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.

36 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Long Term Capital Gainsclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai292Delhi204Jaipur88Ahmedabad79Bangalore57Hyderabad48Raipur39Chennai37Kolkata37Pune36Surat28Indore27Visakhapatnam24Lucknow19Rajkot19Ranchi19Chandigarh14Patna10Nagpur7Agra6Guwahati6Jodhpur5Cuttack4Allahabad3Jabalpur1Varanasi1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)46Section 14833Addition to Income28Penalty26Section 143(3)22Section 14719Long Term Capital Gains19Section 25016Section 14411Section 142(1)

CHANDRASHEKHAR BAGADE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 5(1), PUNE

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

ITA 958/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14 Chandrashekhar Bagade Ito, Ward 5(1), Pune F 5, Windmill Village, Vs. Opp Ambrosiya, Paud Road, Pune – 411021 Pan: Amxpb8229M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sharad A Vaze Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 30-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-07-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A VazeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54Section 54F

long term capital gains. However, it set aside the issue of exemption u/s 54F to CIT(A) for re-adjudication. The Ld CIT(A) allowed the appeal vide his order dt 08/07/2019. 5. AO had, in the meanwhile, levied penalty u/s 271

Showing 1–20 of 36 · Page 1 of 2

11
Section 115J9
Capital Gains8

RAMCHANDRAUDAYSINGHJADHAVRAO,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, PUNE

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

ITA 1399/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Feb 2025AY 2016-17
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 45(2)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on\nthe long term capital gain income of Rs.10.74 crores. He however

DINAR UMESHKUMAR MORE,MALEGAON vs. ITO WARD 1, MALEGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2125/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

long term capital gains on transfer of immovable property on the ground that the appellant had concealed the particulars of his income without appreciating that the levy of penalty was not justified on facts and in law. 2 Dinar Umeshkumar More 2] The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the penalty order u/s 271

RAMESHWARDAS SHIVCHARANDAS AND COMPANY ,NANDED vs. ITO WARD 1, JALNA

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

ITA 524/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.524/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh B Budruk
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 282

long-term capital gain is resulting in double taxation. The addition may kindly be deleted. 12. The Ld. AO erred in initiating the penalty u/s 271

AMOL VASANT DESHMUKH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

ITA 1837/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sarang Gudhate, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi, Addl.CIT
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 54B

Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) at ₹ NIL. Case selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and valid notices u/s. 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act were served upon the assessee. Ld.AO observed that assessee has shown LTCG at ₹ 90,95,120/-, and against this income, has claimed deduction u/s. 54F & 54B of the Act and declared NIL income under capital

TULSABAI VASANT DESHMUKH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

ITA 1838/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sarang Gudhate, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi, Addl.CIT
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 54B

Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) at ₹ NIL. Case selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and valid notices u/s. 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act were served upon the assessee. Ld.AO observed that assessee has shown LTCG at ₹ 90,95,120/-, and against this income, has claimed deduction u/s. 54F & 54B of the Act and declared NIL income under capital

ROHINI MARUTI DESHMUKH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

ITA 1839/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sarang Gudhate, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi, Addl.CIT
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 54B

Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) at ₹ NIL. Case selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and valid notices u/s. 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act were served upon the assessee. Ld.AO observed that assessee has shown LTCG at ₹ 90,95,120/-, and against this income, has claimed deduction u/s. 54F & 54B of the Act and declared NIL income under capital

KRISHAN KUMAR TARACHAND,PUNE vs. ITO (IT) WARD -2, PUNE

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

ITA 513/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.513/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Krishan Kumar Tarachand, Vs. Ito (It), Ward-2, Pune. Flat No.4, Anupam Apartments, Nda Pashan Road, Bavdhan Khurd, Pune- 411021 Pan : Abupd4503C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Manoj Tripathi Date Of Hearing : 29.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.07.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. (A) The Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Erred In Law & In Facts In Dismissing The Appeal Filed Against Penalty Order U/S. 271(1)(C) Of Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 25.06.2018 Merely On The Premise That The Appeal Was Filed Belatedly & Without Providing Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard. (B) The Ld. Nfac Erred In Law In Dismissing The Appeal Filed Against Penalty Order U/S. 271(1)(C) Of Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 25.06.2018 Levying A Penalty Of Rs.6,09,760/- Without

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

Long Term Capital Gains”. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income

SMITA VIRENDRA LODHA,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, AHMEDNAGAR

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

ITA 1980/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Prasad BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 270A

Long Term Capital Gain. In view of the above, the Assessing Officer rightly invoked the provision of section 270A of the Act for under-reporting of income in consequence to mis- reporting of income. 5 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I hold that assessee has 'under-reporting of income in consequence of misreporting and are liable

S K BHANSALI & ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, PUNE

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

ITA 535/PUN/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jul 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 147ASection 148Section 2Section 271(1)(c)

Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.30,12,878/- on sale of land. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) is affirmed and the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No. 771/PN/2012 is dismissed.” 10 6.1. It is thus clear that nothing prevents the assessee from challenging correctness of the impugned penalty proceedings regarding taxability of the quantum addition

ANIL JAYWANT BALWADKAR L/R OF LATE JAYWANT KASHIRAM BALWADKAR,PUNE vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD 9(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 758/PUN/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Mrs. Daini ShindeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

long term capital gain. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and had not filed his return of income for the impugned assessment year. The Assessing 2 Officer observed from the ITS details that the assessee along with other family members had transferred two pieces of land and the transaction amount

MRS. SUREKHA HANUMANTRAO PAWAR,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 14(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 225/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.225/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs.Surekha Hanumantrao V The Income Tax Officer, Pawar, S. Ward-14(1), Pune. Sr.No.47, Sunita Nagar, Vadgaon Sheri, Pune - 411014. Maharashtra. Pan: Bhepp5383D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Digambar Surwase – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajitesh Kumar Meena – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The A.Y.2012-13 Dated 02.07.2024. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Long Term Capital Gain. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are being initiated separately for concealment of income.” 4. Thus

M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 427/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 10(35)Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated. [Rs.2,06,68,835/-]” 6. In appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. While doing so, he relied on the decision of the Hon‟ble Calcutta High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Swati Bajaj reported in 446 ITR 56 (Calcutta). So far as the arguments made

S K BHANSALI & ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, PUNE, PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1320/PUN/2023[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Pune13 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292CSection 69B

u/s. 271(l)(c) may be declared null and void. 3 I.T.A.No. 1320/PUN./2023 5. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the assessee submits that the addition made of Rs.1,42,65,106/- on account of alleged cash paid to Tapadiya group for purchase of land is not warranted at all and hence, no penalty can be levied

SUNIL RAMBHAU WAGH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(3), PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 159/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A ShahFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

long term capital gain in the hands of assessee at Rs.65,00,000/- being 50% of the sale consideration for sale of immovable property at Rs.1,30,00,000/-. We find although the CIT(A) / NFAC accepted that the share of the assessee is 1/3rd, assessee at Rs.65,00,000/-. Further, he did not allow the amount of Rs.20

SUNIL RAMBHAU WAGH ,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(3), PUNE , PUNE

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

ITA 160/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A ShahFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

long term capital gain in the hands of assessee at Rs.65,00,000/- being 50% of the sale consideration for sale of immovable property at Rs.1,30,00,000/-. We find although the CIT(A) / NFAC accepted that the share of the assessee is 1/3rd, assessee at Rs.65,00,000/-. Further, he did not allow the amount of Rs.20

MR. MOHAN MADAN BHOITE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD-9, PUNE

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

ITA 1855/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Abhay A AvchatFor Respondent: Shri Vidya Ratna Kishore
Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

Long Term Capital Gain on sale of property. Thereafter, the Ld. AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. During

ANURADHA ASHOK SATBHAI,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

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

ITA 482/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manish SomaniFor Respondent: Shri Pawan Bharati
Section 143(2)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Long term capital gains being the difference between the value of the property as per stamp valuation authority of Rs.2,49,00,000/- less the cost of acquisition with indexation considering the share of the assessee at Rs.69,31,872/-. Since the assessee had already declared capital gain of Rs.64,62,000/-, the Assessing Officer brought the balance amount

ACHANAK ASSOCIATES REALTORS PVT.LTD,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 1(1), PUNE

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

ITA 1221/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

long term capital gain and Rs.19,00,000/- as income from undisclosed sources u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. Thus, he determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.20,39,00,000/-. 3. Since there was non-compliance from the side of the assessee despite 5 opportunities granted by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, he dismissed the appeal

ACHANAK ASSOCIATES REALTORS PVT.LTD,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 1(1), PUNE

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

ITA 1220/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

long term capital gain and Rs.19,00,000/- as income from undisclosed sources u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. Thus, he determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.20,39,00,000/-. 3. Since there was non-compliance from the side of the assessee despite 5 opportunities granted by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, he dismissed the appeal