BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI 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.

53 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Exemptionclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,090Delhi1,027Ahmedabad349Bangalore270Jaipur202Chennai164Pune160Hyderabad142Kolkata134Indore107Chandigarh105Karnataka103Surat90Raipur80Rajkot60Nagpur53Lucknow43Amritsar41Cochin40Calcutta35Visakhapatnam23Guwahati21Jodhpur13Allahabad13Dehradun12Patna11Agra10Ranchi9Cuttack7Varanasi6SC6Telangana3Jabalpur2Rajasthan2Panaji2Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)52Section 194A48Section 26345Section 271(1)(c)39Exemption36Section 201(1)32Section 197A32Section 25030Deduction29Section 68

ACIT, AMRAVATI CIRCLE, AMRAVATI vs. CHANDRAPUR DIST CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 398/NAG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Salonkhe
Section 271(1)(c)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

u/s 271(1)(c) of IT. Act 1961 is unjustified and unsustainable. 6.12 The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of M/s Reliance Petro Products Pvt Ltd. reported at 322ITR 158 (SC) while considering the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of IT. Act 1961 has held as under. "9 A mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable

Showing 1–20 of 53 · Page 1 of 3

24
Addition to Income23
Penalty19

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CHANDRAPUR CIRCLE , CHANDRAPUR vs. M/S CHANDRAPUR DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPRATIVE BANK LIMTED , CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 241/NAG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(viia)

u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified and unsustainable. 7.12 The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of M/s Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. reported at 322 ITR 158 (SC) while considering the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act 1961 has held as under: "9. .....A mere making of the claim, which

ACIT, CHANDRAPUR CIRCLE , CHANDRAPUR vs. CHANDRAPUR DISTT. CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD , CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 399/NAG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(viia)

u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified and unsustainable. 7.12 The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of M/s Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. reported at 322 ITR 158 (SC) while considering the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act 1961 has held as under: "9. .....A mere making of the claim, which

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRAVATI & CHANDRAPUR CIRCLE, AMRAVATI vs. CHANDRAPUR DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD., CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 89/NAG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(viia)

u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified and unsustainable. 7.12 The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of M/s Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. reported at 322 ITR 158 (SC) while considering the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act 1961 has held as under: "9. .....A mere making of the claim, which

BHAKTVATSAL SADGURU YOGIRAJ VASANTRAO GOPALRAO GHONGE MAHARAJ TRUST,WARDHA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 598/NAG/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur04 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 28

exemption under section 11 had been denied. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were initiated and a show cause notice

SHRI RAJESH MOOLCHAND DAYARAMANI,,NAGPUR vs. ACIT-CIRCLE-8,, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 293/NAG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri K.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri A.R. Ninawe
Section 271(1)(c)Section 54FSection 54F(1)

271(1)(c) do not apply. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty when there was neither concealment of particulars of income nor any furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income declaring income of ` 67,76,981 on 30th September 2009. The assessee

BHAVIKA GUNWANT PATEL,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 366/NAG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Abhay R. Marathe
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

exemption u/s 10(38) and added back to the income of the appellant. The AO also levied commission @3% on such accommodation entry of Rs.9,430/- and added back the same to the income of the appellant u/s 69C of the Act. Based on above addition, the AO also levied penalty u/s 271

NAV VIDYA NIKETAN SHIKSHAN SANSTHA,AMRAVATI vs. ITO WARD 2 EXEMP NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 397/NAG/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.393 & 397/Nag/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2012-13 & 2010-11 Nav Vidya Niketan Shikshan The Income Tax Officer, Sanstha, V Ward-2 Exemption, 1, Ambapethdhabaliya S Nagpur. Niwas, Ambapeth, Amravati – 444601 Pan: Aabtn1915G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By Shri Mahavir Atal – Ca(Ar) Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe - Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 28/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Act, Emanating From The Separate Penalty Orders Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Both Dated 13.06.2017 For A.Y.2012-

Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

Exemption, 1, AmbapethDhabaliya s Nagpur. Niwas, Ambapeth, Amravati – 444601 PAN: AABTN1915G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee by Shri Mahavir Atal – CA(AR) Revenue by Shri Abhay Y. Marathe - Sr.DR Date of hearing 28/03/2024 Date of pronouncement 22/04/2024 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: These two appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders of ld.Commissioner of Income

NAV VIDYA NIKETAN SHIKSHAN SANSTHA,AMRAVATI vs. ITO WARD2 EXEMP, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 393/NAG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.393 & 397/Nag/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2012-13 & 2010-11 Nav Vidya Niketan Shikshan The Income Tax Officer, Sanstha, V Ward-2 Exemption, 1, Ambapethdhabaliya S Nagpur. Niwas, Ambapeth, Amravati – 444601 Pan: Aabtn1915G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By Shri Mahavir Atal – Ca(Ar) Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe - Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 28/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Act, Emanating From The Separate Penalty Orders Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Both Dated 13.06.2017 For A.Y.2012-

Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

Exemption, 1, AmbapethDhabaliya s Nagpur. Niwas, Ambapeth, Amravati – 444601 PAN: AABTN1915G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee by Shri Mahavir Atal – CA(AR) Revenue by Shri Abhay Y. Marathe - Sr.DR Date of hearing 28/03/2024 Date of pronouncement 22/04/2024 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: These two appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders of ld.Commissioner of Income

