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.

6 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 132(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi499Mumbai414Jaipur155Hyderabad145Indore120Surat110Ahmedabad108Chennai107Raipur106Bangalore97Pune63Chandigarh53Rajkot45Allahabad43Guwahati27Nagpur25Kolkata25Visakhapatnam23Ranchi23Patna21Amritsar19Panaji13Dehradun13Agra9Lucknow9Cuttack7Jodhpur6Cochin5

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)17Section 271A9Section 271E9Section 270A8Section 153A6Penalty5Addition to Income5Section 143(3)3Section 80G

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) in the case where assessed income and returned income pursuant to Notice u/s 153A are same, is bad in law and bad on facts. The penalty imposed on vague notice is also unjustified in the facts of the case. 2.1 First of all, we take up the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

3
Section 50C3
Search & Seizure2
Limitation/Time-bar2
ITA 333/JODH/2019[2009-10]Status: Disposed
ITAT Jodhpur
20 Sept 2023
AY 2009-10
Section 127Section 132Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 274 rws 271 of the Act of 18.09.2016 14. The order of the CIT(A) has not been contested by the assessee in appeal and has become final. 15. During the penalty proceedings detailed submissions have been made which are discussed pointwise hereunder. 15.1 The appellant has furnished details of the sale of agriculture land at Village, Badi, Udaipur

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

132(1) of the IT Act, 1961 was carried out on 02.07.2015 at various premises of M/s. Kota Dall Mill Group (Shri Rajendra Agarwal), Kota. The case of the assessee was also covered by the search action. Notice under section 153A was served on the assessee on 27.01.2016 and in compliance, the assessee filed his return of income

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) of the IT Act. In this relevant case the assessee had voluntarily surrendered his claim of deduction so in this case no penalty should be imposed because there was no addition on record and the voluntarily surrender never attracts penalty provision as held in various judgments penalty is unjustified in this case wherein assessee has surrender

UMMAID MAL SINGHVI,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR

Accordingly, legal ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 14/JODH/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2008-09 Shri. Ummaid Mal Singhvi, Acit, C/O Rajendra Jain Advocate, Vs Central Circle-2, 106 Akshay Deep Complex, 5Th Jodhpur B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur Pan: Abpps7429D Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajendra Jain, Advocate Revenue By Ms. Nidhi Nair, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 07.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2023 Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Udaipur Dated 30Th September, 2019 For Assessment Year 2008-09 Emanating From The Penalty Order Under Section 271Aaa Of The Income Tax Act Passed By Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jodhpur. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : Ummaid Mal Singhvi

Section 139(1)Section 271ASection 50C

132 of the Act on 25.03.2008. The Assessing Officer passed an assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAA for 4 Ummaid Mal Singhvi concealing the particulars of income. The Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271AAA after giving opportunity to the assessee vide order dated 31.08.2012. Submission

RACHNA GOYAL,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 529/JODH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Jun 2025AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was\nlaunched on 11.09.2018 in the case of Jignesh Shah and Sanjay Shah of\nAhmedabad. The search resulted into seizure of unaccounted cash of Rs. 19.37\ncrores (related accommodation entries and commission earned thereon) along with\nincriminating digital as well as documentary evidences. Clandestine record of\nunaccounted cash, synchronized trading, proving bogus LTCG