BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

4 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 274(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi494Mumbai422Jaipur165Surat125Chennai100Bangalore97Ahmedabad81Hyderabad80Kolkata75Indore71Pune67Allahabad44Ranchi42Rajkot39Chandigarh38Raipur34Amritsar30Cochin23Visakhapatnam20Nagpur17Patna15Guwahati14Agra14Dehradun12Lucknow11Cuttack11Jodhpur7Jabalpur4Panaji2Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)11Section 272A(1)(d)8Section 1445Section 2744Penalty4Addition to Income4Cash Deposit3Section 2502Section 271A

SHRI PANKAJ KUMAR RAI,KATNI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2 , KATNI

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 96/JAB/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. K P Dewani, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ravi Mehrotra, JCIT-DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

2) Bombay High Court: Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs ACIT Section 271(1)(c): Penalty-Concealment-Non-striking off of the irrelevant part while issuing notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, order is bad in law. Assessee must be informed of the ground of the penalty proceedings only through statutory notice. An omnibus notice suffers

AMIT KUMAR YADAV,SEONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SEONI

2

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 166/JAB/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. G.N. Purohit, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 250Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)

u/s 142(1). The penalty of Rs. 50000/- should be quashed in toto. 4. That The applicant reserves his right to raise additional ground or grounds of appeal those may arise at the time of hearing of this appeal.” 2. The facts of the case are, that the return of income of the assessee for the assessment year

AMIT KUMAR YADAV,SEONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SEONI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 168/JAB/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. G.N. Purohit, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 250Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)

u/s 142(1). The penalty of Rs. 50000/- should be quashed in toto. 4. That The applicant reserves his right to raise additional ground or grounds of appeal those may arise at the time of hearing of this appeal.” 2. The facts of the case are, that the return of income of the assessee for the assessment year

VIVEK KUMAR SINGH,REWA vs. ITO WARD SINGRAULI, SINGRAULI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 54/JAB/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur18 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalevivek Kumar Singh, Vs. Ito, 14/357, Sanjay Nagar Singrauli, Rewa-486001, Madhya Pradesh. Madhya Pradesh.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shiv Kumar. Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 2Section 272ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 274(2)Section 3

274(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That no proper opportunity was allowed to the appellant to prove his case. 4. The appellant prays to alter, amend, add or delete any of the grounds of appeal. 5. The penalty was levied by the assessment unit u/s 272A(1)(d). While furnishing the details of appeal there is no column