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.

130 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 55(2)(a)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,065Mumbai947Ahmedabad319Jaipur240Bangalore219Karnataka131Indore130Chennai126Kolkata120Pune111Hyderabad107Surat89Chandigarh74Raipur53Rajkot53Visakhapatnam39Amritsar39Lucknow36Calcutta35Nagpur30Cochin30Guwahati28Allahabad27Dehradun22Cuttack16Kerala14Patna13Varanasi8Agra7Jabalpur7Telangana3Panaji3Ranchi3SC3Jodhpur3Gauhati1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 271D182Section 271(1)(c)100Section 269S78Penalty66Section 143(3)64Section 26362Addition to Income62Section 271C46Section 271A

MUKESH KUMAR RANKA,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

ITA 98/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Indore21 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

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

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271ASection 274

2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the penalty notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is bad in law and invalid despite the amendment of Section 271(1B) with retrospective effect and by virtue of the amendment, the assessing officer has initiated the penalty

MUKESH KUMAR RANKA,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Showing 1–20 of 130 · Page 1 of 7

37
Section 194H34
Disallowance28
Deduction22

Appeals are allowed

ITA 97/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Indore21 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

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

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271ASection 274

2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the penalty notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is bad in law and invalid despite the amendment of Section 271(1B) with retrospective effect and by virtue of the amendment, the assessing officer has initiated the penalty

ANJU JAIN, LR SHRI SUSHIL JAIN ,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

ITA 104/IND/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Indore21 Mar 2024

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

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271ASection 274

2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the penalty notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is bad in law and invalid despite the amendment of Section 271(1B) with retrospective effect and by virtue of the amendment, the assessing officer has initiated the penalty

ANJU JAIN, LR SUSHIL JAIN,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

ITA 103/IND/2024[AY 2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Indore21 Mar 2024

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

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271ASection 274

2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the penalty notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is bad in law and invalid despite the amendment of Section 271(1B) with retrospective effect and by virtue of the amendment, the assessing officer has initiated the penalty

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

271 (1)( c) on 31.03.2018 levying a penalty of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- for this year. 21 Keti Construction (India) Ltd & Kalyan Toll Infrastructure Ltd. ITA Nos. 877 & 878/Ind/2019 12.The penalty has been levied in respect of additional income of Rs. 5,06,02,159/-(5,08,55,710 -2,28,103 additional claim of depreciation in 153A) offered

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

271 (1)( c) on 31.03.2018 levying a penalty of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- for this year. 21 Keti Construction (India) Ltd & Kalyan Toll Infrastructure Ltd. ITA Nos. 877 & 878/Ind/2019 12.The penalty has been levied in respect of additional income of Rs. 5,06,02,159/-(5,08,55,710 -2,28,103 additional claim of depreciation in 153A) offered

SHRI GAURAV SHARMA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee

ITA 139/IND/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 30.12.2009 whereas substantive additions were made in the hands of the assessee’s father, Dr. Yogiraj Sharma. When the quantum issue came up before the Tribunal, protective addition in the hands of the assessee was confirmed as substantive addition. Subsequently, penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 271

SHRI GAURAV SHARMA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee

ITA 140/IND/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 30.12.2009 whereas substantive additions were made in the hands of the assessee’s father, Dr. Yogiraj Sharma. When the quantum issue came up before the Tribunal, protective addition in the hands of the assessee was confirmed as substantive addition. Subsequently, penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 271

SHRI GAURAV SHARMA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee

ITA 137/IND/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 May 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 30.12.2009 whereas substantive additions were made in the hands of the assessee’s father, Dr. Yogiraj Sharma. When the quantum issue came up before the Tribunal, protective addition in the hands of the assessee was confirmed as substantive addition. Subsequently, penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 271

SHRI GAURAV SHARMA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee

ITA 141/IND/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 30.12.2009 whereas substantive additions were made in the hands of the assessee’s father, Dr. Yogiraj Sharma. When the quantum issue came up before the Tribunal, protective addition in the hands of the assessee was confirmed as substantive addition. Subsequently, penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 271

SHRI GAURAV SHARMA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee

ITA 138/IND/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 May 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 30.12.2009 whereas substantive additions were made in the hands of the assessee’s father, Dr. Yogiraj Sharma. When the quantum issue came up before the Tribunal, protective addition in the hands of the assessee was confirmed as substantive addition. Subsequently, penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 271

