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.

8 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 133(1)(d)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai273Delhi196Jaipur105Raipur95Ahmedabad85Kolkata59Chennai55Bangalore39Hyderabad33Indore29Surat27Allahabad25Visakhapatnam24Pune21Lucknow17Rajkot16Chandigarh14Nagpur11Patna8Guwahati7Ranchi3Jodhpur2Cochin2Jabalpur1Amritsar1Cuttack1

Key Topics

Section 69C12Section 1488Addition to Income7Penalty6Section 153A5Section 143(2)5Section 142(1)5Section 271(1)(b)5Section 704

ASHOKA TUBEWELL BORING ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-2, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 90/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Patna18 Jul 2025AY 2016-17
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

d) the bona-fides of the Appellant being\nevident from record by way of suo-motto disclosure\nwithout the Revenue even possessing any minutes of\ndocumentary evidence against the Appellant, there is no\nreason for the undersigned to sustain the penalty, which\nhas been applied mechanically, in the instant case.\n10. From perusal of the above finding

MERIDIAN CONSTRUCTION INDIA LIMITED,PATNA BIHAR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2 PATNA, PATNA

Section 133A4
Survey u/s 133A4

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 262/PAT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 69CSection 70

penalty for not responding to his notice under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act. 5. The ld. Assessing Officer has ultimately taken up the assessment proceeding ex parte according to his best judgment provided under section 144 of the Income Tax Act. The ld. Assessing Officer has confronted the assessee Assessment Years

MERIDIAN CONSTRUCTION INDIA LIMITED,PATNA, BIHAR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2 PATNA, PATNA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 259/PAT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 69CSection 70

penalty for not responding to his notice under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act. 5. The ld. Assessing Officer has ultimately taken up the assessment proceeding ex parte according to his best judgment provided under section 144 of the Income Tax Act. The ld. Assessing Officer has confronted the assessee Assessment Years

MERIDIAN CONSTRUCTION INDIA LIMITED,PATNA BIHAR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2 PATNA, PATNA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 260/PAT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 69CSection 70

penalty for not responding to his notice under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act. 5. The ld. Assessing Officer has ultimately taken up the assessment proceeding ex parte according to his best judgment provided under section 144 of the Income Tax Act. The ld. Assessing Officer has confronted the assessee Assessment Years

MERIDIAN CONSTRUCTION INDIA LIMITED,PATNA vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2, PATNA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 261/PAT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 69CSection 70

penalty for not responding to his notice under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act. 5. The ld. Assessing Officer has ultimately taken up the assessment proceeding ex parte according to his best judgment provided under section 144 of the Income Tax Act. The ld. Assessing Officer has confronted the assessee Assessment Years

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)

D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ):- The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Patna dated 28.01.2015 passed for A.Y. 2009-10. 1 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 M/s. Kumar Construction 2. Grounds No. 1, 2 & 3 are inter-connected grounds therefore we first take these grounds

BAIJU ROY,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-4(2), PATNA

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

ITA 13/PAT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna02 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 10(37)Section 133(6)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 45(5)Section 54BSection 54F

D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ):- The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax 1 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Baiju Roy (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 17.12.2021 passed for Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee

SUNITA DEVI,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6 (1), PATNA

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

ITA 97/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna19 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: this Hon'ble Tribunal. 7. That the delay in filing the appeal was not intentional, nor due to any negligence or laxity on my part, but due to bona fide reasons beyond my control: 8. That I submit that substantial justice should not be denied merely due to procedural delay and that the appeal may be decided on merits. 9. That I humbly request this Hon'ble Tribunal to condone the delay and allow my

For Appellant: Shri Aryan Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 5Section 69A

D E R PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A) dated 24.10.2023. The Registry has informed that there is a delay of 424 days in filing of this appeal, which