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 80clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai458Delhi457Jaipur174Ahmedabad112Raipur107Hyderabad102Chennai95Bangalore80Chandigarh63Indore63Pune61Rajkot40Kolkata36Amritsar35Visakhapatnam26Nagpur25Surat25Allahabad23Patna18Lucknow17Guwahati16Cochin15Cuttack13Agra6Jodhpur5Ranchi4Dehradun3Jabalpur1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)14Section 271E9Section 153A6Section 143(3)5Penalty4Addition to Income4Section 143(2)3Section 269T3Section 68

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)

Section 271(1)(c) and upheld levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) The decision of the Hon. Calcutta High Court applies squarely in the case of the assessee where the assessee had furnished his ROI for A.Y 2007- 08 on 28.03.2008, Le before the date of search (15.09.2010) but the income of Rs. 35,80

MANISH SHARMA,KOTA vs. JCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

2
Section 69A2
Natural Justice2
Disallowance2
ITA 619/JODH/2024[2011-12]Status: Disposed
ITAT Jodhpur
25 Jun 2025
AY 2011-12

Bench: Date Of Hearing.

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

80 wherein it was held that penalty order u/s 271E passed beyond six month from month in which direction to initiate penalty proceeding u/s 271E was issued by order dated 28.12.2007. This judgment was not discussed by the ld. CIT (A) in his order. The facts of the judgment are same with the assessee’s case as under : Particular Assessee

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)

penalty proceedings under 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

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

sections. This ground of appeal is accordingly dismissed Ground No.6 Initiation of penalty proceedings 12 In this ground of appeal, the assessee has disputed the action of the AO in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. This ground of appeal does not have any merit, as no prejudice is caused to the assessee on mere initiation

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

sections is mandatory but consequential to Income. The A O is directed to allow consequential relief to the assessee while giving effect to this appeal order. 9 The fifth ground of appeal is as under "The Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings uis 274 and 271(1)(C) 9.1 The initiation of penalty is not appealable. The ground