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.

22 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 28clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,889Mumbai1,757Ahmedabad542Jaipur454Bangalore364Chennai279Kolkata274Pune264Indore249Hyderabad231Raipur137Karnataka132Chandigarh124Surat101Rajkot92Amritsar80Visakhapatnam50Lucknow44Agra40Nagpur39Cochin39Calcutta36Allahabad36Dehradun32Cuttack24Guwahati22Panaji22Ranchi18Jabalpur16Patna13SC10Varanasi10Jodhpur7Telangana6Rajasthan2Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 24940Section 14430Section 43B21Section 246A20Section 20116Penalty15Section 253(1)13Section 25013Section 143(3)12

M/S SESA RESOURS LTD (FORMERLY V. S. DEMPO & CO. PVT. LTD,PANAJI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PANAJI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 396/PAN/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji01 Sept 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2004-05 Sesa Resources Limied Vs. Acit, (Formerly V.S. Dempo & Co., Pvt. Circle-1(1), Aayakar Ltd.), Bhavan, Sesa Ghor, 20 Edc Complex, Edc Complex, Patto, Patto, Panaji, Panaji, Goa – 403 001. Goa. Pan: Aaacv7160R

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ranjan Kumar, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 47Section 80H

271(1)(c) by the Assessing Authority.” 6. On consideration of the above submissions of the assessee, the AO accepted the contentions of the assessee in so far as the disallowance of long- term capital loss is concerned. As regards the claim of the assessee u/s 80HHC in respect of receipts from sale of premises, the AO imposed a penalty

Showing 1–20 of 22 · Page 1 of 2

Addition to Income11
Limitation/Time-bar10
Condonation of Delay10

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)

271(1) of the Act were already passed and demands raised thereagainst were not only communicated but pending for payment. None of these findings were pull to pieces by the appellant. ITAT-Panaji Page 14 of 22 Neha Prasanna Ghotage Vs ACIT, Belgaum ITA No. 259 to 268/PAN/2025 AY: 2006-07 to 2010-11 19. In view of the aforestated

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)

271(1) of the Act were already passed and demands raised thereagainst were not only communicated but pending for payment. None of these findings were pull to pieces by the appellant. ITAT-Panaji Page 14 of 22 Neha Prasanna Ghotage Vs ACIT, Belgaum ITA No. 259 to 268/PAN/2025 AY: 2006-07 to 2010-11 19. In view of the aforestated

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)

271(1) of the Act were already passed and demands raised thereagainst were not only communicated but pending for payment. None of these findings were pull to pieces by the appellant. ITAT-Panaji Page 14 of 22 Neha Prasanna Ghotage Vs ACIT, Belgaum ITA No. 259 to 268/PAN/2025 AY: 2006-07 to 2010-11 19. In view of the aforestated

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)

271(1) of the Act were already passed and demands raised thereagainst were not only communicated but pending for payment. None of these findings were pull to pieces by the appellant. ITAT-Panaji Page 14 of 22 Neha Prasanna Ghotage Vs ACIT, Belgaum ITA No. 259 to 268/PAN/2025 AY: 2006-07 to 2010-11 19. In view of the aforestated

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)

271(1) of the Act were already passed and demands raised thereagainst were not only communicated but pending for payment. None of these findings were pull to pieces by the appellant. ITAT-Panaji Page 14 of 22 Neha Prasanna Ghotage Vs ACIT, Belgaum ITA No. 259 to 268/PAN/2025 AY: 2006-07 to 2010-11 19. In view of the aforestated

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)

271(1) of the Act were already passed and demands raised thereagainst were not only communicated but pending for payment. None of these findings were pull to pieces by the appellant. ITAT-Panaji Page 14 of 22 Neha Prasanna Ghotage Vs ACIT, Belgaum ITA No. 259 to 268/PAN/2025 AY: 2006-07 to 2010-11 19. In view of the aforestated

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)

271(1) of the Act were already passed and demands raised thereagainst were not only communicated but pending for payment. None of these findings were pull to pieces by the appellant. ITAT-Panaji Page 14 of 22 Neha Prasanna Ghotage Vs ACIT, Belgaum ITA No. 259 to 268/PAN/2025 AY: 2006-07 to 2010-11 19. In view of the aforestated

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)

271(1) of the Act were already passed and demands raised thereagainst were not only communicated but pending for payment. None of these findings were pull to pieces by the appellant. ITAT-Panaji Page 14 of 22 Neha Prasanna Ghotage Vs ACIT, Belgaum ITA No. 259 to 268/PAN/2025 AY: 2006-07 to 2010-11 19. In view of the aforestated

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)

271(1) of the Act were already passed and demands raised thereagainst were not only communicated but pending for payment. None of these findings were pull to pieces by the appellant. ITAT-Panaji Page 14 of 22 Neha Prasanna Ghotage Vs ACIT, Belgaum ITA No. 259 to 268/PAN/2025 AY: 2006-07 to 2010-11 19. In view of the aforestated

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)

271(1) of the Act were already passed and demands raised thereagainst were not only communicated but pending for payment. None of these findings were pull to pieces by the appellant. ITAT-Panaji Page 14 of 22 Neha Prasanna Ghotage Vs ACIT, Belgaum ITA No. 259 to 268/PAN/2025 AY: 2006-07 to 2010-11 19. In view of the aforestated

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

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

penalty proceedings u/s 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

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

penalty proceedings u/s 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

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

penalty proceedings u/s 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

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

penalty proceedings u/s 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

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI vs. M/S SALITHO ORES PVT. LTD, PANAJI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 99/PAN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1, Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Margao Panaji, Goa. Pan: Aabcs 8859 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ, DR
Section 43B

section itself becomes redundant and infructuous. Ld.DR also could not refute the said proposition of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (supra) by citing any decision favouring the Revenue. Accordingly, there is no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue and it is upheld. Hence, ground No.1 of the Revenue

M/S SALITHO ORES PRIVATE LIMITED,PANAJI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - M1, MARGAO

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 72/PAN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1, Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Margao Panaji, Goa. Pan: Aabcs 8859 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ, DR
Section 43B

section itself becomes redundant and infructuous. Ld.DR also could not refute the said proposition of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (supra) by citing any decision favouring the Revenue. Accordingly, there is no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue and it is upheld. Hence, ground No.1 of the Revenue

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI vs. M/S SALITHO ORES PVT. LTD, PANAJI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 100/PAN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1, Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Margao Panaji, Goa. Pan: Aabcs 8859 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ, DR
Section 43B

section itself becomes redundant and infructuous. Ld.DR also could not refute the said proposition of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (supra) by citing any decision favouring the Revenue. Accordingly, there is no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue and it is upheld. Hence, ground No.1 of the Revenue

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)

28,375 169/PAN/2025 2010-11 Second Default 2,17,24,095 43,44,819 37,79,976 81,24,795 First Default 3,37,15,200 33,71,520 30,51,226 64,22,746 170/PAN/2025 2011-12 Second Default - - - - First Default 1,11,99,271 11,02,864 10,47,721 21,50,585 171/PAN/2025 2014-15 Second Default