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.

5 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 194A(3)(iii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Bangalore33Mumbai25Delhi16Hyderabad8Chandigarh7Jaipur5Jabalpur5Chennai4Ahmedabad3Pune3Kolkata2Raipur2Dehradun2Cuttack1Rajkot1

Key Topics

Section 14710Section 271C8Section 405Addition to Income5Section 201(1)4Section 17(2)4Section 271(1)(c)4TDS4Section 2743

DHANRAJ SETHIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1

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

ITA 169/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Saraswat, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 194ASection 194A(3)(iii)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40

Section 194A(3)(iii) exempts from deduction of ITDS on income credited or paid to any Banking Company to which the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 applies. 2.1 Apropos Ground No. 1 & 3 of the assessee, the facts as emerges from the order of the ld. CIT(A) are as under:- ‘’5. Findings:- The grounds of appeal, the submissions made

Deduction3
Penalty3
Section 143(3)2

JAIPUR NATIONAL UNIVERSITY,JAIPUR vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), JAIPUR

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

ITA 1456/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jul 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Roshanta Meena (JCIT)
Section 17(2)Section 201(1)Section 250Section 271CSection 273B

271-C in the case of M/s. Itochu Corporation, reported in 268 ITR 172 (Del) and in the case of CIT Vs. Mitsui & Company Ltd. reported in 272 ITR 545. Respectfully following the aforesaid judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the decision of the ITAT, Delhi in the case of Television Eighteen India Ltd., we allow the assessee

JAIPUR NATIONAL UNIVERSITY,JAIPUR vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), JAIPUR

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

ITA 1457/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jul 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Roshanta Meena (JCIT)
Section 17(2)Section 201(1)Section 250Section 271CSection 273B

271-C in the case of M/s. Itochu Corporation, reported in 268 ITR 172 (Del) and in the case of CIT Vs. Mitsui & Company Ltd. reported in 272 ITR 545. Respectfully following the aforesaid judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the decision of the ITAT, Delhi in the case of Television Eighteen India Ltd., we allow the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

ITA 901/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

u/s 131 on the address of above companies requesting furnishing of books of accounts, details of bank accounts, copies of Kedia Builders and Colonizers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur ITR and other documents, but the same could not be served due to non-existence of the companies on their respective given addresses. From the Database of the department, it is gathered that

PARADISE INFRASTRUCTURE,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, JAIPUR

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

ITA 871/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: The Learned Ao.

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

194A of the Act, the 30% of interest expenditure amount to Rs. 27,132/- (30% of 90,441/-) was hereby disallowed 5 Paradise Infrastructure vs. ACIT and added back to the total income of the assessee for the year under consideration. 3.2 The ld. AO noted that the balance of capital amounts of the assessee firm is found as negative