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.

5 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 139(5)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi305Mumbai257Jaipur195Chennai129Bangalore120Indore108Hyderabad106Ahmedabad105Pune67Surat52Chandigarh47Raipur46Amritsar39Rajkot36Kolkata31Allahabad27Patna23Lucknow23Cochin21Nagpur21Visakhapatnam19Guwahati17Cuttack11Dehradun10Panaji10Ranchi6Jodhpur5Agra3Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)20Section 271A9Section 270A8Penalty5Section 153A4Addition to Income4Section 80G3Section 139(1)3Section 50C

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)

penalty on the basis of vague notice. In this respect, our attention was drawn by the ld. AR towards impugned notice issued u/s 274 read with Section 271(1) of the Act dated 28-03-2013 and the same is reproduced as under:- 5 VINOD (RATAN) SUHALKA VS ACIT, CC-1, UDAIPUR ‘’Notice Under Section read with Section 271

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

3
Section 1483
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

section 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

MAHENDRA SINGH DHARAMPAL & CO.,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 229/JODH/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blemahendra Singh Dharampal & Acit Circle 2, Co Udaipur - 313001 15-18, Diamond Plazza, Hiran Magri Sect 5, Udaipur - 313001 Pan No. Aadfm 9764 A Assessee By Shri Yogesh Pokharna, C.A. (Physical) Revenue By Shri K.C. Meena, Addl. Cit-Dr (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 13.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 28.01.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal [Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)] Udaipur Dated 19.03.2024 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Challenging Therein Confirmation Of Penalty Of Rs. 1,54,500/- Levied U/S 271(1)(C) By The Ao.

Section 113Section 139(4)Section 144Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 40

139(4) on 31st March, 2012 declaring total income of Rs. 79,24,080/- and subsequently filed return of income in compliance to notice u/s 153A on 11th October, 2013, declaring Rs. 81,14,470/- as its total income. Assessment was completed u/s 144 read with Section 113 of the Act vide order dated 16th March, 2014 with the addition

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

139(1). 5] That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. A.O. erred in imposing penalty u/s 271AAA on 1,42,000/- being addition in long term capital gain declared by the assessee by invoking the provisions of section 50C. The imposition of penalty on addition of 1,42,000/- is erroneous

JAISALMER CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,JAISALMER vs. ITO WARD-1, BARMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 89/JODH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur31 Jul 2023AY 2015-16
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250(1)Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, by the ITO, Ward-1, Barmer. 2 The Jaisalmer Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., 2. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds:- “1. That the ld. CIT(A) NFAC factually and legally erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 1690138/- under S. 271(1)(c) imposed