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.

3 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 144Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Allahabad37Delhi16Chennai12Bangalore9Lucknow7Ahmedabad3Jaipur3Mumbai3Pune3Kolkata2Amritsar2Rajkot2Raipur1Chandigarh1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 143(2)3Section 1483Section 271A2Section 1472Section 44A2Penalty2Addition to Income2

PANKAJ KUMAR MITTAL,DHOLPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4 BHARATPUR, BHARATPUR

In the result, stands allowed

ITA 393/JPR/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019
For Appellant: Shri Rahul Pandya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 144ASection 148Section 271ASection 44A

144A(b), which is less than the mandatory time of 7 days as specified\nunder the Income Tax Act, thus all the proceedings are null and void.”\nSuccinctly, the facts as culled out from the records are that the\nassessee had filed his original tax return (ITR 4 – Presumptive tax Income\nfrom B&P) for the relevant year

SMT. UMA MANDAL, 754, LADHON KA MOHALLA, BEHIND MINERVA CINEMA, M.D. ROAD, JAIPUR-302004,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(2), JAIPUR, WARD-5(2), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 466/JPR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 466/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year: 2010-11 Smt. Uma Mandal, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. 754, Lodhon Ka Mohalla, Ward 5(4), Behind Minerva Cinema, M.D. Jaipur. Road, Jaipur-302004. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Apspm 2419 L Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Vishal Gupta (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 16/04/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Jaipur Dated 22/02/2019 For The A.Y. 2010-11, Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Law & Facts By Confirming The Action Of Ld. A.O. In Assessing The Income Of The Assessee At Rs. 2037281.00 Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee That He Earned Only Commission Income At The Rate Of 0.25 Percent & Treating Percent Of The Deposits In Her Bank Account As Her Income. The Additions Of Pursuance Of Same, Are Prayed To Be Deleted 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Law & Facts By Confirming The Action Of Ld. A.O. Of Initiating Penalty Under Section 271A & 271B Ignoring The Fact

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Gupta (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.CIT)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 271A

penalty under section 271A & 271B ignoring the fact 2 ITA 466/JP/2019_ Uma Mandal Vs ITO that the commission should be treated as turnover of the assessee and not the deposits in the account. The Ld. Appellate authority is hereby prayed to hold such action as illegal. 3. On the facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming

MOHAN LAL ASHOK KUMAR SARAF,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 879/JPR/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2024AY 2017-2018
For Appellant: Shri Ankit Totuka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

penalty proceedings if any initiated against the appellant deserves to be dropped. 11. The appellants crave leave to add, amend, alter or delete any one or all the above grounds/ submissions/documents on or before the date of hearing and it is further requested that the appellants may be accorded an opportunity of hearing.’’ 2.1 Apropos Ground