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.

9 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 34clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,556Mumbai1,407Ahmedabad404Jaipur345Bangalore230Indore202Kolkata193Pune170Surat167Hyderabad164Chennai156Raipur135Karnataka126Chandigarh110Rajkot85Amritsar63Lucknow61Allahabad46Cochin45Agra42Visakhapatnam40Nagpur40Calcutta35Cuttack26Panaji21Guwahati20Jodhpur15Kerala15Dehradun14SC9Patna9Varanasi9Jabalpur9Ranchi7Telangana5Rajasthan4

Key Topics

Section 69C12Section 14810Section 1448Addition to Income8Penalty7Section 2506Section 143(2)5Section 142(1)5Section 704

ANIL KUMAR,WEST CHAMPARAN vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (5), BETTIAH

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

ITA 262/PAT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

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

u/s 144/147 and penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 21.12.2017 and 30.05.2018, respectively. Since the issues in both the appeals are related to the same assessee, both the appeals were heard together and I.T.A. Nos.: 261 & 262/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Anil Kumar. are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience

ANIL KUMAR,WEST CHAMPARAN vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (5), BETTIAH

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

Section 133A4
Cash Deposit4
Limitation/Time-bar4
ITA 261/PAT/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed
ITAT Patna
13 Oct 2025
AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

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

u/s 144/147 and penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 21.12.2017 and 30.05.2018, respectively. Since the issues in both the appeals are related to the same assessee, both the appeals were heard together and I.T.A. Nos.: 261 & 262/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Anil Kumar. are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience

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

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

34,61,631/- 4,53,94,889/- 4,88,71,784/- 2,58,12,701/- expenditure in construction of building based on the valuation report of Mr. S.P. Singh, approved valuer u/s 69C Addition u/s 70,31,800/- 67,40,000/- 1,75,40,000/- 58,92,600/- 43CA 4. We find the facts on all vital points are common

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

34,61,631/- 4,53,94,889/- 4,88,71,784/- 2,58,12,701/- expenditure in construction of building based on the valuation report of Mr. S.P. Singh, approved valuer u/s 69C Addition u/s 70,31,800/- 67,40,000/- 1,75,40,000/- 58,92,600/- 43CA 4. We find the facts on all vital points are common

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

34,61,631/- 4,53,94,889/- 4,88,71,784/- 2,58,12,701/- expenditure in construction of building based on the valuation report of Mr. S.P. Singh, approved valuer u/s 69C Addition u/s 70,31,800/- 67,40,000/- 1,75,40,000/- 58,92,600/- 43CA 4. We find the facts on all vital points are common

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

34,61,631/- 4,53,94,889/- 4,88,71,784/- 2,58,12,701/- expenditure in construction of building based on the valuation report of Mr. S.P. Singh, approved valuer u/s 69C Addition u/s 70,31,800/- 67,40,000/- 1,75,40,000/- 58,92,600/- 43CA 4. We find the facts on all vital points are common

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

34(a) of the Form 3CD which Is read as 'Total amount on which tax was required to be deducted or collected out of (4)" had been filled as NIL by the auditor which clearly states that there was no any requirement by the appellant to deduct and deposit the tax as per the prevailing provisions

BASUDEV PRASAD GUPTA,KISHANGANJ vs. ACIT CIRCLE-3, PURNEA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 25/PAT/2020[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Patna06 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

section 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee contended that he is engaged in the business of seasonal products and stone chips from which gross turnover of Rs.26,03,000/- was achieved. The assessee has declared income of Rs.2,81,328/-. The ld. Assessing Officer has observed that a cash deposit of Rs.75

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

34,724/- (difference in NP computed and NP shown in the return) to the total income of the assessee as business income with other additions. Further, in the absence of any material evidence, the amount of cash deposited during the demonetisation period i.e. ₹ 1,17,84,500/- remained unexplained within the meaning of section