Search: penalty u/s 271 | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases 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.

19 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 151(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi432 Mumbai396 Jaipur165 Ahmedabad103 Karnataka101 Pune82 Bangalore56 Hyderabad49 Raipur48 Indore46 Chandigarh46 Chennai38 Lucknow38 Kolkata36 Cuttack35 Calcutta34 Amritsar33 Rajkot30 Allahabad23 Agra20 Nagpur19 Surat15 Guwahati13 Visakhapatnam13 Dehradun12 Cochin6 Varanasi2 Patna2 Ranchi2 Rajasthan1 Gauhati1 Jodhpur1 Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)41 Section 153A33 Section 6824 Section 69A20 Addition to Income19 Section 13214 Section 234A7 Section 139(1)7 Section 143(1)

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

7

Survey u/s 133A7

Unexplained Cash Credit6

Search & Seizure6

1.T. Act, 1961 and also under the Public Trust Act. 2. In assessment order, addition is made by denying the exemption u/s 11 of the Act and disallowing the expenses towards the object of the trust. 2 Bhaktvatsal Sadguru Yogiraj Vasantrao Gopalrao Ghonge Maharaj Trust 3. The Hon'ble ITAT, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, vide their order

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

ITA 57/NAG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234A

271(1)(c) Tribunal deleted the impugned addition as well as the penalty imposed on the grounds that (i) assessee have given the names and addresses of the creditors, (ii) it had also produced before ITO letters of confirmation, the discharged hundis and particulars of the different creditors including their general index numbers with the Income-tax Department

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

ITA 55/NAG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234A

271(1)(c) Tribunal deleted the impugned addition as well as the penalty imposed on the grounds that (i) assessee have given the names and addresses of the creditors, (ii) it had also produced before ITO letters of confirmation, the discharged hundis and particulars of the different creditors including their general index numbers with the Income-tax Department

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

ITA 53/NAG/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234A

151 (m) Principal CIT Vs. Kurele Paper Mills (P.) Ltd. (2016) 380 ITR 571 (n) CIT Vs. Lancy Constructions (2016) 383 ITR 168 (0) CIT Vs. Anupkumar Bhatia (2013) 352 ITR 493 (Del.) (p) CIT Vs. MGF Automobile Ltd. Delhi High Court (q) Jai Steel India Jodhpur Vs. ACIT (2013) Tax Pub. (DT) 1647 (Raj. High Court). (r) LMJ International

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

ITA 119/NAG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

section 153D dated 29/09/2021 is in mechanical/routine manner without application of mind by Addl.CIT, which is merely a formality, an empty ritual and as such it leads to flagrant violation of the rules of law. 45. The third contention of the learned A.R. is that while granting such mechanical approval dated 29/09/2021 under section 153D for the assessment year

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

ITA 113/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

section 153D dated 29/09/2021 is in mechanical/routine manner without application of mind by Addl.CIT, which is merely a formality, an empty ritual and as such it leads to flagrant violation of the rules of law. 45. The third contention of the learned A.R. is that while granting such mechanical approval dated 29/09/2021 under section 153D for the assessment year

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

ITA 114/NAG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

section 153D dated 29/09/2021 is in mechanical/routine manner without application of mind by Addl.CIT, which is merely a formality, an empty ritual and as such it leads to flagrant violation of the rules of law. 45. The third contention of the learned A.R. is that while granting such mechanical approval dated 29/09/2021 under section 153D for the assessment year

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

ITA 116/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

section 153D dated 29/09/2021 is in mechanical/routine manner without application of mind by Addl.CIT, which is merely a formality, an empty ritual and as such it leads to flagrant violation of the rules of law. 45. The third contention of the learned A.R. is that while granting such mechanical approval dated 29/09/2021 under section 153D for the assessment year

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

ITA 115/NAG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

section 153D dated 29/09/2021 is in mechanical/routine manner without application of mind by Addl.CIT, which is merely a formality, an empty ritual and as such it leads to flagrant violation of the rules of law. 45. The third contention of the learned A.R. is that while granting such mechanical approval dated 29/09/2021 under section 153D for the assessment year

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

ITA 117/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

section 153D dated 29/09/2021 is in mechanical/routine manner without application of mind by Addl.CIT, which is merely a formality, an empty ritual and as such it leads to flagrant violation of the rules of law. 45. The third contention of the learned A.R. is that while granting such mechanical approval dated 29/09/2021 under section 153D for the assessment year

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

ITA 59/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234A

271(1)(c) Tribunal deleted the impugned addition as well as the penalty imposed on the grounds that (i) assessee have given the names and addresses of the creditors, (ii) it had also produced before ITO letters of confirmation, the discharged hundis and particulars of the different creditors including their general index numbers with the Income-tax Department

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

ITA 56/NAG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234A

271(1)(c) Tribunal deleted the impugned addition as well as the penalty imposed on the grounds that (i) assessee have given the names and addresses of the creditors, (ii) it had also produced before ITO letters of confirmation, the discharged hundis and particulars of the different creditors including their general index numbers with the Income-tax Department

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

ITA 54/NAG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234A

271(1)(c) Tribunal deleted the impugned addition as well as the penalty imposed on the grounds that (i) assessee have given the names and addresses of the creditors, (ii) it had also produced before ITO letters of confirmation, the discharged hundis and particulars of the different creditors including their general index numbers with the Income-tax Department

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

ITA 58/NAG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234A

271(1)(c) Tribunal deleted the impugned addition as well as the penalty imposed on the grounds that (i) assessee have given the names and addresses of the creditors, (ii) it had also produced before ITO letters of confirmation, the discharged hundis and particulars of the different creditors including their general index numbers with the Income-tax Department

SATISH KUMAR MADANLAL GUPTA,GONDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, GONDIA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the ay 2009–10 stands dismissed

ITA 23/NAG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur01 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri M.K.M. AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

u/s 271(1)(b) be orders to be waived.” 4. Brief facts:– The assessee is an individual. For the year under consideration, the assessee had not filed his return of income. During the relevant assessment year, as per AIR information, the assessee was found to have deposited cash of ` 5,28,35,502 in his bank account with Bank

SATISH KUMAR MADANLAL GUPTA,GONDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, GONDIA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the ay 2009–10 stands dismissed

ITA 24/NAG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur01 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri M.K.M. AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

u/s 271(1)(b) be orders to be waived.” 4. Brief facts:– The assessee is an individual. For the year under consideration, the assessee had not filed his return of income. During the relevant assessment year, as per AIR information, the assessee was found to have deposited cash of ` 5,28,35,502 in his bank account with Bank

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, GONDIA vs. SHRI SATISHKUMAR MADANLAL GUPTA , GONDIA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the ay 2009–10 stands dismissed

ITA 28/NAG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur01 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri M.K.M. AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

u/s 271(1)(b) be orders to be waived.” 4. Brief facts:– The assessee is an individual. For the year under consideration, the assessee had not filed his return of income. During the relevant assessment year, as per AIR information, the assessee was found to have deposited cash of ` 5,28,35,502 in his bank account with Bank

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, GONDIA vs. SHRI SATISHKUMAR MADANLAL GUPTA , GONDIA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the ay 2009–10 stands dismissed

ITA 29/NAG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur01 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri M.K.M. AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

u/s 271(1)(b) be orders to be waived.” 4. Brief facts:– The assessee is an individual. For the year under consideration, the assessee had not filed his return of income. During the relevant assessment year, as per AIR information, the assessee was found to have deposited cash of ` 5,28,35,502 in his bank account with Bank

SATISH KUMAR MADANLAL GUPTA,GONDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, GONDIA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the ay 2009–10 stands dismissed

ITA 22/NAG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur01 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri M.K.M. AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

u/s 271(1)(b) be orders to be waived.” 4. Brief facts:– The assessee is an individual. For the year under consideration, the assessee had not filed his return of income. During the relevant assessment year, as per AIR information, the assessee was found to have deposited cash of ` 5,28,35,502 in his bank account with Bank