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 54Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi11Indore5Ahmedabad4Jaipur4Surat3Pune3Patna2Agra2Jabalpur1Chandigarh1Hyderabad1

Key Topics

Addition to Income4Section 143(3)3Section 153C3Section 2753Section 692Section 115B2Section 1472Section 271(1)(c)2Section 246

OMPRAKASH,DHOLPUR vs. ITO WARD 4 BHARATPUR, BHARATPUR

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes as indicated hereinabove\nOrder pronounced in the open court on\n17/01/2025

ITA 1255/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jan 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Rahual Pandya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary (JCIT-DR)
Section 147Section 148oSection 2(14)Section 271(1)(C)Section 45

penalty of Rs.\n203275/- U/s 271(1)(C ).\n5. That further submissions in support of appeal shall be made at the time of hearing.\n6. That appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter all or any grounds of appeal before or at the\ntime of hearing.\nGROUNDS OF APPEAL\n1. That order of Learned Assessing Authority

2
Deduction2
Penalty2

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. KAMLAPRABHA L/H OF LATE SHRI GOPAL LAL JI GOSWAMI, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objection of the assessee is disposed off in terms of the observation made herein above

ITA 94/JPR/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Aug 2025

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-Sr.DR a
Section 144Section 153C

penalty imposable under Chapter XXI is to be initiated and completed within two years.  Action of the CIT u/s 263 of the Act is to be taken within two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. 1.3Even where no limit is prescribed for taking an action under

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. BIRMA DEVI, JAIPUR

14. As a result, this appeal filed by the department-Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 849/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Bhardwaj (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 246Section 250Section 253Section 260Section 261Section 263Section 264Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

54B of the Act, and setting aside of the quantum addition. 3. Arguments heard. File perused. 4. As is available from the penalty order dated 29.03.2019, relating to assessment year 2013-14, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs. 1,11,10,900/-u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, having arrived at the conclusion that the assessee furnished inaccurate

JAGDISH KUMAR ARORA,BHAWANIMANDI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1195/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 69

54B is not sustainable and same is deleted—Assessee appeal allowed. Here the case of the assessee is on much strong footing because ld. AO has not taken any approval at any time. 3. In the following orders also from various benches of ITAT across country remains at idem on impact of in fraction of scope of CBDT instructions dealing