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.

17 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Natural Justiceclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,041Mumbai1,426Ahmedabad526Kolkata506Jaipur470Bangalore467Indore306Chennai289Pune255Hyderabad171Karnataka140Chandigarh127Raipur116Rajkot110Surat107Amritsar106Lucknow102Visakhapatnam88Ranchi69Cuttack64Allahabad61Guwahati55Agra51Patna51Cochin45Nagpur43Dehradun37Calcutta37Jodhpur29Panaji17Kerala14Jabalpur12Telangana6Varanasi5SC4Rajasthan3Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)29Section 20116Penalty12Section 25011Section 143(3)10Section 201(1)10Section 194A9Section 14A9Addition to Income

SURAJ MELVIN MASCARENHAS,MIRAMAR vs. ITO, WARD - 1(1), PANAJI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 258/PAN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji31 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 258/Pan/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Mrs. Suraj Melvin Masacarenhas 33, Lake View Colony, Miramar, Panaji Goa. Pan: Agipm3248G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Panaji, Goa ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act may not be imposed on her. Mrs. Suraj Melvin Masacarenhas Vs. ITO ITA No.258 /PAN/2017 6 8. After having given a thoughtful consideration to the facts of the case, we are persuaded to subscribe to the claim of the assessee that the A.O had in the aforesaid ‘SCN’, dated 10.07.2014 failed to point

9
Section 2(22)(e)8
Deemed Dividend4
TDS4

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HUBBALI vs. M/S N. B. HIREMATH, HUBBALI

In the result, all these appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 113/PAN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji31 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 111/Pan/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10

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

penalty imposed in pursuance of such defective notice is not sustainable in law. He has placed on record, a copy of the said notices issued by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act, even dt. 30/11/2016, and pointed out that the irrelevant portion having been not struck off by the A.O. in the said notices, the exact charge/s

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HUBBALI vs. M/S N. B. HIREMATH, HUBBALI

In the result, all these appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 112/PAN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji31 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 111/Pan/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10

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

penalty imposed in pursuance of such defective notice is not sustainable in law. He has placed on record, a copy of the said notices issued by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act, even dt. 30/11/2016, and pointed out that the irrelevant portion having been not struck off by the A.O. in the said notices, the exact charge/s

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HUBBALI vs. M/S N. B. HIREMATH, HUBBALI

In the result, all these appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 111/PAN/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji31 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 111/Pan/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10

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

penalty imposed in pursuance of such defective notice is not sustainable in law. He has placed on record, a copy of the said notices issued by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act, even dt. 30/11/2016, and pointed out that the irrelevant portion having been not struck off by the A.O. in the said notices, the exact charge/s

M/S NIRANI SUGARS LIMITED,MUDHOL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, BELGAUM

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 123/PAN/2018[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji01 Apr 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 123/Pan/2018 Assessment Year: 2001-02

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

penalty imposed in pursuance of such defective notice is not sustainable in law. He has placed on record, a copy of the said notices issued by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act, even dt. 21/03/2006, and pointed out that the irrelevant portion having been not struck off by the A.O. in the said notices, the exact charge/s

M/S NIRANI SUGARS LIMITED,MUDHOL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, BELGAUM

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 125/PAN/2018[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji01 Apr 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 123/Pan/2018 Assessment Year: 2001-02

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

penalty imposed in pursuance of such defective notice is not sustainable in law. He has placed on record, a copy of the said notices issued by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act, even dt. 21/03/2006, and pointed out that the irrelevant portion having been not struck off by the A.O. in the said notices, the exact charge/s

M/S NIRANI SUGARS LIMITED,MUDHOL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, BELGAUM

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 126/PAN/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji01 Apr 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 123/Pan/2018 Assessment Year: 2001-02

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

penalty imposed in pursuance of such defective notice is not sustainable in law. He has placed on record, a copy of the said notices issued by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act, even dt. 21/03/2006, and pointed out that the irrelevant portion having been not struck off by the A.O. in the said notices, the exact charge/s

M/S NIRANI SUGARS LIMITED,MUDHOL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, BELGAUM

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 124/PAN/2018[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji01 Apr 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 123/Pan/2018 Assessment Year: 2001-02

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

penalty imposed in pursuance of such defective notice is not sustainable in law. He has placed on record, a copy of the said notices issued by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act, even dt. 21/03/2006, and pointed out that the irrelevant portion having been not struck off by the A.O. in the said notices, the exact charge/s

KAMAT CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD,PANAJI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI

In the result the three appeals ITA

ITA 137/PAN/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji02 Apr 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gd Padmahshalii T A. No.137,138,139&140/Pan/2023 (A.Y. 2007-08, 2009-10,2010-11&2011-12) Kamat Construction Pvt The Assistant Ltd., F/2, Indira Vs. Commissioner Of Apartments, Income Tax, Circle Caetanoalburquerque 1(1),Panaji, Road, Panaji, Goa-403001. Goa-403001. Pan.No. Aaack8135H (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 27Section 271(1)Section 271A

271(1) (C) of the Act was stated to be initiated. The assessee preferred as appeal against the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 against the impugned assessment order. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) passed an order dated 28-08-2015 deleting the additions made on account

KAMAT CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD,PANAJI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI

In the result the three appeals ITA

ITA 139/PAN/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji02 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gd Padmahshalii T A. No.137,138,139&140/Pan/2023 (A.Y. 2007-08, 2009-10,2010-11&2011-12) Kamat Construction Pvt The Assistant Ltd., F/2, Indira Vs. Commissioner Of Apartments, Income Tax, Circle Caetanoalburquerque 1(1),Panaji, Road, Panaji, Goa-403001. Goa-403001. Pan.No. Aaack8135H (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 27Section 271(1)Section 271A

271(1) (C) of the Act was stated to be initiated. The assessee preferred as appeal against the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 against the impugned assessment order. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) passed an order dated 28-08-2015 deleting the additions made on account

KAMAT CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD,PANAJI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI

In the result the three appeals ITA

ITA 140/PAN/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji02 Apr 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gd Padmahshalii T A. No.137,138,139&140/Pan/2023 (A.Y. 2007-08, 2009-10,2010-11&2011-12) Kamat Construction Pvt The Assistant Ltd., F/2, Indira Vs. Commissioner Of Apartments, Income Tax, Circle Caetanoalburquerque 1(1),Panaji, Road, Panaji, Goa-403001. Goa-403001. Pan.No. Aaack8135H (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 27Section 271(1)Section 271A

271(1) (C) of the Act was stated to be initiated. The assessee preferred as appeal against the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 against the impugned assessment order. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) passed an order dated 28-08-2015 deleting the additions made on account

KAMAT CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD,PANAJI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PANAJI

In the result the three appeals ITA

ITA 138/PAN/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji02 Apr 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gd Padmahshalii T A. No.137,138,139&140/Pan/2023 (A.Y. 2007-08, 2009-10,2010-11&2011-12) Kamat Construction Pvt The Assistant Ltd., F/2, Indira Vs. Commissioner Of Apartments, Income Tax, Circle Caetanoalburquerque 1(1),Panaji, Road, Panaji, Goa-403001. Goa-403001. Pan.No. Aaack8135H (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 27Section 271(1)Section 271A

271(1) (C) of the Act was stated to be initiated. The assessee preferred as appeal against the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 against the impugned assessment order. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) passed an order dated 28-08-2015 deleting the additions made on account

M/S CHOWGULE AND COMPANY (SALT) PVT. LTD,MORMUGAO vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 2, MARGAO

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of aforesaid observation

ITA 390/PAN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. : 390/Pan/2017 करधििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013 M/S Chowgule & Company (Salt) Pvt Ltd., Chowgule House, Mormugao Harbour, Goa – 403803. Pan: Aabcc 5595 J . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Margao, Goa. . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Ms Hiral Sejpal Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 29/04/2022 आदेश / Order Per Jamlappa D Battull Am; The Present Appeal Filed By The Appellant Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax- Appeals, Panaji-1 [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 09/10/2017 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which In Turn Tousled Out Of Order Of Assessment Of Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-Circle-2, Margoa [For Short “Ao”] Dt. 27/07/2014 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act, For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2012-2013. Itat-Panaji Page 1 Of 23

For Appellant: Ms Hiral SejpalFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 10(35)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(1)Section 250

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4.2 The aforementioned order passed by the Ld. AO dislodging the claims of the assessee, was unsuccessfully challenged before the first appellate authority, and being aggrieved by the orders of tax ITAT-Panaji Page 6 of 23 M/s Chowgule and Company (Salt) Pvt Ltd ITA No.: 390/PAN/2017, AY : 2012-2013, AABCC5595J

M/S SHREE BALAJI CONCEPTS,MARGAO vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TXATION), WARD -1, PANAJI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated as above

ITA 73/PAN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 73/Pan/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri M. R. Hegde, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Rijula Uniyal, Sr. DR
Section 156Section 191Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 205

penalty under Section 271-C of the Income -Tax. [ emphasis supplied] (iii) W.e.f. 01.07.2012, in a situation where the tax is paid by the deductee, the interest is to be computed up to the date of furnishing of return of income by such deductee. This proviso makes no distinction whether the deductee files a return with positive income, nil income

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, TDS CIRCLE, PANAJI, PANAJI

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 170/PAN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji14 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr C Naresh [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 131Section 133ASection 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 253(1)

nature of non-compliance, statement of assessee branch manager recorded u/s 131 of the Act and submission filed by the assessee in response to show cause & other notices, the Ld. AO u/s 201(1) of the Act held the assessee as ‘assessee in default’ for failure to deduct TDS from payment/credit of interest to its customers/clients etc., under two categories

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, TDS CIRCLE, PANAJI, PANAJI

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 171/PAN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji14 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr C Naresh [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 131Section 133ASection 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 253(1)

nature of non-compliance, statement of assessee branch manager recorded u/s 131 of the Act and submission filed by the assessee in response to show cause & other notices, the Ld. AO u/s 201(1) of the Act held the assessee as ‘assessee in default’ for failure to deduct TDS from payment/credit of interest to its customers/clients etc., under two categories

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, TDS CIRCLE, PANAJI, PANAJI

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 169/PAN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji14 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr C Naresh [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 131Section 133ASection 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 253(1)

nature of non-compliance, statement of assessee branch manager recorded u/s 131 of the Act and submission filed by the assessee in response to show cause & other notices, the Ld. AO u/s 201(1) of the Act held the assessee as ‘assessee in default’ for failure to deduct TDS from payment/credit of interest to its customers/clients etc., under two categories