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 12A(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi95Mumbai51Bangalore49Hyderabad35Calcutta34Ahmedabad30Lucknow16Jaipur16Visakhapatnam12Chandigarh11Indore9Pune9Amritsar9Allahabad8Cochin6Kolkata5Patna4Rajkot3Jodhpur2Raipur2Surat2Nagpur2

Key Topics

Section 12A20Section 1111Section 270A8Section 271(1)(c)8Penalty7Section 1475Exemption5Section 271A3Charitable Trust3Section 143(1)(a)

M.M. PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1130/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2025
Section 12Section 127Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

2) Show-Cause\nnotices to the Appellant before proceeding to cancel the registration\nu/s 12A and u/s 12A(1)(ac) (i) of the ITA, 1961. While so doing,\nfollowing fatal errors have crept into the actions/decisions of the\nlearned PCIT(Central). For the sake of simplicity, these two notices are\ndealt with separately as follows:\nA. 1\" notice issued u/s

2
Section 143(2)2
TDS2

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK vs. CHAKRADHAR CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JALGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

ITA 1939/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 270A(3)(i)Section 270A(6)(a)Section 270A(9)

12A of the Act and engaged in educational activities whose income is exempt from tax. It is manifest from para 4 of the assessment order that on perusal of Schedule EC of the ITR, the Ld. AO noticed that the assessee had claimed capital expenditure of Rs.2,40,02,040/-. Vide notice u/s 142(1) of the Act he required

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK vs. CHAKRAHAR CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JALGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

ITA 1940/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 270A(3)(i)Section 270A(6)(a)Section 270A(9)

12A of the Act and engaged in educational activities whose income is exempt from tax. It is manifest from para 4 of the assessment order that on perusal of Schedule EC of the ITR, the Ld. AO noticed that the assessee had claimed capital expenditure of Rs.2,40,02,040/-. Vide notice u/s 142(1) of the Act he required

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE, PUNE vs. SHREE CHANAKYA EDUCATION SOCIETY, AUNDH ,PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2155/PUN/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Aug 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: S/Shri Neelesh Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). For the sake of convenience, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee were heard together and are being disposed off by this common order. 2. Facts of the case

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE, PUNE vs. SHREE CHANAKYA EDUCATION SOCIETY, AUNDH, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2170/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: S/Shri Neelesh Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). For the sake of convenience, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee were heard together and are being disposed off by this common order. 2. Facts of the case

M/S. MARATHWADA AUTO CLUSTER,,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,,

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

ITA 2455/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 234Section 234ASection 25

12A(2) Registration and Income Computation 3 A.Y.2012-13 provisions being applicable for earlier pending proceedings Appellant, therefore, prays for computation of Income under Sec. 11, 12 of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. As per the understanding and terms of the Government Grants, the unspent grants be invested in fixed deposit. The interest thereon will be part of the grant

M/S. ASSOCIATION OF INDIAN FORGING INDUSTRY,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - (2),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 715/PUN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.715/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Association Of Indian Forging Industry, The Income Tax Officer, 101/112, Nyati Millennium Off Nagar Vs Ward-(2), Pune. Road, Viman Nagar, Pune – 411 014. Pan: Aaeca 8094 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe – Dr Date Of Hearing 23/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 26/05/2022

Section 11Section 12ASection 25Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

2. The only grievance of the assessee in the grounds of appeal is levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. At the time of hearing before us, none appeared for the assessee. 3. Brief facts of the case as emerged out from the penalty order, statement of facts and other material available on record are that

ASSOCIATION OF ORAL MAXILLOFACIAL SURGEONS OF INDIA,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 274/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.274/Pun/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Association Of Oral Maxillofacial Vs. Ito (Exemptions), Surgeons Of India, Ward-1, Pune Pn 38, S.No.16, Butte Patil Classic, Prabhat Road, Erandwane, Pune 411 004 Maharashtra Pan : Aabta3313P Appellant Respondent

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 12A of the Act, no benefit of exemption u/s.11 was claimed. The assessment was completed at the returned income. Thereafter, penalty proceedings were initiated u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. The AO observed that the assessee was not granted registration u/s.12A of the Act on the date of his passing the order. He, therefore, imposed penalty amounting to Rs.2

AJIT NARAYAN PATIL. KOLHAPUR,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 641/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 132(4)Section 271A

penalty is levied 4 I.T.A.No.641/PUN./2023 for alleged undisclosed income for AY 2018-19 amounting to Rs. 52,25,780. The alleged undisclosed income is worked out on the basis of professional receipts for services relating to LAB + PELVIS + PROCEDURE. 2. Search was initiated in appellant's case on 6/12/2017. During the course of search, Appellant admitted that receipts