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.

8 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 264clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi92Mumbai78Jaipur57Bangalore34Chennai29Ahmedabad28Hyderabad28Indore21Kolkata14Rajkot11Chandigarh10Pune10Panaji10Raipur9Lucknow9Jodhpur8Patna6Surat5Cuttack4Allahabad3Cochin3Nagpur2Amritsar1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)19Section 14814Section 271E9Penalty8Addition to Income8Depreciation5Survey u/s 133A5Section 133A4Section 153A

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 271(1)(c) vide order dated 28-06-2019. So, the assessee on being aggrieved preferred this appeal against the order of the CIT(A)-2, Udaipur dated 28-06-2019 by taking the ground of limitation stating that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) ordering the levy of the penalty was barred by limitation in accordance

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
3
Section 269T3
Section 143(2)2
Section 143(3)2

Bench: Date Of Hearing.

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

271(1)(c). Accordingly, the impugned penalty order is barred by limitation and deserves to be quashed.” 4. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative supported the orders of the revenue authorities. Ground No. 1 relates to ld. CIT (A) has erred in not quashing the penalty order passed under section 271E

RAWAT PRABHU PRAKASH SINGH CHUNDAWAT HUF,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT,CENTERAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 688/JODH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Jun 2025AY 2013-14
For Respondent: \nShri Amit Kothari, C.A
Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

penalty order fails to specify whether the\npenalty is being levied for \"concealment of income\" or \"furnishing inaccurate\nparticulars.\" The twin conditions prescribed under section 271(1)(c) are not satisfied in\nthe present case. In support of the above contentions, the Ld. AR relied on several\njudicial precedents, including:\nCIT v. Pushpendra Surana [(2014) 264 CTR (Raj) 204]\nCIT

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)

264 CTR (Raj) 204] o CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. [(2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC)] o PricewaterhouseCoopers (P) Ltd. v. CIT [(2012) 253 CTR (SC) 1] o Narangi Land Development Corp. v. ITO [(2024) 38 NYPTTJ 1256 (Mum)] o Ajoy Sharma v. DCIT [(2024) 114 ITR (Trib) 702 (JP)] o Bhaktvatsal Sadguru Trust v. ACIT [(2025) 39 NYPTTJ

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)

264 CTR (Raj) 204] o CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. [(2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC)] o PricewaterhouseCoopers (P) Ltd. v. CIT [(2012) 253 CTR (SC) 1] o Narangi Land Development Corp. v. ITO [(2024) 38 NYPTTJ 1256 (Mum)] o Ajoy Sharma v. DCIT [(2024) 114 ITR (Trib) 702 (JP)] o Bhaktvatsal Sadguru Trust v. ACIT [(2025) 39 NYPTTJ

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)

264 CTR (Raj) 204] o CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. [(2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC)] o PricewaterhouseCoopers (P) Ltd. v. CIT [(2012) 253 CTR (SC) 1] o Narangi Land Development Corp. v. ITO [(2024) 38 NYPTTJ 1256 (Mum)] o Ajoy Sharma v. DCIT [(2024) 114 ITR (Trib) 702 (JP)] o Bhaktvatsal Sadguru Trust v. ACIT [(2025) 39 NYPTTJ

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)

264 CTR (Raj) 204] o CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. [(2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC)] o PricewaterhouseCoopers (P) Ltd. v. CIT [(2012) 253 CTR (SC) 1] o Narangi Land Development Corp. v. ITO [(2024) 38 NYPTTJ 1256 (Mum)] o Ajoy Sharma v. DCIT [(2024) 114 ITR (Trib) 702 (JP)] o Bhaktvatsal Sadguru Trust v. ACIT [(2025) 39 NYPTTJ

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)

Section 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the Act being premature at this stage, both the grounds are dismissed. 6. The ground No. 7 raised by the appellant is regarding charging of interest amounting to Rs. 24,49.836/- u/s 234B of the Act. This being consequential in nature, the AO is directed to allow relief as per this