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.

99 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 172(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi293Mumbai242Karnataka99Jaipur99Indore53Ahmedabad37Raipur35Calcutta34Chennai31Kolkata24Hyderabad23Allahabad21Pune21Chandigarh20Bangalore18Lucknow15Amritsar11Nagpur7Guwahati6Patna6Surat5Rajkot4Dehradun3Cuttack3Jodhpur3Visakhapatnam2Cochin2Agra2Rajasthan1Telangana1Varanasi1SC1

Key Topics

Section 271A222Section 271E101Section 271D77Addition to Income62Section 143(3)60Section 153A47Section 132(4)45Penalty45Section 271(1)(c)

RAJ KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 323/JPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Dec 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena (CIT)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 271Section 271ASection 271aSection 274

271(1)(c) 35 Shri Raj Kumar Jain, Jaipur. that the income was surrendered on the basis of some documents on which the name of some persons and some amount is mentioned. The Learned Assessing Officer has not made any enquiry regarding those documents whether the person the name of which mentioned is an existing person or the amount mentioned

Showing 1–20 of 99 · Page 1 of 5

32
Undisclosed Income23
Section 139(1)18
Disallowance17

SHRI RAM DAS SONKIA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 295/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 271ASection 274

271 READ WITH SECTION 271AAB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. Date : 15-05-2017. To, Name M/s./Shri/Smt. Ram Das Sonkia Address Pitaliyon Ka Chowk, Johari Bazar, Jaipur PAN AJTPS 9679 M Whereas in the course of assessment proceedings for the AY 2015-16 penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 274 and 275 read with the section u/s 271AAB

SHRI KRISHNA YADAV,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 987/JPR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Advocate)For Respondent: Shi B.K. Gupta (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271A

271 and not 271AAB. The Hon’ble High Court after considering the fact that body of the show cause notice and particularly the last line of the notice clearly mentions Section 271AAB of the Act and therefore, the AO will get the benefit of Section 292BB of the I.T. Act. There was no question before the Hon’ble High Court

SHRI AJAY AGARWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

ITA 1383/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Mar 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 251(2)Section 271A

271 are mentioned would not satisfy the requirement of law ; The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, the principles of natural justice are offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee ; ) taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb

SHRI RAJENDRA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

ITA 1375/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Mar 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 251(2)Section 271A

271 are mentioned would not satisfy the requirement of law ; The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, the principles of natural justice are offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee ; ) taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb

SMT. APARNA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

ITA 1378/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Mar 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 251(2)Section 271A

271 are mentioned would not satisfy the requirement of law ; The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, the principles of natural justice are offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee ; ) taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb

SHRI MANOJ MOONDHRA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 857/JPR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Mar 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Advocate)For Respondent: Smt. Neena Jeph (JCIT)
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153(1)(b)Section 154Section 271Section 271A

271 and not 271AAB. The Hon’ble High Court after considering the fact that body of the show cause notice and particularly the last line of the notice clearly mentions Section 271AAB of the Act and therefore, the AO will get the benefit of Section 292BB of the I.T. Act. There was no question before the Hon’ble High Court

SHRI VASUDEV AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

ITA 1376/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Mar 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 251(2)Section 271A

271 are mentioned would not satisfy the requirement of law ; The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, the principles of natural justice are offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee ; ) taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb

SMT. INDIRA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1384/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Mar 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 271A

271 are mentioned would not satisfy the requirement of law ; The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, the principles of natural justice are offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee ; ) taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb

SMT. JYOTI AGARWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA nos

ITA 1373/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Mar 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 271A

271 are mentioned would not satisfy the requirement of law ; The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, the principles of natural justice are offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee ; ) taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb

SHRI MANOJ MOONDHRA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 225/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Mar 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Advocate)For Respondent: Smt. Neena Jeph (JCIT)
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153(1)(b)Section 154Section 271Section 271A

271 and not 271AAB. The Hon’ble High Court after considering the fact that body of the show cause notice and particularly the last line of the notice clearly mentions Section 271AAB of the Act and therefore, the AO will get the benefit of Section 292BB of the I.T. Act. There was no question before the Hon’ble High Court

SHRI SURESH CHAND MITTAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 931/JPR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jul 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar and Ms Isha Kanungo (Advocates)For Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena (JCIT)
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 80C

271 are mentioned would not satisfy the requirement of law ; The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, the principles of natural justice are offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee ; ) taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb

SHRI MUKESH MOONDHRA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 226/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Mar 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Advocate)For Respondent: Smt. Neena Jeph (JCIT)
Section 154Section 271ASection 274

271 and not 271AAB. The Hon’ble High Court 18 Shri Mukesh Moondhra vs. DCIT. after considering the fact that body of the show cause notice and particularly the last line of the notice clearly mentions Section 271AAB of the Act and therefore, the AO will get the benefit of Section 292BB of the I.T. Act. There was no question

SHRI RITESH AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 418/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Jul 2018AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar and Ms Isha Kanungo (Advocates)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 271A

271 are mentioned would not satisfy the requirement of law ; The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, the principles of natural justice are offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee ; ) taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb

SHRI RAVI MATHUR,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 969/JPR/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Jun 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar and Ms. Isha Kanungo (Advocates)For Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena (JCIT)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153BSection 271A

271 are mentioned would not satisfy the requirement of law ; The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, the principles of natural justice are offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee ; ) taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, AJMER vs. YASHWANT KUMAR SHARMA, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

ITA 210/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 210/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer cuke Vs. Yashwant Kumar Sharma F-108, Industrial Area, Makhupura Parbatpura, Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ASWPS 3791 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@C.O. No. 04/JP/2023 (Arising out of ITA Nos. 210/JP/2023) fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 Yashwant Kumar Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. James Kurian (CIT) &
Section 139(1)Section 271ASection 274

271 are mentioned would not satisfy the requirement of law ; The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, the principles of natural justice are offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee ; ) taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

ITA 1170/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

Section 275 was substituted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, which came into effect from 1-4-1971. The change was explained by the Board vide Circular No. 56, dated 19-3-1971. Significantly, it postulated that section 275 of the Income-tax Act which specified the time-limit for completion of penalty proceedings has been substituted

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

ITA 1167/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

Section 275 was substituted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, which came into effect from 1-4-1971. The change was explained by the Board vide Circular No. 56, dated 19-3-1971. Significantly, it postulated that section 275 of the Income-tax Act which specified the time-limit for completion of penalty proceedings has been substituted

SHRI NAGENDRA CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 611/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: The Tribunal. Only When The Assessee Enquired About

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Jain (Advocate) &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Jha (Addl. CIT)
Section 271A

271 are mentioned would not satisfy the requirement of law ; The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, the principles of natural justice are offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee ; ) taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb

ANUJ MATHUR,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 971/JPR/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Jun 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar and Ms. Isha Kanungo (Advocates)For Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena (JCIT)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)Section 271ASection 274

271 are mentioned would not satisfy the requirement of law ; The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, the principles of natural justice are offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee ; ) taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb