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.

4 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 194Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai27Nagpur16Hyderabad9Chandigarh9Delhi8Jabalpur5Jaipur5Pune4Panaji3Visakhapatnam2Kolkata2Ahmedabad2Amritsar1Rajkot1Surat1Indore1

Key Topics

Section 14815Section 1474Addition to Income4Section 283Section 1513Section 148A3Section 142(1)3Penalty3Section 92D2Section 271(1)(c)

RENISHAW METROLOGY SYSTEMS LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 5,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 619/PUN/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.619/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Renishaw Metrology Systems The Dy.Commissioner Limited, V Of Income Tax, Circle- S.No.283, Hissa No.2, S.No.284, S 5, Pune. Hissa No.2 & 3A, Raisoni Estate, Taluk – Mulshi, Dist-Pune. Pan: Aabcr6361F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Ajit Jain & Shri Siddesh Chaugule – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Suhas Kulkarni – Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 04/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24/01/2024

Section 194ASection 271Section 92C(2)Section 92C(3)Section 92D

penalty proceedings under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act on the premise that the Appellant has concealed/ furnished inaccurate particulars of income, without appreciating the fact that adjustment made is not in accordance with the law.” Findings & Analaysis : 2. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. The ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) for the assessee at the outset

2
Reassessment2
Reopening of Assessment2

CHANDRAKANT VITHTHAL BHOPI,RAIGAD vs. ITO WARD 1 , PANVEL

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

ITA 2405/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17 Chandrakant Viththal Bhopi Ito, Ward-1, Panvel At Chinchpada, Post Panvel, Tal. Vs. Panvel, Dist. Raigad – 410206 Pan: Bjdpb7610L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak & Ajinkya M Vaishampayan Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 05-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S Pathak &For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 11Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 2(14)Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for concealment of income.‖ 7. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. 8. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that

VINEET TIWARI,BENGALURU vs. CIRCLE 12, PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 3168/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Santanu Kumar Sarangi (virtual)For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 192Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

penalty of Rs.20,58,288/- 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 were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual

VINEET TIWARI,BANGALORE vs. CIRCLE 12, PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 3169/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Santanu Kumar Sarangi (virtual)For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 192Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

penalty of Rs.20,58,288/- 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 were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual