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.

13 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 55(2)(a)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,065Mumbai947Ahmedabad319Jaipur240Bangalore219Karnataka131Indore130Chennai126Kolkata120Pune111Hyderabad107Surat89Chandigarh74Raipur53Rajkot53Visakhapatnam39Amritsar39Lucknow36Calcutta35Nagpur30Cochin30Guwahati28Allahabad27Dehradun22Cuttack16Kerala14Patna13Varanasi8Agra7Jabalpur7Telangana3Panaji3Ranchi3SC3Jodhpur3Gauhati1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)42Penalty11Section 133A10Section 1449Survey u/s 133A9Section 153A8Search & Seizure8Section 2507Section 1487

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA vs. SUBHASH PD. YADAV, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 97/PAT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna02 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

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

Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 139Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 275

section 275 of the Act, the undersigned is constrained to impose penalty u/s 271AAB(1A) of the Act on the assessee for the said year for the said default. Computation of Penalty u/s 271AAB(1A) is as under:- Assessed income : RS. 4,74,85,650/- 1. Returned income filed by the assessee Rs. 9,85,650/- 2. Additional disclosure

Section 1327
Section 271A6
Addition to Income6

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

In the result, all the appeals of the both the assessee in ITA

ITA 184/PAT/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Patna29 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri SK Tulsiyan, &For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

271(1)(c) and levied penalty of Rs.1093704/-. 2. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has only relied upon the A.O. order 3. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in applying the Apex Court order in the case of CIT vs. Prasanna Dugar. The Apex Court order is not applicable in the present case as no disclosure statement

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

In the result, all the appeals of the both the assessee in ITA

ITA 185/PAT/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Patna29 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri SK Tulsiyan, &For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

271(1)(c) and levied penalty of Rs.1093704/-. 2. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has only relied upon the A.O. order 3. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in applying the Apex Court order in the case of CIT vs. Prasanna Dugar. The Apex Court order is not applicable in the present case as no disclosure statement

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

In the result, all the appeals of the both the assessee in ITA

ITA 161/PAT/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Patna29 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri SK Tulsiyan, &For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

271(1)(c) and levied penalty of Rs.1093704/-. 2. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has only relied upon the A.O. order 3. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in applying the Apex Court order in the case of CIT vs. Prasanna Dugar. The Apex Court order is not applicable in the present case as no disclosure statement

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

In the result, all the appeals of the both the assessee in ITA

ITA 162/PAT/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Patna29 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri SK Tulsiyan, &For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

271(1)(c) and levied penalty of Rs.1093704/-. 2. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has only relied upon the A.O. order 3. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in applying the Apex Court order in the case of CIT vs. Prasanna Dugar. The Apex Court order is not applicable in the present case as no disclosure statement

SHREE MANGALAM ALUMINIUM,PATNA vs. DC/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 488/PAT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. Nos. 486 To 488/Pat/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 To 2016-2017 Shree Mangalam Aluminium,…...….………Appellant Pandey Plaza Building, Exhibition Road, Patna-800001, Bihar [Pan:Abkfs3963M] -Vs.- Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,……………………………………………………..Respondent Central Circle-3, Patna, Bihar

Section 106Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)

2) For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in mechanically and without due application of mind has affirmed the order of the Assessing Officer imposing penalty of Rs.8.83,495/-. (3) For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in invoking provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act whereas the fact remains that the fiscal law is guided

SHREE MANGALAM ALUMINIUM,PATNA vs. DC/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 487/PAT/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. Nos. 486 To 488/Pat/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 To 2016-2017 Shree Mangalam Aluminium,…...….………Appellant Pandey Plaza Building, Exhibition Road, Patna-800001, Bihar [Pan:Abkfs3963M] -Vs.- Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,……………………………………………………..Respondent Central Circle-3, Patna, Bihar

Section 106Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)

2) For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in mechanically and without due application of mind has affirmed the order of the Assessing Officer imposing penalty of Rs.8.83,495/-. (3) For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in invoking provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act whereas the fact remains that the fiscal law is guided

SHREE MANGALAM ALUMINIUM,PATNA vs. DC/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 486/PAT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. Nos. 486 To 488/Pat/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 To 2016-2017 Shree Mangalam Aluminium,…...….………Appellant Pandey Plaza Building, Exhibition Road, Patna-800001, Bihar [Pan:Abkfs3963M] -Vs.- Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,……………………………………………………..Respondent Central Circle-3, Patna, Bihar

Section 106Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)

2) For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in mechanically and without due application of mind has affirmed the order of the Assessing Officer imposing penalty of Rs.8.83,495/-. (3) For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in invoking provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act whereas the fact remains that the fiscal law is guided

RENU DEVI,PATNA vs. ITO, PATNA

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

ITA 672/PAT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna25 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 672/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Renu Devi,……………………………....….………Appellant D/79, P.C. Colony, Lohia Nagar, Kankarbagh, Patna-800020, Bihar [Pan:Algpd4522P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………...…….Respondent Ward-6(2), Patna Appearances By: Shri Sudipta Sannigrahi, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 24, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: August 25, 2025 O R D E R

Section 144Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 271(1)(c)Section 45Section 48

55 ratio each of the constructed area. The assessee made compliance by filing return u/s 148 on 03.011.2019 vide Ack. No. 404710420030119 declaring gross total income of Rs.105839/-. The Ld. Assessing Officer disregarded the submissions and compliances made by the assessee and passed assessment u/s 144, read with w.r.s 147 of Income Tax Act 1961 vide order dated

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

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

penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Act was also filed. It was stated that the Ld. CIT(A) sustained part of the disallowance even though the assessee was not liable for deduction of any TDS as the assessee is trading in sugar and the liability for deduction did not arise as only if the aggregate payment

AL-RABIA MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL WELFARE & TRUST,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, PATNA

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

ITA 283/PAT/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Patna05 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

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

Section 12ASection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, but in this quantum appeal, it is a premature ground. The assessee would receive independent show- cause notice for that purpose and would contest in the penalty proceeding. Therefore, these three grounds are rejected. 3. In response to the notice of hearing, Shri Rajiv Kumar, ld. Counsel for the assessee appeared

AMRENDRA PRATAP SINGH,VARANASI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 3(1), GAYA

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

ITA 101/PAT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 250Section 251Section 69A

penalty proceeding under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 16. For that the appellant shall place any other point/points at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an agriculturist and had earnings from sale of agricultural produce. The assessee had given a power of attorney to Sri Satish