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.

4 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 200clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi696Mumbai520Chennai156Ahmedabad140Jaipur138Bangalore137Karnataka125Pune89Kolkata83Hyderabad64Raipur62Indore53Surat50Chandigarh45Allahabad44Calcutta34Cochin28Cuttack24Lucknow23Amritsar20Nagpur18Dehradun17Visakhapatnam16Rajkot14Agra10Panaji8Guwahati7Patna6Jabalpur5Jodhpur4Telangana3Varanasi3Ranchi2SC1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 270A8Section 271(1)(c)7Penalty4Addition to Income4Section 80G3Section 2742Section 1442Section 271(1)(b)2Disallowance

SMT. BHAWANA NAGORI,BHILWARA. vs. ITO, WARD-5, BHILWARA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 380/JODH/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: The Time Of Hearing. 5. The Petitioner Prays For Justice & Relief.

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Girish Mehta, JCIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 274 of the Act which does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Id CIT (A) erred in sustaining penalty of Rs. 2,10,000/- under the provision of section

2

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

u/s 270A is in force to replace 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

CHAMPA LAL MEHTA ,SANCHORE vs. ITO WARD-2, JALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 598/JODH/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 Sept 2025AY 2009-10
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

200/- u/s\n271(1)(C) on the estimated basiswith respect to assessment year 2009-10. Our\nview gets supports from the decision given by the ITAT MUM Bench, inthe case\nof M/s Shri Poonam k. prajapati Vs. ITO ward 19(2)(5) Mumbai, ITA No.\n1953/mum/2022 where it was held that -\n\"We find the A.O has made

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)

200/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 03.09.2015. During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee was provided proper opportunities by the AO but the assessee had not complied with, therefore the AO completed the assessment on the basis of available information on records. Accordingly, the assessment was completed