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.

48 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Survey u/s 133Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai339Delhi302Jaipur149Pune130Bangalore128Hyderabad86Chennai69Visakhapatnam63Ahmedabad62Surat60Kolkata56Indore48Rajkot44Lucknow35Chandigarh32Amritsar27Cochin16Patna16Ranchi15Nagpur10Cuttack10Karnataka10Panaji10Jodhpur8Raipur7Allahabad7Guwahati4Agra3Dehradun2SC2Telangana2Punjab & Haryana1Calcutta1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)48Section 133A44Section 143(3)43Survey u/s 133A33Penalty30Addition to Income27Section 132A26Section 14417Section 80I14Section 271(1)(b)

SHRI AKHILESH KUMAR GUPTA ,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1 (2), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee pertaining to Assessment

ITA 496/IND/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Years 2007-08 Shri Akhilesh Kumar Ito-1(2), Gupta, Bhopal Plot No.162, Shop G, Ashirvad Complex, Zone-!, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aenpg0415N Revenue By Shri K.C. Selvamani, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ca Date Of Hearing 07.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2019 O R D E R

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

penalty of Rs.5,00,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2 Akhilesh Kumar Gupta 4. Briefly stated facts as culled out from the records are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of wholesale and retail trading of plywood, door shutters, ceiling tiles and soft board etc. Return of income for the Assessment Year

Showing 1–20 of 48 · Page 1 of 3

13
Section 115B13
Undisclosed Income10

SHRI VARAD MEHTA,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 693/IND/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Dec 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year 2008-09 Shri Varad Mehta, Dcit 1(1), B-4/301, Paras City, Vs. Bhopal Arera Colony, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aflpm6733Q Revenue By Shri Rajeeb Jain, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri Girish Agrawal,Ca Date Of Hearing 27.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 06.12.2018 O R D E R

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c). The Assessing Officer as is apparent from the penalty order has not satisfied about the concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income on the part of the Varad Mehta assessee. On this basis itself the penalty deleted." [emphasis supplied] In the instant case, as Ld. AO failed to initiate the penalty proceedings

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)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c). 7. That the appellant craves leave to add, to urge, to alter or to amend any of the ground of appeal on or before the date of hearing. 4. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that search u/s 132 of the Act were conducted

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)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c). 7. That the appellant craves leave to add, to urge, to alter or to amend any of the ground of appeal on or before the date of hearing. 4. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that search u/s 132 of the Act were conducted

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)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c). 7. That the appellant craves leave to add, to urge, to alter or to amend any of the ground of appeal on or before the date of hearing. 4. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that search u/s 132 of the Act were conducted

RADHESHYAM AGARWAL,BHOPAL vs. THE PCIT, CENTRAL, BHOPAL , BHOPAL

ITA 417/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Jan 2026AY 2018-19
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 253Section 263

survey action u/s 133A of the\nact. We hold that mere surrender ipsofacto does not mean\nbusiness income perse. The Ld. AO is required to determine\nby inquiry so as to ensure whether there is compliance or not\nof other provisions of the act. This whole exercise is not done\nso in the “Impugned Assessment order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE ITARSI, BHOPAL vs. SHRI AMIT KUMAR AGRAWAL , HOSHANGABAD

In the result, legal ground raised in Cross Objection by the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 513/IND/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Circle- Shri Amit Kumar Agrawal C/O Prop. बनाम/

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is leviable for concealment of income for furnishing of inaccurate particular of income. Tax Effect of Rs.34,00,000/- 4. We will first take the Cross objection in CO No.28/Ind/2019 filed by the assessee raising a legal issue challenging the legality of the proceedings carried out u/s 271

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2, INDORE vs. JAVA BUILDERS PVT LTD(FORMERLY JAVA FOODS PVT LTD), INDORE

Appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit

ITA 279/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year: 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner Of Java Builders Pvt. Ltd. Income-Tax (Central)-2 (Formerly Java Foods Pvt. Ltd.), 16, Khajarana Square, बनाम/ Ghanshyam Castle, Vs. Opposite Subh Labh, Indore (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aaccj5636L Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Assessee By Ms. Richa Parwal, Ar Date Of Hearing 23.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.09.2025

Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271ASection 69B

271(1)(c) in the notice issued for imposing penalty u/s 271AAB. He has taken into account the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court and ITAT, Indore and accordingly held that initiation of penalty without issuance of a proper notice is not valid and not sustainable. This very issue was again decided in favour

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 66/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

