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.

5 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 10(26)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai718Delhi697Ahmedabad203Jaipur202Hyderabad168Bangalore143Chennai139Raipur126Kolkata108Pune89Indore88Chandigarh81Rajkot70Surat48Allahabad45Guwahati34Lucknow28Amritsar27Nagpur25Visakhapatnam20Panaji13Cuttack11Cochin9Varanasi7Dehradun7Agra6Ranchi5Patna5Jodhpur4Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 14712Section 1485Section 2504Penalty4Addition to Income4Section 35A3Section 143(2)2Section 142(1)2Section 2712

BIHAR MEDICAL SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE CORPORATION LIMITED,PATNA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, both the appeals preferred by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 362/PAT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna06 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: the Assessing Officer to the notices issued by him. It is seen that even before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not make any worthwhile presentation except that written submissions were filed in which it was mentioned that compliance could not be made before the Ld. Assessing Officer because a number of staff were suffering from COVID and hence were not alert enough to make proper representation before the Revenue Authorities. However, going by the fact that even before the Ld. CIT(A) ther

Section 147Section 151Section 250Section 271

26,59,188/- made on account of unexplained increase in current liability. Admittedly, this addition has been made in the said assessment due to lack of compliance from the assessee. 1.2 For (ITA No. 363/Pat/2023) the matter pertains to a penalty under Section 271((1)(b) of the Act levied on account of no response being filed before the Assessing

Section 1512
Reopening of Assessment2
Limitation/Time-bar2

BIHAR MEDICAL SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE CORPORATION LIMITED,PATNA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, both the appeals preferred by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 363/PAT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna06 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: the Assessing Officer to the notices issued by him. It is seen that even before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not make any worthwhile presentation except that written submissions were filed in which it was mentioned that compliance could not be made before the Ld. Assessing Officer because a number of staff were suffering from COVID and hence were not alert enough to make proper representation before the Revenue Authorities. However, going by the fact that even before the Ld. CIT(A) ther

Section 147Section 151Section 250Section 271

26,59,188/- made on account of unexplained increase in current liability. Admittedly, this addition has been made in the said assessment due to lack of compliance from the assessee. 1.2 For (ITA No. 363/Pat/2023) the matter pertains to a penalty under Section 271((1)(b) of the Act levied on account of no response being filed before the Assessing

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

BIJAY KUMAR SARAF,DALDALI BAZAR, MUZAFFARPUR vs. DC/AC CIRCLE 1,MUZFFARPUR, IT-OFFICE, POLICE LINE, SIKANDERPUR MUZZAFFARPUR

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

ITA 205/PAT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194(7)Section 194C(6)Section 250

10,22,750/-. An audit was conducted for the said year and it was found that the assessee had shown freight charges amounting to ₹61,12,102/- out of which on an amount of ₹54,59,700/-, the assessee had not deducted any TDS u/s 194C of the Act relating to payment made to the contractors. It was also found

RUBAN PATLIPUTRA HOSPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. CIT, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 653/PAT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna26 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 653/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Ruban Patliputra Hospital Private Limited,……………………………………….………Appellant 19, Patliputra Colony, Patna-800013, Bihar [Pan:Aafcr2222R] -Vs.- Nfac,…………………………………………….…...Respondent New Delhi, Appearances By: Shri A.K. Rastogi, Sr. Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Sm. Rinku Singh, Cit, D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: April 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: May 26, 2025 O R D E R

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 35A

26, 2025 O R D E R Per Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-President (KZ):- The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 14th March, 2024 passed for Assessment Year 2014-15. 1 Ruban Patliputra Hospital Private Limited 2. The appeal