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 80Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Jaipur35Delhi21Mumbai8Kolkata4Lucknow4Pune3Visakhapatnam2Amritsar2Indore2Raipur2Ahmedabad2Nagpur2Hyderabad1Cochin1

Key Topics

Section 69A28Section 2508Section 271(1)(c)8Addition to Income8Business Income7

SHRI ARVIN DAMODARLAL BIYANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT -11(2) (1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1453/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Shri Arvind Damodarlal Biyani Dcit-11(2) 6-161, Mittal Estate, Mumbai Vs. Sir M. V. Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 Pan/Gir No. Aadpb 0689 H (Appellant) (Respondent) : : Shri Hiro Rai Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Manoj Sinha Date Of Hearing : 11.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.01.2023

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80CSection 80D

80C and u/s.80D, amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment order dated 11.01.2013 was passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act where the A.O. had made certain additions/disallowances. The A.O. had also initiated penalty proceedings and penalty amounting to Rs.15,85,836/- was levied vide order dated

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4148/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2017-18
Section 250Section 69A

Section 282A, even in\nthe absence of a physical or digital signature. Given\nthat the Hon'ble ITAT is bound by the rulingsof its\nown jurisdictional High Court,and in light of the\nprinciple laid down in CIT v. Smt. Godavari devi Saraf\nSupra Note 6, the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad\nHighCourtin Vikas Gupta Supra Note 1 cannot

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4150/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

DCIT CC 5-1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED , MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4591/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4593/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4153/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4151/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

DCIT CC 5 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 4590/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2019-20
Section 250Section 69A

penalty.\nReliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High\nCourt in the case of K. Subramanian v. Siemens India Ltd.\n[1985] 156 ITR 11 (Bom)(HC) wherein it was held that Where\nthere is a conflict between different High Courts, the Ld AO\nmust follow the decision of the High Court within whose\njurisdiction