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.

11 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 2(14)(iii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,941Mumbai1,495Kolkata399Jaipur392Bangalore388Ahmedabad384Indore268Hyderabad232Chennai231Pune216Chandigarh147Karnataka143Surat117Raipur90Rajkot73Amritsar60Visakhapatnam55Lucknow54Cochin53Allahabad51Nagpur40Calcutta36Ranchi32Cuttack29Agra22Guwahati17Patna16Dehradun16Kerala14Jodhpur11Panaji10SC10Telangana6Jabalpur6Varanasi4Rajasthan3Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)23Section 44A16Section 27114Section 271(1)(b)12Section 27411Penalty10Section 271E9Section 142(1)(iii)8Addition to Income

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)

14 Smt. Jaya Mogra CIT(A) dated 26.03.2013. Thus, in the appellate proceeding the additions of Rs 39.70 lac on account of unexplained credits in bank accounts, was deleted by ld. CIT(A)-2, Udaipur vide order 18-09-2018 and made enhancement by making addition of Rs 21.45 lacs and initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

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
8
Section 153A7
Search & Seizure2
Limitation/Time-bar2

Bench: Date Of Hearing.

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

iii. As per the clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 275, the order imposing penalty ought to have been passed as under, whichever period expires later : Provision Our submission After the expiry of the financial The ld. AO initiated penalty u/s 271E year in which the proceedings, in vide assessment order u/s 153A r.w.s. the course of which

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

2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id CIT(A) grossly erred in sustaining the penalty of Rs 10,000/- u/s 271(l)(b)ofthe Act. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id CIT(A) grossly erred in not considering the submission in right perspective and judicious

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

2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id CIT(A) grossly erred in sustaining the penalty of Rs 10,000/- u/s 271(l)(b)ofthe Act. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id CIT(A) grossly erred in not considering the submission in right perspective and judicious

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

2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id CIT(A) grossly erred in sustaining the penalty of Rs 10,000/- u/s 271(l)(b)ofthe Act. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id CIT(A) grossly erred in not considering the submission in right perspective and judicious

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

2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id CIT(A) grossly erred in sustaining the penalty of Rs 10,000/- u/s 271(l)(b)ofthe Act. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id CIT(A) grossly erred in not considering the submission in right perspective and judicious

SHRI SHIV SINGH CHOUHAN,RAJSAMAND vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2,, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 23/JODH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri A. T. Varkeyshri Shiv Singh Chouhan Vs Assistant Commissioner Of C/O Rajendra Jain, Advocate, Income-Tax, Circle-2, 106, Akshay Deep Complex, Udaipur, Rajasthan 5Th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur (Pan: Cifps9604M) (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

ACIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA vs. M/S. SURAJ FABRICS INDUSTRIES LTD. , KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 475/JODH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur11 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year: 2010-11 Assistant Commissioner M/S Suraj Fabrics Industries Of Income-Tax, Circle, Vs Ltd., 224A, Elegant Tower, Bhilwara A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata, West Bengal Pan: Aabcs8988B Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Revenue By Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain, Cit-Dr Assessee By None Date Of Hearing 11.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.08.2023 Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Department Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ajmer Dated 06.09.2017 Deleting The Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act For A.Y. 2010-11. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal As Under:- “1. Cancelling The Penalty Levied For Addition Of Unexplained Cash Credit On A/C Of Share Capital Of 10,00,00,000/- Without Appreciating The Facts That The Quantum Addition Made By The Ao Was Confirmed By The Ld.Cit(A) As The Identity & M/S Suraj Fabrics Industries Ltd.

Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)Section 50CSection 68

iii) Regarding the addition of Rs. 28,950/- made under the head "long term capital gain", the appellant, relying on the decision of ITAT "E" Bench Mumbai in the case of ACIT, 14(1), Mumbai vs. M/s Sunland Metal Recycling (ITA No. 6454/Mum/2011, A.Y. 2008-09) has contended that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be levied in respect

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

SHRI SARAFRAJ AHMED ,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 535/JODH/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri A. T. Varkeyshri Sarfaraj Ahmed Vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward- Pan: Afypa8123R 1(4), Udaipur, Rajasthan- C/O Shrawan Kumar Gupta, 313001. Advocate, 416, Surya Chamber Radio Market, Nehru Bazar, Jaipur. (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

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

271(1)(C) 9.1 The initiation of penalty is not appealable. The ground of appeal is therefore dismissed as not maintainable. In the result appeal is partly allowed. (Vandana Verma) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-2) Udaipur ITA No. 10181/2018-19 Α.Υ. 2016-17 Date:22:07:2019 Copy to the 1. The Director General of Income Tax (Inv.), Rajasthan