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.

4 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 80P(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi39 Mumbai30 Bangalore26 Cochin22 Amritsar18 Pune16 Ahmedabad16 Jaipur12 Visakhapatnam11 Indore9 Surat9 Chandigarh9 Chennai6 Varanasi6 Rajkot6 Lucknow5 Nagpur4 Kolkata3 Jodhpur2 Telangana1 Guwahati1 Panaji1 Patna1

Key Topics

Section 271D7 Section 80P5 Section 36(1)(viii)4 Section 269S4 Section 2713 Section 2693 Deduction3 Disallowance3 Section 222

VIDHARBHA KONKAN GRAMIN BANK ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(5) , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 7/NAG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 22Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 80P

80P (1) of I.T. Act and claiming disallowed and added back to the total income. Penalty notice u/s 271(1) (c) is being issued separately. 6. Sections

VIDHARBHA KONKAN GRAMIN BANK ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(5) , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 8/NAG/2019[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2015-2016

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

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 22Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 80P

80P (1) of I.T. Act and claiming disallowed and added back to the total income. Penalty notice u/s 271(1) (c) is being issued separately. 6. Sections

ASHA VINOD TATTE,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AMRAVATI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5/NAG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur01 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 139Section 2(14)Section 269Section 269SSection 271Section 271DSection 273B

u/s 271D is illegal, invalid and bad in law. 7. Any other ground shall be prayed at the time of hearing.‖ 3. The core issue arising out of the aforesaid grounds of appeal relates to levy of penalty of ` 6,51,000, under Section 271-D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (―the Act‖) for the violation of provisions

PRATHAMIK SHIKSHAK KARMACHARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT vs. I.T.O. WARD -2, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 524/NAG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya. (S.M.C.)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A.R. Ninawe

Section 271(1)(c)Section 4Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act,1961 are initiated for concealment of income by furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.” 3. Against the above order the assessee appealed before the learned CIT(Appeals). The learned CIT(Appeals) elaborately reproduced the submission of the assessee. However, learned CIT(Appeals) declined to adjudicate the issue