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.

62 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Addition to Incomeclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi5,414Mumbai5,172Ahmedabad1,251Kolkata1,075Jaipur939Pune892Bangalore806Chennai724Indore642Hyderabad550Surat491Chandigarh418Amritsar259Rajkot250Visakhapatnam172Raipur168Cochin160Karnataka141Lucknow140Nagpur124Cuttack112Agra107Allahabad88Dehradun79Patna79Guwahati72Jodhpur62Jabalpur51Ranchi50Calcutta38Panaji34Varanasi21Kerala15SC11Telangana8Rajasthan4Punjab & Haryana2Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)103Addition to Income53Penalty52Section 271(1)(b)43Section 27135Section 143(3)33Section 14826Section 27425Section 153A21

VINOD (RATAN) SUHALKA,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 241/JODH/2019[2007-08]Status: PendingITAT Jodhpur05 Jan 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) (Anand Swaroop) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Udaipur 6 VINOD (RATAN) SUHALKA VS ACIT, CC-1, UDAIPUR It was further submitted that said notice issued by the Department is vague and defective and thus no proceedings for levy of penalty could have been initiated on the basis of said defective notice and in this

SMT. JAYA MOGRA,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Showing 1–20 of 62 · Page 1 of 4

Section 142(1)21
Natural Justice15
Disallowance8
ITA 333/JODH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur20 Sept 2023AY 2009-10
Section 127Section 132Section 271(1)(c)

addition of Rs. 21,45,000/- to income on account of profit from sale of land at Badi. The CIT(A) also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

SHRI KHERAJ RAM ,BARMER vs. DC CEN CIR01, JODHPUR

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

ITA 113/JODH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 142(1)(iii)Section 153ASection 250Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 44A

Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jodhpur, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. 2. At the outset, all the appeals are common and have a same nature of fact. Therefore, all the appeals are taken together, heard together and disposed of together. For the sake of convenience,ITA No. 111/Jodh/2023 is taken

SHRI KHERAJ RAM ,BARMER vs. DC CEN CIR01, JODHPUR

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

ITA 114/JODH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 142(1)(iii)Section 153ASection 250Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 44A

Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jodhpur, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. 2. At the outset, all the appeals are common and have a same nature of fact. Therefore, all the appeals are taken together, heard together and disposed of together. For the sake of convenience,ITA No. 111/Jodh/2023 is taken

SHRI KHERAJ RAM ,BARMER vs. DC CEN CIR01, JODHPUR

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

ITA 112/JODH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 142(1)(iii)Section 153ASection 250Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 44A

Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jodhpur, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. 2. At the outset, all the appeals are common and have a same nature of fact. Therefore, all the appeals are taken together, heard together and disposed of together. For the sake of convenience,ITA No. 111/Jodh/2023 is taken

SHRI KHERAJ RAM ,BARMER vs. DC CEN CIR01, JODHPUR

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

ITA 111/JODH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 142(1)(iii)Section 153ASection 250Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 44A

Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jodhpur, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. 2. At the outset, all the appeals are common and have a same nature of fact. Therefore, all the appeals are taken together, heard together and disposed of together. For the sake of convenience,ITA No. 111/Jodh/2023 is taken

SANGRAM RAM,BIKANER vs. ITO, WARD -1(1), BIKANER

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 120/JODH/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur20 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act that the appeal of the assessee against the addition has been accepted and requested to drop the penalty

SANGRAM RAM,BIKANER vs. ITO, WARD -1(1), BIKANER

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 119/JODH/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur20 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act that the appeal of the assessee against the addition has been accepted and requested to drop the penalty

DEEPAK KUMAR RAJORIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), BIKANER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 170/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur11 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Assessing Authority Tax Was Paid & Adjust From Tds The Appellant Was Aware Of The Fact That There Is Any Form By Filing Which The Penalty May Be Dropped So The Penalty Was Never Leviable In This Case Therefore The Penalty U/S 270A May Please Be Cancelled. 3. The Appellant Prays For Justice & Relief. 4. The Appellant May Please Be Permitted To Raise Any Addition Or Alternative Ground At Or Before The Hearing.”

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 271(1)(C)Section 274Section 80G

271(1)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. Similarly, in the printed notice u/s 274 r.w.s 270A, it is essential to tick the applicable part in printed penalty notice and strike off inapplicable part in printed penalty notice. Thus, if penalty is initiated only for under reporting of income

ACIT, PAOTA C ROAD vs. VARAHA INFRA LIMITED, PAOTA B ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 160/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaithe Acit Vs M/S. Vardha Infra Ltd. Room No. 215, Aayakar Bhawan 6 Jalam Vilas Scheme Paota C Road, Jodhpur Paota B Road, Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccv 7972 K

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

addition to total income was pt justified. As discussed in Para- 5.6 above, the A. O has in fact not made any adjustments to Total Income after estimation of business profits. The foregoing argument of the assessee is therefore irrelevant 8. The fourth ground of appeal is as under- "The Ld. AO has erred in charging interest u/s 234A

