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.

13 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 158clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi754Mumbai657Ahmedabad179Jaipur141Karnataka104Pune94Chennai78Bangalore65Indore61Kolkata61Surat54Raipur47Chandigarh37Hyderabad36Lucknow30Amritsar29Agra25Allahabad24Cochin21Cuttack18Ranchi13Nagpur13Rajkot10Dehradun8Jodhpur7Patna6Jabalpur4Panaji4Visakhapatnam3Rajasthan2Guwahati2SC1Calcutta1Telangana1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)42Section 36(1)(viia)25Penalty13Section 80I12Deduction12Section 54F8Section 143(3)6Section 143(1)4Section 148

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)

penalty 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

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

4
Limitation/Time-bar4
Section 2743
Addition to Income3

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)

penalty 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

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)

penalty 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

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)

penalty 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

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)

158(SC) CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products E) Mere disallowance of bonafide disputed claim cannot be visited with penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Act 1961. Reliance on: i) 288 ITR 670 (Del.) CIT vs. Nath Bros. Exim International ii) 288 ITR 570 (Del.) CIT vs. International Audio Visual F) Imposition of penalty is not mandatory. Reliance

DCIT CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR vs. M/S TRISTER RETAIL CONCEPTS PRIVATE LIMITED, NAGPUR

In the result, department’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 319/NAG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 is deleted and the ground taken by the assessee is allowed. 5. As a result, appeal is allowed.” The assessee being aggrieved is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6 M/s. Tristar Retail Concepts Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.319/Nag./2024 5. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the penalty order passed

SUNITA ASHOK BHAIYA,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, NAGPUR

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

ITA 41/NAG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 May 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Ms./Shri Shri Alfiya RozieFor Respondent: Shri Mrunmay Ramteke
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

penalty of ` 59,160, under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. During the year under consideration, the assessee was carrying on the business of selling rice through milling with the help of system of integrated handling, storage and transportation. According to the assessee, the system of integrated handling, storage and transportation was carried as mentioned in Sunita Ashok

SUNITA ASHOK BHAIYA,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCEL-5, NAGPUR

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

ITA 43/NAG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 May 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Ms./Shri Shri Alfiya RozieFor Respondent: Shri Mrunmay Ramteke
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

penalty of ` 59,160, under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. During the year under consideration, the assessee was carrying on the business of selling rice through milling with the help of system of integrated handling, storage and transportation. According to the assessee, the system of integrated handling, storage and transportation was carried as mentioned in Sunita Ashok

SUNITA ASHOK BHAIYA,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, NAGPUR

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

ITA 40/NAG/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 May 2024AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Ms./Shri Shri Alfiya RozieFor Respondent: Shri Mrunmay Ramteke
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

penalty of ` 59,160, under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. During the year under consideration, the assessee was carrying on the business of selling rice through milling with the help of system of integrated handling, storage and transportation. According to the assessee, the system of integrated handling, storage and transportation was carried as mentioned in Sunita Ashok

SUNITA ASHOK BHAIYA ,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, NAGPUR

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

ITA 42/NAG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 May 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Ms./Shri Shri Alfiya RozieFor Respondent: Shri Mrunmay Ramteke
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

penalty of ` 59,160, under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. During the year under consideration, the assessee was carrying on the business of selling rice through milling with the help of system of integrated handling, storage and transportation. According to the assessee, the system of integrated handling, storage and transportation was carried as mentioned in Sunita Ashok

ACIT, AKOLA CIRCLE,, AKOLA vs. THE NANDURA URBAN CO OP. BANK LTD.,, BULDHANA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 213/NAG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Dr. Jayant M. Ranade a/wFor Respondent: Shri U.U. Kasar
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)

u/s 271(1) (c) is directed to be deleted.” The Nandura Urban Co– 4. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in deleting the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the claim of deduction was clearly untainable and as such it amounted to furnishing of inaccurate particulars

THE WARDHA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD.,WARDHA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE-3, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 11/NAG/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Ms. Alfiya RozieFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(viia)

u/s 271(1)(c) to the tune of Rs.68,00,000/-. 2. The Appellant craves leave to add or alter any other ground that may be taken at the time of the hearing.” 2 The Wardha District Central Co–operative Bank Ltd. ITA no.11/Nag./2025 3. While perusing the material available on record, we find that this is a case

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

u/s 271(1)(c). Facts of the case decide whether such a belief could be treated as bonafide or not. In other words, it can safely be held that if an assessee, disregarding all the relevant facts and circumstances, interprets a section that suits its interest then such interpretation cannot be held as bonafide belief. In the garb