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.

8 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 125clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi454Mumbai434Karnataka127Ahmedabad124Jaipur113Bangalore84Chennai79Pune58Hyderabad53Indore40Raipur38Allahabad37Ranchi35Amritsar34Calcutta34Kolkata34Surat29Chandigarh28Rajkot24Visakhapatnam24Lucknow17Agra13Nagpur13Cochin10Panaji8Dehradun7Cuttack6Jabalpur5Patna3SC2Rajasthan2Telangana2Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)20Section 20110Section 2507Penalty7Section 271(1)(C)3

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

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: Disposed
ITAT Panaji
31 Mar 2022
AY 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 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

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 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

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 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

125 In our opinion, the scope and ambit of Section 195(2) is clear and unambiguous, which mandates the AO to decide whether any payment (Royalty) paid by the appellant to GIL is chargeable to Tax on cash/ receipt basis or not. However, to trigger 195(2), the pager (assessee) was duty-bound to make an application with