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.

10 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 10(20)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi894Mumbai837Jaipur299Ahmedabad231Hyderabad196Bangalore182Chennai167Raipur147Indore134Pune122Kolkata121Chandigarh100Surat98Rajkot90Allahabad51Amritsar51Nagpur36Lucknow33Visakhapatnam30Panaji16Guwahati15Cuttack13Jabalpur11Cochin10Patna10Jodhpur9Varanasi8Ranchi6Dehradun4Agra2

Key Topics

Section 270A42Section 153A24Penalty9Section 143(3)7Natural Justice7Addition to Income7Section 2506Section 139(1)6Section 1326

NAND KUMAR PRASAD SAH,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee (s) in ITA Nos

ITA 172/PAT/2023[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Patna29 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri SK Tulsiyan, &For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 270A

20,495/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred the appeal before the learned CIT (A), claiming that since the returned income has been accepted as assessed income, it is not a case of under reporting of income and is not covered under any of the sub-clause of Section 270A(2) of the Act. It was also argued that the learned Assessing Officer

Survey u/s 133A6
Section 1443
Section 1473

BISHWANATH PRASAD,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee (s) in ITA Nos

ITA 164/PAT/2023[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Patna29 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri SK Tulsiyan, &For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 270A

20,495/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred the appeal before the learned CIT (A), claiming that since the returned income has been accepted as assessed income, it is not a case of under reporting of income and is not covered under any of the sub-clause of Section 270A(2) of the Act. It was also argued that the learned Assessing Officer

BISHWANATH PRASAD,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee (s) in ITA Nos

ITA 165/PAT/2023[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Patna29 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri SK Tulsiyan, &For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 270A

20,495/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred the appeal before the learned CIT (A), claiming that since the returned income has been accepted as assessed income, it is not a case of under reporting of income and is not covered under any of the sub-clause of Section 270A(2) of the Act. It was also argued that the learned Assessing Officer

BISHWANATH PRASAD,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee (s) in ITA Nos

ITA 166/PAT/2023[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Patna29 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri SK Tulsiyan, &For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 270A

20,495/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred the appeal before the learned CIT (A), claiming that since the returned income has been accepted as assessed income, it is not a case of under reporting of income and is not covered under any of the sub-clause of Section 270A(2) of the Act. It was also argued that the learned Assessing Officer

NAND KUMAR PRASAD SAH,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee (s) in ITA Nos

ITA 170/PAT/2023[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Patna29 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri SK Tulsiyan, &For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 270A

20,495/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred the appeal before the learned CIT (A), claiming that since the returned income has been accepted as assessed income, it is not a case of under reporting of income and is not covered under any of the sub-clause of Section 270A(2) of the Act. It was also argued that the learned Assessing Officer

BISHWANATH PRASAD,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee (s) in ITA Nos

ITA 163/PAT/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Patna29 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri SK Tulsiyan, &For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 270A

20,495/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred the appeal before the learned CIT (A), claiming that since the returned income has been accepted as assessed income, it is not a case of under reporting of income and is not covered under any of the sub-clause of Section 270A(2) of the Act. It was also argued that the learned Assessing Officer

I.T.O. vs. M/S KUMAR CONSTRUCLTION,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 10/PAT/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Patna17 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(b)Section 40A(3)

penalty under section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance of the notices at the end of the assessee. Ultimately the ld. Assessing Officer gone through the books of account submitted before her and made these two additions by recording the following finding:- “Addition u/s 40A(3) for payments exceeding Rs.20,000/- through bearer cheques:- On perusal of Books

ZAIMUR RAHMAN,EAST CHAMPARAN vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 321/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 144BSection 147Section 148Section 149Section 250Section 68Section 69A

10. For that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as the ld. assessing officer, without giving any opportunity, much less sufficient opportunity, has erred in holding that the opening balance of Proprietor's Capital (being the closing balance as on 31/03/2015) to the tune of Rs.3,45,16,118 is unexplained cash credit under section 68 read

SHARDINDU PRASAD SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-6(4), PATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 630/PAT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna15 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

penalty proceeding U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and its confirmation by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by dismissing the appellant appeal in his order U/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This order is the subject matter of this 2nd appeal. B. APPELLANT SUBMISSION ON GROUNDS OF APPEAL Though numbers of grounds

VEENA MISHRA THROUGH NITISH MISHRA,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENT.CIR-1, PATNA, PATNA

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

ITA 152/PAT/2025[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 Sept 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

10. For that on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the impugned order without considering the order of the Hon'ble ITAT in I.T.A. Nos. 130-132 /Pat/2023 dated 27.11.2024 wherein the Hon'ble ITAT has already adjudicated upon the similar issue. 11. For that the Ld. Assessing officer