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.

137 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 142clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi516Mumbai486Jaipur243Ahmedabad171Hyderabad165Indore152Surat147Pune137Rajkot112Bangalore108Chennai108Kolkata97Chandigarh88Raipur58Visakhapatnam56Allahabad47Amritsar36Lucknow34Patna32Guwahati27Nagpur26Jodhpur22Dehradun17Jabalpur16Cuttack14Agra14Cochin11Panaji10Ranchi7Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 14887Section 271(1)(c)81Section 14774Addition to Income71Section 143(2)58Penalty56Section 142(1)48Deduction32Section 25031

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

271(1)(c) of Rs. 18,00,580/-. 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessee's case was selected for limited scrutiny for the specific purpose of examining the issue "large deduction claimed u/s 54B, 54C, 54D, 54G and 54GA & Large Investment in property (AIR) as compared to total income". However, Ld Assessing

Showing 1–20 of 137 · Page 1 of 7

Section 143(3)27
Section 3527
Search & Seizure14

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

271(1)(c) of Rs. 18,00,580/-. 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessee's case was selected for limited scrutiny for the specific purpose of examining the issue "large deduction claimed u/s 54B, 54C, 54D, 54G and 54GA & Large Investment in property (AIR) as compared to total income". However, Ld Assessing

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

271(1)(c) of Rs. 18,00,580/-. 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessee's case was selected for limited scrutiny for the specific purpose of examining the issue "large deduction claimed u/s 54B, 54C, 54D, 54G and 54GA & Large Investment in property (AIR) as compared to total income". However, Ld Assessing

RAJSHREE SINGH,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 14(5) PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1356/PUN/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Girish Ladda
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(C) under which the assessee has committed default attracting penalty u/s 271(1)(C), hence the penalty may please be cancelled. 4) The lower authorities erred in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(C) Rs 362431 and it may please be deleted/cancelled. 5) The Appellant seeks leave to add, alter, amend or drop any of grounds taken above

INTERVALVE POONAWALLA PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 636/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14 Intervalve Poonawalla Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle 1(1), Fin Div. 16/B-1, Sarosh Bhavan, Pune Vs. 2Nd Floor, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Opp. Niv, Pune – 411001 Pan: Aaaci3917P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak & Vishnu Bhutada Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 14-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S Pathak &For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) were issued and served on the assessee in response to which the AR of the assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer from time to time and filed the requisite details. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act on 29.03.2016 determining

GAURISHANKAR EDUCATIION SOCIETY,SATARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTION), WARD-1(1), PUNE

Appeals of the assessee are PARTLY ALLOWED

ITA 982/PUN/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 982 To 985/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17 Gaurishankar Education Society, Grahak Sangh, Market Yard, Satara - 415 001 Pan: Aaatg666A . . . . . . . अपऩलधर्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr. Kishor Phadke [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

271(1)(b) of the Act. The sole legal dispute is over the validity of multiple levy of penalty based on multiple notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act which remained unattended. 7. The plain reading of applicable provision of clause (b) of s/s (1) of section

GAURISHANKAR EDUCATIION SOCIETY,SATARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTION), WARD-1(1), PUNE

Appeals of the assessee are PARTLY ALLOWED

ITA 985/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 982 To 985/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17 Gaurishankar Education Society, Grahak Sangh, Market Yard, Satara - 415 001 Pan: Aaatg666A . . . . . . . अपऩलधर्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr. Kishor Phadke [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

271(1)(b) of the Act. The sole legal dispute is over the validity of multiple levy of penalty based on multiple notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act which remained unattended. 7. The plain reading of applicable provision of clause (b) of s/s (1) of section

GAURISHANKAR EDUCATIION SOCIETY,SATARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTION), WARD-1(1), PUNE

Appeals of the assessee are PARTLY ALLOWED

ITA 983/PUN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 982 To 985/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17 Gaurishankar Education Society, Grahak Sangh, Market Yard, Satara - 415 001 Pan: Aaatg666A . . . . . . . अपऩलधर्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr. Kishor Phadke [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

271(1)(b) of the Act. The sole legal dispute is over the validity of multiple levy of penalty based on multiple notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act which remained unattended. 7. The plain reading of applicable provision of clause (b) of s/s (1) of section

GAURISHANKAR EDUCATIION SOCIETY,SATARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTION), WARD-1(1), PUNE

Appeals of the assessee are PARTLY ALLOWED

ITA 984/PUN/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 982 To 985/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17 Gaurishankar Education Society, Grahak Sangh, Market Yard, Satara - 415 001 Pan: Aaatg666A . . . . . . . अपऩलधर्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr. Kishor Phadke [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

271(1)(b) of the Act. The sole legal dispute is over the validity of multiple levy of penalty based on multiple notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act which remained unattended. 7. The plain reading of applicable provision of clause (b) of s/s (1) of section

ARCHANA PRASHANT DATE,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 11(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 2472/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2472/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Sarang GudhateFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

penalty of Rs.10,000/- could be imposed for the first default made by the assessee in this regard u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act but could not be imposed for each and every notice issued u/s. 142(1), which remained uncomplied with. Although the provision of Section 271

