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.

31 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 195clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi473Mumbai308Karnataka99Bangalore88Ahmedabad87Jaipur59Kolkata55Chandigarh43Calcutta34Pune31Raipur27Lucknow24Indore22Hyderabad20Chennai20Surat12Amritsar10Agra7Cochin7Cuttack7Dehradun7Allahabad3Nagpur2Telangana2Kerala1Rajasthan1Rajkot1Jabalpur1Panaji1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)57Section 115B33Addition to Income29Section 143(3)27Section 36(1)(viia)25Section 14824Section 6823Penalty16Section 153A

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) of the Act, requires to be cancelled. 8. The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessee that the time limit for filing revise return had not expired at the time of the search being conducted on the assessee and therefore, the provisions of explanation 5A were not applicable to the facts

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

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Showing 1–20 of 31 · Page 1 of 2

12
Disallowance9
Section 115J6
Deduction6
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) of the Act, requires to be cancelled. 8. The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessee that the time limit for filing revise return had not expired at the time of the search being conducted on the assessee and therefore, the provisions of explanation 5A were not applicable to the facts

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) of the Act, requires to be cancelled. 8. The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessee that the time limit for filing revise return had not expired at the time of the search being conducted on the assessee and therefore, the provisions of explanation 5A were not applicable to the facts

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) of the Act, requires to be cancelled. 8. The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessee that the time limit for filing revise return had not expired at the time of the search being conducted on the assessee and therefore, the provisions of explanation 5A were not applicable to the facts

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) of the Act, requires to be cancelled. 8. The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessee that the time limit for filing revise return had not expired at the time of the search being conducted on the assessee and therefore, the provisions of explanation 5A were not applicable to the facts

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) of the Act, requires to be cancelled. 8. The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessee that the time limit for filing revise return had not expired at the time of the search being conducted on the assessee and therefore, the provisions of explanation 5A were not applicable to the facts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 3,, PUNE vs. M/S. GOKHALE SABADE ASSOCIATES,, PUNE

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

ITA 867/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri C.V. DeshpandeFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

section 139 of the Act and the findings of ld. CIT(A) that the penalty is not leviable u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is based on correct appreciation of facts and law governing the levy of penalty in the facts of present case. It is settled position of law that the penalty u/s 271

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1493/PUN/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 127Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 234Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 292BSection 68

271 (1) (c) of the Act. It is Appellant-assessee from the mischief of penal proceedings. The law does not provide that when an assessee makes a voluntary disclosure of his concealed income, he had to be absolved from penalty. 9. We are of the view that the surrender of income in this case is not voluntary in the sense

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1494/PUN/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 127Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 234Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 292BSection 68

271 (1) (c) of the Act. It is Appellant-assessee from the mischief of penal proceedings. The law does not provide that when an assessee makes a voluntary disclosure of his concealed income, he had to be absolved from penalty. 9. We are of the view that the surrender of income in this case is not voluntary in the sense

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1492/PUN/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 127Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 234Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 292BSection 68

271 (1) (c) of the Act. It is Appellant-assessee from the mischief of penal proceedings. The law does not provide that when an assessee makes a voluntary disclosure of his concealed income, he had to be absolved from penalty. 9. We are of the view that the surrender of income in this case is not voluntary in the sense

CMA CGM AGENCIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,ELPHINSTONE ROAD-WEST, MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 1454/PUN/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1454/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Cma Cgm Agencies India Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Private Limited, One International Centre, Tower-3, 8Th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphistone Road- West, Mumbai- 400013. Pan : Aadcc3951G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mahenov Thakkar Revenue By : Shri Nitin Patil Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.08.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.11.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “Disallowance Under Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Act Amounting To Rs.4,86,77,518/- 1. Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Learned Assessing Officer (‘Ao’) & Holding That Payment Of It Services To Be In The Nature Of Royalty Under Section 9(1)(Vi) Of The Act/ Fees For Technical Services Under Section 9(1)(Vii) Of The Act;

For Appellant: Mahenov ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Patil
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 195Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act on the basis of above addition/disallowance. 4. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, an appeal was preferred before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, who vide impugned order dated 03.11.2023 dismissed the appeal of the assessee after considering the reply of the assessee. 5. Being aggrieved with the decision

