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.

7 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Unexplained Moneyclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai334 Delhi271 Ahmedabad141 Jaipur140 Hyderabad124 Chennai97 Indore85 Pune63 Kolkata54 Rajkot52 Bangalore49 Surat43 Chandigarh37 Nagpur31 Allahabad29 Raipur18 Agra16 Lucknow16 Patna12 Visakhapatnam10 Cuttack9 Guwahati9 Cochin9 Jabalpur8 Jodhpur7 Amritsar6 Dehradun1 Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 142(1)7 Section 69A7 Section 1447 Section 687 Section 1487 Addition to Income7 Cash Deposit4 Penalty4 Section 143(3)3

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

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

Section 143(2)3

Demonetization2

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

unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(b) for non compliance with

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

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 is initiated. 5. Being aggrieved by the AO the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and the findings are reproduced as under:- “7 I have carefully considered the facts of the case the assessment order and the written submission of the assessee. The case

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

money and the value of the bullion, jewellery or other valuable article may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year.]" (Addition - Rs. 43,00,000/- u/s 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

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

RANJEET SHARMA,RAWATSAR vs. ITO, WARD NOHAR,, HANUMANGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 580/JODH/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur15 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Section 148Section 68

unexplained and applied the provisions of sec. 68 of the Act. Though the appellant claimed that it had furnished every details to prove the bank account, however, the fact remained that it failed to produce any authorized persons of these four factories to prove that any payments were made by these factories to the assessee. Even notice sent u/s

RACHNA GOYAL,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 529/JODH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

271(1)(c) holding that not to tick correct limb of the notice regarding\nconcealment of income or inaccurate particulars of income, renders the notice and\nconsequential proceedings as invalid and void, was confirmed by the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court in the case of M/s. SSSA Emerald Meadows. Copy of notice u/s\n148 is enclosed-2.\n(2)\nThat