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.

504 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 143clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,606Delhi3,570Ahmedabad840Kolkata696Jaipur612Bangalore534Pune504Indore469Chennai354Surat344Hyderabad321Chandigarh193Rajkot180Raipur172Karnataka131Amritsar130Visakhapatnam120Cochin96Lucknow91Nagpur80Allahabad65Dehradun57Agra51Guwahati49Cuttack44Calcutta37Patna37Jabalpur32Ranchi31Jodhpur30Varanasi14Panaji14SC8Kerala3Rajasthan3Telangana3Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)201Section 143(3)81Penalty76Addition to Income73Section 14868Section 14751Section 27444Section 143(2)30Section 25028

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

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

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Showing 1–20 of 504 · Page 1 of 26

...
Disallowance25
Section 271D21
Deduction18
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 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

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

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 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

MR. CHITTARANJAN TRIMBAK GAIKWAD,PUNE vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 759/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri B.C. MalakarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of the Act was attracted and the Ld. Assessing Officer therefore had wrongly and unjustifiably levied penalty under the said section of Rs.12,24,938/-. 10. The appellant further humbly submits that in the case of the appellant, in the assessment order passed u/s 143

VEENA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE2(1), PUNE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 2871/PUN/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

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

For Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, whereas the penalty has ultimately been imposed for the other limb. The penalty order be treated as null and void. The Appellant be granted just and proper relief in this respect. 3. The Appellant prays to be allowed to add, amend, modify, rectify, delete, and raise any grounds of appeal at the time

VEENA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE2(1), PUNE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 2872/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Apr 2026AY 2012-13

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

For Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, whereas the penalty has ultimately been imposed for the other limb. The penalty order be treated as null and void. The Appellant be granted just and proper relief in this respect. 3. The Appellant prays to be allowed to add, amend, modify, rectify, delete, and raise any grounds of appeal at the time

VEENA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE2(1), PUNE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 2874/PUN/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Apr 2026AY 2009-10

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

For Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, whereas the penalty has ultimately been imposed for the other limb. The penalty order be treated as null and void. The Appellant be granted just and proper relief in this respect. 3. The Appellant prays to be allowed to add, amend, modify, rectify, delete, and raise any grounds of appeal at the time

VEENA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE2(1, PUNE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 2873/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Apr 2026AY 2013-14

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

For Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, whereas the penalty has ultimately been imposed for the other limb. The penalty order be treated as null and void. The Appellant be granted just and proper relief in this respect. 3. The Appellant prays to be allowed to add, amend, modify, rectify, delete, and raise any grounds of appeal at the time

SHRIRAM VITHAL CHIDRAWAR,,NANDED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 904/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

143(3) of the Act vide order dated 26-11-2009 without making any separate addition qua excess stock of fertilizers. The Commissioner of Income Tax invoked revisionary powers u/s. 263 of the Act and directed the Assessing Officer to re-adjudicate the issue with respect to excess stock of fertilizer amounting to Rs.10,00,000/-. 3.1 Consequent to revision

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED ( SUCCESSOR OF ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS LIMITED),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1260/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Vyomesh PathakFor Respondent: Shri Vidya Ratna Kishore
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 155(18)Section 270ASection 270A(2)Section 270A(6)(a)Section 270A(7)Section 270A(8)Section 270A(9)

143 or section 147, as the case may be, has been paid within the period specified in such notice of demand; and (b) no appeal against the order referred to in clause (a) has been filed. 8 ITA No.1260/PUN/2025, AY 2020-21 (2) An application referred to in sub-section (1) shall be made within one month from

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

143(3) of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings for concealment under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and eventually levied penalty of ₹ 9,26,999/-. 11. The issue which is arising in the present appeal is that in the circumstances where the assessee had already offered additional income in the return of income filed

PRADEEP SWEETS PVT LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal of

ITA 408/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy

For Appellant: Shri Vipin GujarathiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

143(3) of the Act initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of the aforesaid income disclosed in the return of income. The ld.A.R. submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. S.A.S. Pharmaceuticals reported as 335 ITR 259 has held that no penalty u/s 271

SANJAY D. KAKADE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 17/PUN/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

For Respondent: Sri Achal Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

u/s. 271(1) (c) of the IT Act is ab-initio void, bad in law and is unsustainable.” The above Additional grounds are found overlapping on certain issues. However, they revolve around the legal issues; (1) the issues relating to applicability of the pre-amended Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. (2) unsustainability of the penalty

M/S KAKADE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 100/PUN/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

For Respondent: Sri Achal Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

u/s. 271(1) (c) of the IT Act is ab-initio void, bad in law and is unsustainable.” The above Additional grounds are found overlapping on certain issues. However, they revolve around the legal issues; (1) the issues relating to applicability of the pre-amended Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. (2) unsustainability of the penalty

M/S KAKADE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 102/PUN/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

For Respondent: Sri Achal Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

u/s. 271(1) (c) of the IT Act is ab-initio void, bad in law and is unsustainable.” The above Additional grounds are found overlapping on certain issues. However, they revolve around the legal issues; (1) the issues relating to applicability of the pre-amended Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. (2) unsustainability of the penalty

SANJAY D. KAKADE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 13/PUN/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

For Respondent: Sri Achal Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

u/s. 271(1) (c) of the IT Act is ab-initio void, bad in law and is unsustainable.” The above Additional grounds are found overlapping on certain issues. However, they revolve around the legal issues; (1) the issues relating to applicability of the pre-amended Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. (2) unsustainability of the penalty

SANJAY D. KAKADE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 14/PUN/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

For Respondent: Sri Achal Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

u/s. 271(1) (c) of the IT Act is ab-initio void, bad in law and is unsustainable.” The above Additional grounds are found overlapping on certain issues. However, they revolve around the legal issues; (1) the issues relating to applicability of the pre-amended Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. (2) unsustainability of the penalty