VIKRAM ANJANA,PRATAPGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, CHITTORGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 46/JODH/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 May 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Sainishri Vikram Anjana, Vs The Acit, Vill - Kesunda, Circle-Chittorgarh Tehsil Chhotisadri, Pratapgarh (Raj.) 312604

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

income of Rs. 43,53,248/- u/s 143(3) of the Act on 12.12.2008. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) who allowed part relief and upheld the addition of Rs. 1,10,895/-. 5. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings and levied the penalty of Rs. 37,350/- u/s 271

RAWAT PRABHU PRAKASH SINGH CHUNDAWAT HUF,UDAIPUR vs. DCITL CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 687/JODH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT(Sr. D.R)
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)

additional income declared and the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c), are summarised as under: Particulars 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 Original Return 30.09.12 29.09.13 28.11.14 30.9.15 17.10.16 filed on 4 Income Declared 4773180 5593450 5789180 6030920 7237690 Return filed u/s

RAWAT PRABHU PRAKASH SINGH CHUNDAWAT HUF,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 690/JODH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT(Sr. D.R)
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)

additional income declared and the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c), are summarised as under: Particulars 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 Original Return 30.09.12 29.09.13 28.11.14 30.9.15 17.10.16 filed on 4 Income Declared 4773180 5593450 5789180 6030920 7237690 Return filed u/s

RAWAT PRABHU PRAKASH SINGH CHUNDAWAT HUF,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 691/JODH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT(Sr. D.R)
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)

additional income declared and the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c), are summarised as under: Particulars 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 Original Return 30.09.12 29.09.13 28.11.14 30.9.15 17.10.16 filed on 4 Income Declared 4773180 5593450 5789180 6030920 7237690 Return filed u/s

RAWAT PRABHU PRAKASH SINGH CHUNDAWAT HUF,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 689/JODH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT(Sr. D.R)
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)

additional income declared and the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c), are summarised as under: Particulars 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 Original Return 30.09.12 29.09.13 28.11.14 30.9.15 17.10.16 filed on 4 Income Declared 4773180 5593450 5789180 6030920 7237690 Return filed u/s

VIRENDRA SINGH RATHORE ,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 50/JODH/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur23 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad50/Jodh/2020 (Assessment Year- 2015-16) Shri Virendra Singh Rathore Vs The Ito 130, Road No. 5, Subhash Nagar Ward 1(1) Distt. Udaipur (Raj) Udaipur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Amfpr 9675 K

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 50/Jodh/2020 (ASSESSMENT YEAR- 2015-16) Shri Virendra Singh Rathore Vs The ITO 130, Road No. 5, Subhash Nagar Ward 1(1) Distt. Udaipur (Raj) Udaipur (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN NO. AMFPR 9675 K Assessee By None Revenue By Shri S.M. Joshi, JCIT

MANISH SHARMA,KOTA vs. JCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 619/JODH/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Date Of Hearing.

Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 269TSection 271DSection 271E

additions. During the assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that during the F.Y. 2010-11, the assessee in violation of provisions of section 269T of the IT Act, 1961 has repaid in cash loan amounting to Rs. 60,000/- to Shri Sanjay Vyas.The explanation furnished by the assessee in this respect was considered by the AO but was not acceptable

VAMITA SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO, , BALOTRA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 87/JODH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur22 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 87/Jodh/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Vamita Singh, Cuke Ito, Vs. C/O-Ashok Kumar Bansal, C.A., Ward-7(3) 2Nd Vijay Shanti Plaza, Near Jaipur. Railway Crossing, Balotra-344022. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Atzps 9372 B Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Ashok Kumar Bansal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 22/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 24/02/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 20/11/2018 For The A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar Bansal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(b)

income of 12,80,870/-. Thereafter the case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) dated 01.08.2012 & notice u/s 142(1) dated 12.06.2013, 13.12.2013, 09.01.2014, 28.01.2014 was served for A.Y. 2011-12 at her Pali and Kekri District Ajmer. But there was transfer of appellant to various places of Rajasthan. Due to which the notices u/s

M/S. BANARSI MARBLE STONE PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 365/JODH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Smt. Raksha Birla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Girish Mehta, JCIT DR
Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

addition to the income of the assessee on account of undisclosed license premium received in cash had attended the finality, therefore, there was concealment of income on account of undisclosed license premium received in cash. Accordingly the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income on undisclosed license premium received in cash

SHRI THAKUR CHAPLOT,RAJSAMAND vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 105/JODH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur06 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri A. T. Varkeyshri Thakur Chaplot Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Pan: Aappc9323H Income-Tax, Circle-2, C/O Rajendra Jain, Advocate, Udaipur, Rajasthan, Kar 106, Akshay Deep Complex, Bhawan, Sub-City 5Th B Road,Sardrpura, Centre,Saveena,Udaipur Jodhpur (Raj)-313001. (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 274 of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The ld. Counsel further brought to our notice that as against the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court the revenue preferred an appeal