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.

3 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 171clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi329Mumbai304Bangalore137Kolkata120Karnataka101Jaipur92Raipur63Pune44Chennai39Indore39Ahmedabad33Ranchi26Hyderabad25Chandigarh25Allahabad20Lucknow17Cuttack15Guwahati9Visakhapatnam9Agra7Amritsar6Surat5Cochin5Jodhpur3Rajkot3Nagpur3Patna3Rajasthan1SC1Dehradun1Telangana1Varanasi1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 27415Section 271(1)(c)8Section 2716Section 1473Penalty3Section 2502Section 1482Section 142(1)2

SANJAY KUMAR MODI,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA

Appeal is allowed

ITA 41/PAT/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Patna16 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम Sanjay Kumar Modi Acit, Central Circle-3, Patna / 20B, Arya Nagar Colony, Lodi V/S. Katra, Patna City, Patna Pan No.Afupm7073G अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent .. अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant None ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent Shri Indrajit Singh, Cit, Dr

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s. 274 of the Act should specifically state as to whether penalty is being proposed to be imposed for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Hon’ble High court has further laid down that certain printed form where all the grounds given in section 271 are given would not satisfy the requirement

JOANNA GOKAVI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-1, MOTIHARI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 218/PAT/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Patna16 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon’Ble Am Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम Dr. (Mrs.) Joanna Gokavi Ito, Ward – 1, Motihari / B-19, Anand Niketan, New V/S. Delhi – 110021. Pan No.Amepg 2067 M अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent .. अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant None ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent Shri Ajay Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s. 274 of the Act should specifically state as to whether penalty is being proposed to be imposed for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Hon’ble High court has further laid down that certain printed form where all the grounds given in section 271 are given would not satisfy the requirement

JITENDRA KUMAR RAY,LALGANJ, HAJIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(3) VAISHALI, HAJIPUR

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

ITA 344/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna21 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: or at the time of hearing of the Appeal. At the outset of hearing, we noted that the appeal filed by the assessee is delay by 256 days. In this regard, the assessee filed an affidavit dated 14.01.2026 stating the reasons for not filing appeal within the due date which is as under: “We enclose herewith an appeal u/s 253 of the I.T. Act 1961 against the order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relating to

For Respondent: Sh. Manab Adak, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 253Section 274Section 69

penalty proceedings u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1) (c) & 271F of the I.T. Act, 1961 is arbitrary, unjustified, void, ab-initio and bad in laws. 9) For That the appellant craves leave to add/alter any/all grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the Appeal. 2. At the outset of hearing, we noted that the appeal filed