SANJAY MANAKCHAND KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 435/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.435 & 436/Pun/2016 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13

For Appellant: None (Shri Bhupendra Shah)For Respondent: Shri M. Jasnani
Section 132Section 69

271 (1) (c) of the Act. It is trite law that the voluntary disclosure does not release the Appellant-assessee from the mischief of penal proceedings. The law does not provide that when an assessee makes a voluntary disclosure of his concealed income, he had to be absolved from penalty. 9. We are of the view that the surrender

SANJAY MANAKCHAND KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 436/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.435 & 436/Pun/2016 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13

For Appellant: None (Shri Bhupendra Shah)For Respondent: Shri M. Jasnani
Section 132Section 69

271 (1) (c) of the Act. It is trite law that the voluntary disclosure does not release the Appellant-assessee from the mischief of penal proceedings. The law does not provide that when an assessee makes a voluntary disclosure of his concealed income, he had to be absolved from penalty. 9. We are of the view that the surrender

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1126/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde &
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 155BSection 68

271(1)(c)/270A, etc. As against, no any Penalty per se, is applicable for taxation u/s 115BBC As such, forming 'reasons' for one phenomenon, and taxing the same for some different phenomenon, is completely conflicting. Learned AO is incorrect is starting the 147 proceedings for S. 68, continuing the same for S. 68; and concluding the matter

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1121/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde &
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 155BSection 68

271(1)(c)/270A, etc. As against, no any Penalty per se, is applicable for taxation u/s 115BBC As such, forming 'reasons' for one phenomenon, and taxing the same for some different phenomenon, is completely conflicting. Learned AO is incorrect is starting the 147 proceedings for S. 68, continuing the same for S. 68; and concluding the matter

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1124/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde &
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 155BSection 68

271(1)(c)/270A, etc. As against, no any Penalty per se, is applicable for taxation u/s 115BBC As such, forming 'reasons' for one phenomenon, and taxing the same for some different phenomenon, is completely conflicting. Learned AO is incorrect is starting the 147 proceedings for S. 68, continuing the same for S. 68; and concluding the matter

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RATNAGIRI CIRCLE,, RATNAGIRI vs. THE RATNAGIRI DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,, RATNAGIRI

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1674/PUN/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1631 To 1634 & 1674/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05, 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2008-09

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 80P

195/- and after making additions on account of following two items: (i) Wrong provision for overdue interest at Rs.13,23,80,669/- (ii) Wrong deductions claimed u/s 36(1)(viia) at Rs.2,17,36,000/- Co-operative Bank Ltd. 5. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) contesting the above additions

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RATNAGIRI CIRCLE, , RATNAGIRI vs. THE RATNAGIRI DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD,, RATNAGIRI

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1632/PUN/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1631 To 1634 & 1674/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05, 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2008-09

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 80P

195/- and after making additions on account of following two items: (i) Wrong provision for overdue interest at Rs.13,23,80,669/- (ii) Wrong deductions claimed u/s 36(1)(viia) at Rs.2,17,36,000/- Co-operative Bank Ltd. 5. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) contesting the above additions

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RATNAGIRI CIRCLE, , RATNAGIRI vs. THE RATNAGIRI DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD,, RATNAGIRI

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1634/PUN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1631 To 1634 & 1674/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05, 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2008-09

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 80P

195/- and after making additions on account of following two items: (i) Wrong provision for overdue interest at Rs.13,23,80,669/- (ii) Wrong deductions claimed u/s 36(1)(viia) at Rs.2,17,36,000/- Co-operative Bank Ltd. 5. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) contesting the above additions

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RATNAGIRI CIRCLE, , RATNAGIRI vs. THE RATNAGIRI DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD,, RATNAGIRI

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1631/PUN/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jul 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1631 To 1634 & 1674/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05, 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2008-09

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 80P

195/- and after making additions on account of following two items: (i) Wrong provision for overdue interest at Rs.13,23,80,669/- (ii) Wrong deductions claimed u/s 36(1)(viia) at Rs.2,17,36,000/- Co-operative Bank Ltd. 5. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) contesting the above additions