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.

3 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 133(6)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai302Delhi257Jaipur114Ahmedabad97Raipur95Kolkata71Chennai62Bangalore41Hyderabad39Surat35Indore31Chandigarh26Allahabad25Pune25Visakhapatnam24Rajkot17Amritsar17Lucknow17Nagpur12Patna12Guwahati9Cuttack5Jodhpur3Ranchi3Cochin2Jabalpur1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 1445Section 271(1)(c)4Addition to Income3Section 1472Section 1482Section 271(1)(b)2Penalty2Natural Justice2

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

u/s 133(6), found a credit of Rs 32,20,000/- and called for an explanation from the assessee regarding the source of the deposit in the aforenoted facts a conclusion of concealment of income is inescapable. 15.3 Since, the penalty was initiated on estimated income of Rs. 21,45,000/- Hon’ble Apex Court in the case

MANOHAR SINGH,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3),, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 159/JODH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur04 Oct 2023AY 2013-14
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(b)

271(1)(c). But the Tribunal held that because the respondent could not produce the parties, it did not follow automatically that an adverse inference should be drawn that the amount represented undisclosed income of the respondent and that the Revenue was not justified in drawing the adverse inference and adding the amounts of the cash credits to the income

SHRI ROHIT YADAV,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 102/JODH/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.102/Jodh/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Rohit Yadav, The Assistant S/O.Sh. Ram Kumar Yadav, V Commissioner Of Income Village – 2Ml, Nathwali, S Tax, Circle Sriganganagar. Sriganganagar – 335001. Pan: Bbspk6028C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee By Shri Suresh Ojha – Ar Revenue By Ms. Nidhi Nair – Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 14/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10/11/2023

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

133(6) of the Act. However, assessee failed to file any reply. The AO after recording reasons, initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Act. The AO issued noticed under section 148 on 12.06.2013, which was duly served on assessee on 17.06.2013. The AO has discussed the addition of Rs.16,90,000/- + Rs.518 = Rs.16,90,518/- in paragraph