133A on 24.9.2011 and during the course of survey proceedings he admitted the discrepancies of unsecured loans given to various persons and offered Rs.7 crores as undisclosed unaccounted income for tax for Assessment Year 2011-12. During the course of survey revenue authorities impounded various incriminating material including hundis which were claimed by the assessee to have been issued

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 57/IND/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

133A on 24.9.2011 and during the course of survey proceedings he admitted the discrepancies of unsecured loans given to various persons and offered Rs.7 crores as undisclosed unaccounted income for tax for Assessment Year 2011-12. During the course of survey revenue authorities impounded various incriminating material including hundis which were claimed by the assessee to have been issued

SHRI VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE PR.CIT-1, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 350/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

133A on 24.9.2011 and during the course of survey proceedings he admitted the discrepancies of unsecured loans given to various persons and offered Rs.7 crores as undisclosed unaccounted income for tax for Assessment Year 2011-12. During the course of survey revenue authorities impounded various incriminating material including hundis which were claimed by the assessee to have been issued

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), UJJAIN (STATIONED AT INDORE), UJJAIN vs. M/S. JPJ EXIM (P) LTD., INDORE

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 960/IND/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Oct 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: None
Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

survey action carried on u/s. 133A of the Act. The assessee come forwarded and declared the income which amounts to concealment of income only. Therefore the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty levied u/s. 271

ITO-1, ITARSI vs. SHRI ANIL KUMAR SONI, ITARSI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in ITANo

ITA 334/IND/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Years: 2011-12 Ito-1

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty of Rs.70,00,000/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of purchase and sale of jewellery under his proprietor concern in the name of M/s Beauty Jewellers at Itarsi. Survey u/s 133A

M/S. PATIDAR HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO 2(1), UJJAIN

In the result, ITA No.1007/Ind/2016 is partly allowed, is allowed and ITA

ITA 1008/IND/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 40Section 80I

133A conducted on 21/08/2009 were duly offered for taxation in Profit and Loss account as “Income from Hospital”.” Thus, the same was shown as income from hospital and same fact was not denied by the ld CIT(A). No other source from where the same could have been earned was pointed by the ld CIT(A). The appellant relies

M/S PATIDAR HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO 2(1), UJJAIN

In the result, ITA No.1007/Ind/2016 is partly allowed, is allowed and ITA

ITA 1541/IND/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 40Section 80I

133A conducted on 21/08/2009 were duly offered for taxation in Profit and Loss account as “Income from Hospital”.” Thus, the same was shown as income from hospital and same fact was not denied by the ld CIT(A). No other source from where the same could have been earned was pointed by the ld CIT(A). The appellant relies

M/S. PATIDAR HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO 2(1), UJJAIN

In the result, ITA No.1007/Ind/2016 is partly allowed, is allowed and ITA

ITA 1007/IND/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 40Section 80I

133A conducted on 21/08/2009 were duly offered for taxation in Profit and Loss account as “Income from Hospital”.” Thus, the same was shown as income from hospital and same fact was not denied by the ld CIT(A). No other source from where the same could have been earned was pointed by the ld CIT(A). The appellant relies

THE ACIT (CENTRAL) UJJAIN, UJJAIN vs. M/S. ARIBA FOODS (P) LTD., INDORE

In the result the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 2/IND/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that the assessee offered the income for taxation only as a consequence of survey action carried out on its premises. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the aforesaid penalty levied by the Assessing officer without

M/S. ALANKAR JEWELLERS ,BETUL vs. DCIT ITARSI, ITARSI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 992/IND/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2016-17

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of the Act, whereas no occasion to initiate penalty. 7. The appellant, carves leave to add, amend, alter or otherwise raise any other ground of appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of trading of gold, silver jewellery

AJIT LALWANI ,INDORE vs. ACIT (TDS) , INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeals in ITANo

ITA 194/IND/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

Section 206CSection 271C

271 CA was barred by limitation. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, to alter, amend, modify, substitute, delete and I or rescind all or any of the grounds of appeal on or before final hearing, if necessity so arises. 2. Though the assessee has raised various grounds of appeal for both the years but the effective grounds relates

AJIT LALWANI,INDORE vs. ADD.CIT(A), INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeals in ITANo

ITA 195/IND/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

Section 206CSection 271C

271 CA was barred by limitation. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, to alter, amend, modify, substitute, delete and I or rescind all or any of the grounds of appeal on or before final hearing, if necessity so arises. 2. Though the assessee has raised various grounds of appeal for both the years but the effective grounds relates