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.

207 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 142(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,346Mumbai1,078Jaipur347Indore325Ahmedabad318Kolkata241Surat232Pune207Hyderabad202Bangalore175Chennai157Chandigarh129Rajkot129Karnataka105Lucknow94Visakhapatnam84Raipur66Amritsar57Allahabad54Cuttack44Cochin41Nagpur37Calcutta36Patna35Guwahati35Agra33Jabalpur29Jodhpur24Dehradun18Panaji17Ranchi12SC6Varanasi4Telangana2Rajasthan2

Key Topics

Section 148112Section 147103Section 271(1)(c)93Addition to Income74Penalty69Section 142(1)66Section 14444Section 143(2)44Section 271(1)(b)41Section 250

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

Showing 1–20 of 207 · Page 1 of 11

...
34
Cash Deposit21
Deduction17

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

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

SANTOSH HASTIMAL GUGALE,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1336/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1336/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Santosh Hastimal Gugale At. 4253, Chitale Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Dist. Ahmednagar …. Pan: Aeapg2716G Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Verma
Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 9

142(1) of the Act. The assessee had included the additional income in his hands in the said return of income and the Assessing Officer had accepted the said income offered by the assessee along with certain additions i.e. on account of errors and omissions of Rs.9,502/-. The explanation of assessee is that since he did not find

JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

ITA 99/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /For Respondent: Shri Hitendra Ninawe
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

u/s. 271(1)(c) on the basis of an invalid assessment order was null and void.‖ 21. In order to adjudicate the issues, we are referring to the facts and issues in ITA No.105/PUN/2016. The facts of present appeal are slightly at variance i.e. simultaneously to the search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act initiated against partners

MRS. VASUNDHARA SHAILESH JOSHI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

ITA 96/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /For Respondent: Shri Hitendra Ninawe
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

u/s. 271(1)(c) on the basis of an invalid assessment order was null and void.‖ 21. In order to adjudicate the issues, we are referring to the facts and issues in ITA No.105/PUN/2016. The facts of present appeal are slightly at variance i.e. simultaneously to the search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act initiated against partners

JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

ITA 100/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /For Respondent: Shri Hitendra Ninawe
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

u/s. 271(1)(c) on the basis of an invalid assessment order was null and void.‖ 21. In order to adjudicate the issues, we are referring to the facts and issues in ITA No.105/PUN/2016. The facts of present appeal are slightly at variance i.e. simultaneously to the search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act initiated against partners

JOSHI WADEWALE HADAPSAR,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

ITA 105/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /For Respondent: Shri Hitendra Ninawe
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

u/s. 271(1)(c) on the basis of an invalid assessment order was null and void.‖ 21. In order to adjudicate the issues, we are referring to the facts and issues in ITA No.105/PUN/2016. The facts of present appeal are slightly at variance i.e. simultaneously to the search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act initiated against partners

JOSHI WADEWALE PRABHAT CINEMA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

ITA 102/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /For Respondent: Shri Hitendra Ninawe
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

u/s. 271(1)(c) on the basis of an invalid assessment order was null and void.‖ 21. In order to adjudicate the issues, we are referring to the facts and issues in ITA No.105/PUN/2016. The facts of present appeal are slightly at variance i.e. simultaneously to the search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act initiated against partners

MRS. VASUNDHARA SHAILESH JOSHI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

ITA 95/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /For Respondent: Shri Hitendra Ninawe
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

u/s. 271(1)(c) on the basis of an invalid assessment order was null and void.‖ 21. In order to adjudicate the issues, we are referring to the facts and issues in ITA No.105/PUN/2016. The facts of present appeal are slightly at variance i.e. simultaneously to the search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act initiated against partners

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

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

M/S. U.K. JEWELLERS,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1543/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 41Section 41(1)Section 41(1)(a)

142(1) of the Act dt.08.06.2012 was issued and served on the assessee. Later, assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dt.29.03.2013 and the total taxable income was determined at Rs.2,97,46,750/- inter-alia by making addition of Rs.3,06,52,888/- on account of cessation of liability of the credit balance u/s

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

JITENDRA PRATAPRAO SONAR,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are

ITA 1694/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Aggarwal
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax act 1961 (the 'Act’). The CIT (A) ought to have held that no penalty was leviable, on the facts and in law. 2. The CIT (A) erred in holding that the appellant has concealed the income/furnished inaccurate particulars of income. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

JITENDRA PRATAPRAO SONAR,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are

ITA 1692/PUN/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Aggarwal
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax act 1961 (the 'Act’). The CIT (A) ought to have held that no penalty was leviable, on the facts and in law. 2. The CIT (A) erred in holding that the appellant has concealed the income/furnished inaccurate particulars of income. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case