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.

6 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 133Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai316Delhi291Jaipur153Bangalore105Pune101Hyderabad71Chennai66Surat61Ahmedabad61Visakhapatnam60Kolkata57Rajkot41Lucknow35Chandigarh32Indore29Amritsar27Patna16Ranchi16Cochin15Panaji10Karnataka10Nagpur9Allahabad7Jodhpur6Cuttack6Raipur6Guwahati4Agra2SC2Telangana2Punjab & Haryana1Dehradun1Jabalpur1Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 14814Section 271(1)(c)12Survey u/s 133A6Section 133A5Addition to Income5Depreciation4Penalty4Section 2633

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)

133A of the Act was conducted on 21.02.2019. During the course of survey, the assessee was required to furnish purchase bills and details of expenses relating to the operation of the restaurant from Financial Year 2011–12 to 2017–18. In compliance, the assessee submitted details on 11.03.2019, wherein it was shown that the ratio of food cost to sales

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)

133A of the Act was conducted on 21.02.2019. During the course of survey, the assessee was required to furnish purchase bills and details of expenses relating to the operation of the restaurant from Financial Year 2011–12 to 2017–18. In compliance, the assessee submitted details on 11.03.2019, wherein it was shown that the ratio of food cost to sales

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)

133A of the Act was conducted on 21.02.2019. During the course of survey, the assessee was required to furnish purchase bills and details of expenses relating to the operation of the restaurant from Financial Year 2011–12 to 2017–18. In compliance, the assessee submitted details on 11.03.2019, wherein it was shown that the ratio of food cost to sales

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)

133A of the Act was conducted on 21.02.2019. During the course of survey, the assessee was required to furnish purchase bills and details of expenses relating to the operation of the restaurant from Financial Year 2011–12 to 2017–18. In compliance, the assessee submitted details on 11.03.2019, wherein it was shown that the ratio of food cost to sales

PAWAN KUMAR JAIN ,HANUMANGARH vs. PR. CIT-1, JODHPUR

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

ITA 30/JODH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Jain (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Sanchita Kumar (CIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 263

section 115BBE. 2. It is also noted that this income of the assessee would not have been discovered unless an action u/s 133A of the IT Act, 11 Shri Pawan Kumar Jain vs. Pr. CIT 1961 was conducted. Hence, penalty u/s 271

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

In the result, the appeal 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

133A from business premises of Sanjaysha. On going through the CD as well as documents, it is seen that the assessee has done transaction in FY 2012-13 relevant to AY 2013-14and she has bought 230076 equity shares of Safal Herbs Ltd. at a price of Rs. 42,68,762/- and sold the same quantity