SHRI GAURAV SHARMA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee

ITA 136/IND/2017[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 May 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 30.12.2009 whereas substantive additions were made in the hands of the assessee’s father, Dr. Yogiraj Sharma. When the quantum issue came up before the Tribunal, protective addition in the hands of the assessee was confirmed as substantive addition. Subsequently, penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 271

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

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

55 taxmann.com 406 (Bom), CIT v. Indersons Leather P. Ltd. (2011) 196 Taxman 103 (P&H) (MAG) and ITO vs. Roborant Investments P. Ltd. (2006) 7 SOT 181 (Mum). The assessee has stated that penalty initiated in the present case is not maintainable, therefore, it is our humble request to kindly drop the same. 3.3 Reply of the assessee perused

ACIT-2(1), UJJAIN, UJJAIN vs. M/S RUCHI J OIL PVT. LTD,, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal ITANo

ITA 82/IND/2020[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Indore17 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 271ASection 40A(2)(b)Section 91D(1)Section 92BSection 92D(1)

55) 2. Though notice dated 26.12.2017 under section 271AA did not refer to failure to report Specified Domestic Transaction as contemplated u/s 92E read with clause (ii) of section 271AA, the AO for the first time refers to section 271AA(ii) in para 7.3 of the penalty order as under: “Therefore, the submission of the assessee that penalty u/s 271AA

THE DCIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. SMT. SUDESH CHAWLA, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years

ITA 405/IND/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Nov 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradit(Ss)A Nos. 158 To 163/Ind/2015 Assessment Years 2000-01 To 2005-06 & Assessment Year-2006-07

Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)

271 (SC) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait Vs. CIT (1959) 371TR 151 (SC) Nai Dunia News &Network Pvt Ltd. 171TJ 289 Trib.lndore AO made adhoc disallowance for expenses holding that "some" vouchers were not verifiable. HELD, no specific defect is pointed out. 'A' has maintained proper books which has not been rejected. B. ACIT vs.Popular Art Palace

LATE SMT. SUDESH CHAWLA L/H SHRI PREM CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years

ITA 441/IND/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Nov 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradit(Ss)A Nos. 158 To 163/Ind/2015 Assessment Years 2000-01 To 2005-06 & Assessment Year-2006-07

Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)

271 (SC) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait Vs. CIT (1959) 371TR 151 (SC) Nai Dunia News &Network Pvt Ltd. 171TJ 289 Trib.lndore AO made adhoc disallowance for expenses holding that "some" vouchers were not verifiable. HELD, no specific defect is pointed out. 'A' has maintained proper books which has not been rejected. B. ACIT vs.Popular Art Palace

SMT. SARITA CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years

ITA 442/IND/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Nov 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradit(Ss)A Nos. 158 To 163/Ind/2015 Assessment Years 2000-01 To 2005-06 & Assessment Year-2006-07

Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)

271 (SC) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait Vs. CIT (1959) 371TR 151 (SC) Nai Dunia News &Network Pvt Ltd. 171TJ 289 Trib.lndore AO made adhoc disallowance for expenses holding that "some" vouchers were not verifiable. HELD, no specific defect is pointed out. 'A' has maintained proper books which has not been rejected. B. ACIT vs.Popular Art Palace

THE ACIT, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. M/S. PRAKASH ASHPHLTING & TOLL HIGHWAY LTD., INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 804/IND/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

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

Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

55,122 FY 08-09 2,85,25,021 5,52,49,940 Cash transaction of PATH with directors & Relatives FY 09-10 1,46,61,842 5,37,00,603 7.2 All these figures as given by the AO are based on the assumption of the AO that the transactions recorded in the loose paper against the name

THE ACIT, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. M/S. PRAKASH ASHPHLTING & TOLL HIGHWAY LTD., INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 793/IND/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

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

Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

55,122 FY 08-09 2,85,25,021 5,52,49,940 Cash transaction of PATH with directors & Relatives FY 09-10 1,46,61,842 5,37,00,603 7.2 All these figures as given by the AO are based on the assumption of the AO that the transactions recorded in the loose paper against the name

THE ACIT, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. M/S. PRAKASH ASHPHLTING & TOLL HIGHWAY LTD., INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 801/IND/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

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

Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

55,122 FY 08-09 2,85,25,021 5,52,49,940 Cash transaction of PATH with directors & Relatives FY 09-10 1,46,61,842 5,37,00,603 7.2 All these figures as given by the AO are based on the assumption of the AO that the transactions recorded in the loose paper against the name