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.

2 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 142Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi7Chennai7Chandigarh7Pune6Patna4Lucknow3Indore3Bangalore2Jaipur2Mumbai2Rajkot1

Key Topics

Section 56(2)(vii)12Section 271(1)(c)7Section 234A2Section 142A2Penalty2Addition to Income2

SHAMOON AHMED MULLA,THANE vs. ITO WARD 2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6070/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Akash Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pande, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(vii)

271(1)(c) of the Act without considering the fact that the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be applied as there is no furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment as there are well established documents and supporting provided to the Ld. AO during assessment.” 3. The sole issue raised by the assessee in this appeal

MRS. RUCHITA JINDAL,MUMBAI vs. DY COMM OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 203/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2023AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: C.T. Mathews
Section 142ASection 143(2)Section 148Section 234ASection 56(2)(vii)

section 56(2)(vii)(b). 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO erred in making addition in AY 2015-16 instead of AY 2014-15. P a g e | 2 Mrs.Ruchita Jindal Vs. DCIT, CC 3(3) 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned