BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

2 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 254(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai213Delhi158Surat113Jaipur42Chandigarh38Raipur37Pune30Chennai28Bangalore25Hyderabad24Rajkot22Indore22Ahmedabad22Kolkata16Patna6Lucknow6Guwahati6Varanasi6Allahabad5Nagpur4Visakhapatnam3Panaji2Amritsar2Jodhpur1Jabalpur1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 37(1)6Section 143(3)2Section 271(1)(c)2Deduction2Penalty2Disallowance2Addition to Income2

JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE, PANAJI vs. M/S WALLACE PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD, PANAJI

ITA 289/PAN/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri P.R.V RaghavanFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"); respectively. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 2 ITA.No.289 & 290/PAN./2019 2. The Revenue’s former appeal ITA.No.289/PAN./ 2019 for assessment year 2009-2010 raise the following substantive grounds : 1. “The order of CIT(A), Panaji-1 is bad in law ignoring the facts

JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE, PANAJI vs. M/S WALLACE PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD, PANAJI

ITA 290/PAN/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed
ITAT Panaji
18 Jul 2023
AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri P.R.V RaghavanFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"); respectively. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 2 ITA.No.289 & 290/PAN./2019 2. The Revenue’s former appeal ITA.No.289/PAN./ 2019 for assessment year 2009-2010 raise the following substantive grounds : 1. “The order of CIT(A), Panaji-1 is bad in law ignoring the facts