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 43(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi517Mumbai451Ahmedabad137Jaipur133Raipur116Bangalore103Hyderabad101Pune68Chandigarh65Indore63Chennai55Kolkata43Amritsar38Rajkot34Allahabad30Surat30Nagpur24Visakhapatnam14Guwahati10Patna8Lucknow8Ranchi7Varanasi6Cuttack6Jabalpur4Cochin4Dehradun4Jodhpur3Panaji3

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(b)7Section 2635Section 143(3)4Section 1484Addition to Income4Section 1443Penalty3Section 43C2Section 147

RAJESH SINGH,REWA vs. ITO WARD -1,REWA, REWA

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 128/JAB/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur19 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.128 & 129/Jab/2023 A.Y. 2010-11 Rajesh Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, M/S Pharma Deal Agency, Ward No.8, Ward-1, Rewa, M.P. Mauganj, Distt. Rewa, M.P. Pan:Atrps5702K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Devendra Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

Penalty of Rs. 30,000/- demanded U/S 271(1)(b) of IT Act, 1961 which is not based on any concrete finding but was entirely estimated, arbitrary, assumptions & Presumptions and bad in law. 3- That the Assessee crave leaves to raise any other grounds on or before the date of hearing to prove that the order passed

2
Section 69A2

RAJESH SINGH,REWA vs. ITO WARD-1 REWA, REWA

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 129/JAB/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur19 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.128 & 129/Jab/2023 A.Y. 2010-11 Rajesh Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, M/S Pharma Deal Agency, Ward No.8, Ward-1, Rewa, M.P. Mauganj, Distt. Rewa, M.P. Pan:Atrps5702K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Devendra Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

Penalty of Rs. 30,000/- demanded U/S 271(1)(b) of IT Act, 1961 which is not based on any concrete finding but was entirely estimated, arbitrary, assumptions & Presumptions and bad in law. 3- That the Assessee crave leaves to raise any other grounds on or before the date of hearing to prove that the order passed

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

Sections 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) and 142(1) of the Act were issued from time to time. However, there was non-compliance on the part of the assessee. The Assessing Officer also proceeded to impose penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act amounting to Rs.10,000/- for non compliance. Thereafter

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

43 CA of the Income Tax Act 1961. Similarly a sum of Rs. 15,280/- were also added u/s 43CA on account of property sold to Shri Dr. Nemi Kochar during the year. Since no satisfactory explanation/evidences are submitted by the assessee, therefore penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act can be initiated against the assessee.” 8. Considering