INTERVALVE POONAWALLA PVT. LTD. ,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 637/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15 Intervalve Poonawalla Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle 1(1), Fin Div. 16/B-1, Sarosh Bhavan, Pune Vs. 2Nd Floor, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Opp. Niv, Pune – 411001 Pan: Aaaci3917P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak & Vishnu Bhutada Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 14-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04-06-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S Pathak &For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 4Section 43B

142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) were issued and served on the assessee in response to which the AR of the assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer from time to time and filed the requisite details. The Assessing 2 Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act on 25.10.2016 determining

RAJENDRA CHANDRAKANT CHINCHNIKAR,PUNE vs. CIT(A)-11, PUNE

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

ITA 1700/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2019-20 Rajendra Chandrakant Chinchnikar Acit, Central Circle, 2165, B Ward, Koshti Galli, Vs. Kolhapur Mangalwar Peth, Pune – 416012 Pan: Acppc3559D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tanzil Padvekar Department By : Shri Milind Debaje, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 25-08-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-09-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil PadvekarFor Respondent: Shri Milind Debaje, JCIT
Section 133ASection 139(5)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 270A(2)(a)Section 270A(9)(e)Section 274Section 69A

142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee in response to which the assessee appeared from time to time and filed various details. 2 3. The Assessing Officer noted that during the course of survey proceedings 4 registers for the financial year 2018-19 and 11 registers for the financial year 2019- 20 were found which

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

ITA 439/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

142 or under sub-section (1) of section 115WH or under section 148 for the making of the return or by the notice under the first proviso to section 115WF or under the first proviso to section 144] to show cause why the assessment should not be completed to the best of the judgment of the Assessing Officer, whichever

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

ITA 440/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

142 or under sub-section (1) of section 115WH or under section 148 for the making of the return or by the notice under the first proviso to section 115WF or under the first proviso to section 144] to show cause why the assessment should not be completed to the best of the judgment of the Assessing Officer, whichever

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

ITA 1089/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

142 or under sub-section (1) of section 115WH or under section 148 for the making of the return or by the notice under the first proviso to section 115WF or under the first proviso to section 144] to show cause why the assessment should not be completed to the best of the judgment of the Assessing Officer, whichever

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD2, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

ITA 1092/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

142 or under sub-section (1) of section 115WH or under section 148 for the making of the return or by the notice under the first proviso to section 115WF or under the first proviso to section 144] to show cause why the assessment should not be completed to the best of the judgment of the Assessing Officer, whichever

VANDANA ANIL BALADAHRE,GONDIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANVEL

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1521/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.1521/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Vandana Anil Baladhare Vs Ito, Panvel Near Ramdeo Colony, Fulchur, Gondia-441601 Maharashtra Pan-Aqzpb8058L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha-
Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 273B

section 273B of the Act as the assessee had reasonable cause for not responding to the notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act. We are therefore of the considered view that no penalty should have been levied by the AO u/s 271

MAHESH VISHWANATH BHOIR,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE

In the result, both the above captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1813/PUN/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Feb 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1813 & 1814/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Mahesh Vishwanath Bhoir, Vs. Ito, Ward-9(1), Pune. 3Rd Floor, Bhoir Building, Keshav Nagar, Chinchwad, Pune- 410033. Pan : Aihpb9631K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2025 आदेश / Order Per Manish Borad, Am: These Appeals Filed At The Instance Of Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 10.07.2024 Which Are Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Framed On 29.01.2014 U/S 144 & Penalty Order Framed On 17.07.2024 U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2011-12 By The Ito, Ward-9(1), Pune Respectively.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

142(1) and various others notices which finally left Ld. Assessing Officer with no option except to frame best judgement assessment making several additions and assessing income of Rs.71,46,830/-. The Assessing Officer also 3 Mahesh Vishwanath Bhoir ITA Nos.1813 & 1814/PUN/2024 initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by issuing notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271

MAHESH VISHWANATH BHOIR,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE

In the result, both the above captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1814/PUN/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Feb 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1813 & 1814/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Mahesh Vishwanath Bhoir, Vs. Ito, Ward-9(1), Pune. 3Rd Floor, Bhoir Building, Keshav Nagar, Chinchwad, Pune- 410033. Pan : Aihpb9631K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2025 आदेश / Order Per Manish Borad, Am: These Appeals Filed At The Instance Of Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 10.07.2024 Which Are Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Framed On 29.01.2014 U/S 144 & Penalty Order Framed On 17.07.2024 U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2011-12 By The Ito, Ward-9(1), Pune Respectively.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

142(1) and various others notices which finally left Ld. Assessing Officer with no option except to frame best judgement assessment making several additions and assessing income of Rs.71,46,830/-. The Assessing Officer also 3 Mahesh Vishwanath Bhoir ITA Nos.1813 & 1814/PUN/2024 initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by issuing notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271

AMOL PRAMOD MAHAJAN,JALGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 1092/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153A

271 (1) (c)/270A are initiated, proper explanation below that section shall be invoked. In case penalties initiated u/s 271AAA/271 AAB, the same should be invoked under the respective issue itself as well as at the bottom of the order. (vii) The computation interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C will be a part of the assessment order itself. (viii) Wherever