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.

20 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 253(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai487Delhi344Indore110Karnataka99Bangalore89Jaipur78Kolkata72Ahmedabad63Pune62Surat51Chennai48Allahabad47Hyderabad45Chandigarh45Ranchi35Amritsar27Rajkot24Panaji20Lucknow19Raipur18Cochin15Cuttack10Jabalpur9Jodhpur8Visakhapatnam7Patna7Guwahati5Agra5Nagpur2SC2Rajasthan1Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 24940Section 14430Section 271(1)(c)30Section 25020Section 246A20Penalty17Section 253(1)13Limitation/Time-bar10Condonation of Delay

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)

271 11,02,864 10,47,721 21,50,585 171/PAN/2025 2014-15 Second Default 39,63,624 - 1,30,001 1,30,001 ITAT-Panaji Page 5 of 30 Union Bank Of India (Erstwhile Corporation Bank) Vs DCIT ITA No. 169 to 171/PAN/2025 4.4 As a part of larger consolidation of public sector banks, the assessee Corporation Bank (along

10
Section 201(1)9
Section 194A9
Deduction3

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)

271 11,02,864 10,47,721 21,50,585 171/PAN/2025 2014-15 Second Default 39,63,624 - 1,30,001 1,30,001 ITAT-Panaji Page 5 of 30 Union Bank Of India (Erstwhile Corporation Bank) Vs DCIT ITA No. 169 to 171/PAN/2025 4.4 As a part of larger consolidation of public sector banks, the assessee Corporation Bank (along

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)

271 11,02,864 10,47,721 21,50,585 171/PAN/2025 2014-15 Second Default 39,63,624 - 1,30,001 1,30,001 ITAT-Panaji Page 5 of 30 Union Bank Of India (Erstwhile Corporation Bank) Vs DCIT ITA No. 169 to 171/PAN/2025 4.4 As a part of larger consolidation of public sector banks, the assessee Corporation Bank (along

SMT NEHA PRASANNA GHOTAGE,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, KARWAR

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 265/PAN/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 144Section 246ASection 249Section 250Section 253(1)Section 271(1)(c)

253(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’] challenges respective separate orders passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. NFAC’] u/s 250 of the Act involving five assessment years from 2006-7 to 2010-11 [‘AYs’] of which first five in sequence ITAT-Panaji Page 1 of 22 Neha Prasanna Ghotage Vs ACIT, Belgaum

SMT NEHA PRASANNA GHOTAGE,BELAGAVI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, BELAGAVI

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 261/PAN/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 144Section 246ASection 249Section 250Section 253(1)Section 271(1)(c)

253(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’] challenges respective separate orders passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. NFAC’] u/s 250 of the Act involving five assessment years from 2006-7 to 2010-11 [‘AYs’] of which first five in sequence ITAT-Panaji Page 1 of 22 Neha Prasanna Ghotage Vs ACIT, Belgaum

SMT NEHA PRASANNA GHOTAGE,BELAGAVI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, BELAGAVI

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 262/PAN/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 144Section 246ASection 249Section 250Section 253(1)Section 271(1)(c)

253(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’] challenges respective separate orders passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. NFAC’] u/s 250 of the Act involving five assessment years from 2006-7 to 2010-11 [‘AYs’] of which first five in sequence ITAT-Panaji Page 1 of 22 Neha Prasanna Ghotage Vs ACIT, Belgaum

SMT NEHA PRASANNA GHOTAGE,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, KARWAR

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 268/PAN/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 144Section 246ASection 249Section 250Section 253(1)Section 271(1)(c)

253(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’] challenges respective separate orders passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. NFAC’] u/s 250 of the Act involving five assessment years from 2006-7 to 2010-11 [‘AYs’] of which first five in sequence ITAT-Panaji Page 1 of 22 Neha Prasanna Ghotage Vs ACIT, Belgaum

SMT NEHA PRASANNA GHOTAGE,BELAGAVI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, BELAGAVI

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 260/PAN/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 144Section 246ASection 249Section 250Section 253(1)Section 271(1)(c)

253(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’] challenges respective separate orders passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. NFAC’] u/s 250 of the Act involving five assessment years from 2006-7 to 2010-11 [‘AYs’] of which first five in sequence ITAT-Panaji Page 1 of 22 Neha Prasanna Ghotage Vs ACIT, Belgaum

SMT NEHA PRASANNA GHOTAGE,BELAGAVI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, BELAGAVI

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 263/PAN/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 144Section 246ASection 249Section 250Section 253(1)Section 271(1)(c)

253(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’] challenges respective separate orders passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. NFAC’] u/s 250 of the Act involving five assessment years from 2006-7 to 2010-11 [‘AYs’] of which first five in sequence ITAT-Panaji Page 1 of 22 Neha Prasanna Ghotage Vs ACIT, Belgaum

SMT NEHA PRASANNA GHOTAGE,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, KARWAR

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 266/PAN/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 144Section 246ASection 249Section 250Section 253(1)Section 271(1)(c)

253(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’] challenges respective separate orders passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. NFAC’] u/s 250 of the Act involving five assessment years from 2006-7 to 2010-11 [‘AYs’] of which first five in sequence ITAT-Panaji Page 1 of 22 Neha Prasanna Ghotage Vs ACIT, Belgaum

SMT NEHA PRASANNA GHOTAGE,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, KARWAR

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 267/PAN/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 144Section 246ASection 249Section 250Section 253(1)Section 271(1)(c)

253(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’] challenges respective separate orders passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. NFAC’] u/s 250 of the Act involving five assessment years from 2006-7 to 2010-11 [‘AYs’] of which first five in sequence ITAT-Panaji Page 1 of 22 Neha Prasanna Ghotage Vs ACIT, Belgaum

SMT NEHA PRASANNA GHOTAGE,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, KARWAR

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 264/PAN/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 144Section 246ASection 249Section 250Section 253(1)Section 271(1)(c)

253(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’] challenges respective separate orders passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. NFAC’] u/s 250 of the Act involving five assessment years from 2006-7 to 2010-11 [‘AYs’] of which first five in sequence ITAT-Panaji Page 1 of 22 Neha Prasanna Ghotage Vs ACIT, Belgaum

SMT NEHA PRASANNA GHOTAGE,BELAGAVI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, 2, BELAGAVI

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 259/PAN/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 144Section 246ASection 249Section 250Section 253(1)Section 271(1)(c)

253(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’] challenges respective separate orders passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. NFAC’] u/s 250 of the Act involving five assessment years from 2006-7 to 2010-11 [‘AYs’] of which first five in sequence ITAT-Panaji Page 1 of 22 Neha Prasanna Ghotage Vs ACIT, Belgaum

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: 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 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 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 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