ACIT ,CIRCLE (EXEMPTION ),NAGPUR , NAGPUR vs. M/S SIPNA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL ,AMRAVAI , AMRAVATI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed

ITA 223/NAG/2017[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jun 2022AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Acit, Vs. M/S. Sipnashikshan Prasarak Mandal Circle (Exemption), Badnera Road Amravati Amravati Pan No.:Aacts 1266 J Appellant Respondent Revenue By :Shripiyushkolhe (Cit-Dr) Assessee By: Shrihimeshdemble (Ca) Date Of Hearing: 26/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/06/2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Department Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (A)-4, Nagpur Dated 27/03/2017 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y. 2013-14 Wherein The Department Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: ShriHimeshDemble (CA)For Respondent: ShriPiyushKolhe (CIT-DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)((c) are initiated separately forfurnishing inaccurate particulars of taxable income. In view of the above discussion, the total income is computed as under : Total Income : NIL The corpus donation to the extent, it is treated as anonymous at Rs 4,27,87,845/- is taxedu/s 115BBC of Income Tax Act separately.’’ 9 ACIT, CIR (EXEMPTION

JEETENDRA CHANDRAKANT NAYAK,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOM TAX(OSD), NAGPUR

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

ITA 368/NAG/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jun 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri M.G.Moryani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Singhai, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 54F

Penalty proceedings under section 27(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for concealment of income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income are hereby initiated.” 4. The appellant filed an appeal before the CIT (A), who has held as follows: “The AO in the assessment order held that on perusal of the return of income, it is seen that

GIGEO CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD.,,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3),, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 97/NAG/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani a/wFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 40Section 40A(3)

exemptions in Rule 6DD. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of inflated expenses of Rs.7,36,755/- without appreciating the fact that the director of the company in his statement had submitted that there was inflation of expenses to the tune

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-1(3), NAGPUR vs. M/S GIGEO CONSTRUCTION CO.PVT. LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 488/NAG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani a/wFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 40Section 40A(3)

exemptions in Rule 6DD. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of inflated expenses of Rs.7,36,755/- without appreciating the fact that the director of the company in his statement had submitted that there was inflation of expenses to the tune

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-1(3), NAGPUR vs. M/S GIGEO CONSTRUCTION CO.PVT. LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 486/NAG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani a/wFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 40Section 40A(3)

exemptions in Rule 6DD. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of inflated expenses of Rs.7,36,755/- without appreciating the fact that the director of the company in his statement had submitted that there was inflation of expenses to the tune

NAGESHWARA CHARITABLE TRUST,NAGPUR vs. ITO WD 3, EXEMP, NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 128/NAG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Vikash Agrawal
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 271(1)(c)

Exemptions) and the health problems of the then President of the trust. Regarding the Appeal to be filed for penalty order u/s 271

NAGESHWARA CHARITABLE TRUST,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, EXEMPTION, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 129/NAG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Vikash Agrawal
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 271(1)(c)

Exemptions) and the health problems of the then President of the trust. Regarding the Appeal to be filed for penalty order u/s 271

SHRI PRAVEEN MANOHAR GHODKHANDE,,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 1(2),, NAGPUR

Appeal is allowed

ITA 124/NAG/2017[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Nagpur16 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: For Revenue : Shri G.J. NinaweFor Respondent: Shri G.J. Ninawe
Section 2Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

271(1)(c) penalty of Rs.1.35 lakhs imposed by the Assessing Officer in his order dated 16.06.2011 as upheld in the CIT(A) order as follows : “4.0. Appellant’s submissions along with penalty order have been considered carefully. Assessment order as well as records have also been perused. As per his return, the appellant has claimed exemption u/s

SHREE SANT BHOJAJI MAHARAJ DEOSTHAN AJANSARA,WARDHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) - 4, NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

ITA 212/NAG/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur01 Apr 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 263

Exemption), Pune at Nagpur and immediately filed appeal on 19/03/2025. In support of its contention the assessee society has filed affidavit also. The counsel for the assessee submitted that due to above reason appeal is being filed on 19/03/2025 along with delay application therefore there is delay of 1431 days, which deserves and be condoned. The delay is not intentional

SHREE SANT BHOJAJI MAHARAJ DEOSTHAN AJANSARA,WARDHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) -4, NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

ITA 211/NAG/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur01 Apr 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 263

Exemption), Pune at Nagpur and immediately filed appeal on 19/03/2025. In support of its contention the assessee society has filed affidavit also. The counsel for the assessee submitted that due to above reason appeal is being filed on 19/03/2025 along with delay application therefore there is delay of 1431 days, which deserves and be condoned. The delay is not intentional

SHREE SANT BHOJAJI MAHARAJ DEOSTHAN AJANSARA,WARDHA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), PUNE AT NGP, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

ITA 186/NAG/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur01 Apr 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 263

Exemption), Pune at Nagpur and immediately filed appeal on 19/03/2025. In support of its contention the assessee society has filed affidavit also. The counsel for the assessee submitted that due to above reason appeal is being filed on 19/03/2025 along with delay application therefore there is delay of 1431 days, which deserves and be condoned. The delay is not intentional