BALKISHAN VERMA, BHOPAL

ITA 9/IND/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court)

Section 147Section 148Section 27(1)(c)Section 54B

53A Transfer of Property Act 1982. This view is supported in the decision in case of General Glass Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2007) 108 ITJ 854 (Mum) therefore it is not justified to hold that appellant transferred the land and due to this reason appellant is not liable for any gain as there is no transfer of capital assets

THE ITO 2 (2), BHOPAL vs. SHRI MUNSHIRAM BALKISHAN VERMA, BHOPAL

ITA 8/IND/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court)

Section 147Section 148Section 27(1)(c)Section 54B

53A Transfer of Property Act 1982. This view is supported in the decision in case of General Glass Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2007) 108 ITJ 854 (Mum) therefore it is not justified to hold that appellant transferred the land and due to this reason appellant is not liable for any gain as there is no transfer of capital assets