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.

7 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 40clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi662Mumbai623Jaipur202Ahmedabad175Hyderabad127Bangalore122Raipur118Chennai112Indore87Rajkot68Pune64Chandigarh57Kolkata55Amritsar48Surat43Allahabad42Cochin23Nagpur21Lucknow20Visakhapatnam17Patna16Ranchi14Jabalpur7Guwahati7Cuttack6Agra4Dehradun4Jodhpur4Panaji3Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)20Section 26313Section 1548Section 115B7Section 271(1)(c)6Addition to Income6Section 271(1)(b)5Penalty5Section 148

J.P TOBACCO PRODUCT PVT. LTD.,DAMOH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SAGAR

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

ITA 155/JAB/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Sept 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. J.P.Tobacco Products Vs Acit, Pvt. Ltd., Patharia Phatak, Circle-Sagar. Damoh (M.P.). (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj7141G Assessee By Shri G.N.Purohit, Sr.Adv. & Shri Abhijeet Shrivastava, Adv. Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2023

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 28.06.2010 amounting to Rs.2,72,850/- for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. On further appeal, Ld.CIT(A) upheld the penalty observing as under:- 7.1.3.DECISION:-“I have carefully considered the submission put forth including the case laws relied upon & the documents 3 | P a g e J.P.Tobacco Product Pvt.Ltd. vs ACIT furnished

SHRI DIGPAL JAISWAL,KATNI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1 , KATNI

4
Section 142(1)4
Disallowance3
Deduction2

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 42/JAB/2021[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. Shravan Kumar Gotru, CIT-DR
Section 1Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 271(1)(b)Section 40

40(a)(ia) of I.T. Act 1961 for interest paid. Thus there is no escapement of income. Reassessment was framed after examining the submission of assessee. Finding is recorded at para 3 of reassessment order that there is no claim for interest payment in Profit & Loss Account. Thus there remain no escapement of income in terms of reasons recorded. Reassessment

SHRI DIGPAL JAISWAL,KATNI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JABALPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 83/JAB/2019[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. Shravan Kumar Gotru, CIT-DR
Section 1Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 271(1)(b)Section 40

40(a)(ia) of I.T. Act 1961 for interest paid. Thus there is no escapement of income. Reassessment was framed after examining the submission of assessee. Finding is recorded at para 3 of reassessment order that there is no claim for interest payment in Profit & Loss Account. Thus there remain no escapement of income in terms of reasons recorded. Reassessment

PRADEEP SHARMA,SAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, KATNI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4/JAB/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur13 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 234ASection 250Section 68

40,535/- was surrendered by the appellant. Return of income for the relevant year was filed by the Appellant on 17/10/2017 declaring total income of Rs.47,33,190/- which included the income surrendered during survey. The assessment for the relevant year was made u/s 143(3) vide order dated 17/12/2019 accepting the income shown in the return filed. During

ABHISHEK PUROHIT, SAGAR,SAGAR vs. ITO WARD (3) SAGAR, SAGAR

Appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 47/JAB/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur07 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 Abhishek Purohit, Vs. Ito, Kotwali Road, Ward (3), Behind Putrishala School, Sagar Sagar. Pan : Asbpp 4859M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rahul Bardia, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravi Mehrotra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2023

Section 144Section 234BSection 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(b)Section 68

40,120/- and income from other sources at Rs.67,602/-. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under the CASS guidelines for the reason “large cash deposit in Saving Bank Account(s) (AIR, Total turnover and other income in Part-A, P&L of ITR).” It was noticed that the assessee had made deposits aggregating to Rs.87

VISHAL DATT,JABALPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 134/JAB/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur01 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

40,020/-, making various additions. The Assessing Officer also passed penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on 21/06/2017 and imposed a penalty of Rs.1,10,964/-. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal in the office of learned CIT(A) against aforesaid order dated 21/06/2017. Vide impugned appellate order dated 15/04/2025, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed

AMBIKA CHARAN DIXIT,JABALPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 37/JAB/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur24 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43C

section 263 have not been fulfilled by the Pr. CIT which passed the order impugned. The learned counsel for the assessee has also produced paper book and drawn our attention to the assessment order and the documents produced thereon. 5. Per contra, learned D.R. submitted that as the Assessing Officer has not made proper enquiry regarding genuineness of the transactions