Search: penalty u/s 271 | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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 69Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai181 Delhi140 Jaipur111 Ahmedabad95 Rajkot45 Hyderabad42 Surat39 Indore38 Pune33 Lucknow24 Bangalore24 Chandigarh24 Agra22 Nagpur18 Amritsar17 Chennai16 Kolkata16 Patna10 Visakhapatnam9 Raipur9 Jabalpur7 Dehradun7 Cuttack7 Cochin6 Guwahati6 Jodhpur4 Allahabad3 Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 69A7 Section 142(1)6 Section 1445 Addition to Income4 Section 143(3)3 Cash Deposit3 Penalty3 Section 115B2 Section 143(2)2 Section 271

NEERAJ RANGWANI,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes as per direction mentioned above

ITA 150/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur13 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271Section 44ASection 69A

69A) he Tax on this income is to be calculated as per section 115BBE of the 1.T Act, 1961. Penalty proceedings u/s 271

2

Demonetization2

MEWAR MIN CHEM PVT. LTD. ,BHILWARA vs. ITO, WARD-5, BHILWARA

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

ITA 73/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur20 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

Section 115Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144ASection 271Section 271ESection 69A

section 115 BBE of the Act. Now Rs.11,74,800/- has been added to your total income U/s 69A Mewar Min Chem Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO as treating it as your unexplained money after the discussion or prior approval of the JCIT, Bhilwara u/s 144A of the I.T. Act, 1961. Further, penalty proceedings u/s 271

CHANDAN SINGH,POKRAN vs. ITO,, JAISALMER

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

ITA 74/JODH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur20 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69Section 69A

section 69A of the Act. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT(A) NFAC grossly erred in representing erroneous and irrelevant finding in the order and thereby sustaining arbitrary addition in a hypothetical Chandan Singh vs. ITO way by putting the assessee to erroneous harassment and inconvenience. 8. That the petitioner may kindly

SHRI ROHIT YADAV,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 102/JODH/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.102/Jodh/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Rohit Yadav, The Assistant S/O.Sh. Ram Kumar Yadav, V Commissioner Of Income Village – 2Ml, Nathwali, S Tax, Circle Sriganganagar. Sriganganagar – 335001. Pan: Bbspk6028C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee By Shri Suresh Ojha – Ar Revenue By Ms. Nidhi Nair – Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 14/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10/11/2023

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(b) for non compliance with the statutory notices are also being initiated.” 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A), Bikaner on 06.04.2015, as seen from the copy of the Form No.35 filed by the assessee. The ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] upheld the addition