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.

6 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 246clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi70Mumbai59Jaipur58Raipur28Hyderabad22Bangalore16Indore13Lucknow12Kolkata10Ahmedabad7Visakhapatnam6Nagpur6Pune6Cochin5Allahabad5Jodhpur3Dehradun2Chennai2Chandigarh2Rajkot2Surat2Cuttack2Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 245D(4)16Section 271(1)(c)11Section 245D8Section 270A7Section 271D7Section 153A7Penalty6Section 271E5Section 139(1)4

DCIT, CC-2(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. VINOD RAMCHANDRA JADHAV, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1307/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav Central Circle 2(1), Vs. Plot No.42-44, Green Park Society, Pune Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aanpj0592P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav Dcit, Plot No.42-44, Green Park Society, Vs. Central Circle 2(1), Pune Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aanpj0592P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Cit & Shri Arvind Desai, Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 23-01-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-04-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – CIT and Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 245C(1)Section 245DSection 245D(4)
Deduction2
Disallowance2
Addition to Income2
Section 245H
Section 271(1)(c)

246 or section 246A, and the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals) passes the order on or after the 1st day of June, 2003 disposing of such appeal, an order imposing penalty shall be passed before the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for imposition of penalty has been initiated

VINOD RAMCHANDRA JADHAV,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-2(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2144/PUN/2024[AY 2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav Central Circle 2(1), Vs. Plot No.42-44, Green Park Society, Pune Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aanpj0592P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav Dcit, Plot No.42-44, Green Park Society, Vs. Central Circle 2(1), Pune Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aanpj0592P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Cit & Shri Arvind Desai, Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 23-01-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-04-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – CIT and Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 245C(1)Section 245DSection 245D(4)Section 245HSection 271(1)(c)

246 or section 246A, and the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals) passes the order on or after the 1st day of June, 2003 disposing of such appeal, an order imposing penalty shall be passed before the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for imposition of penalty has been initiated

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)

246 or] section 246A or an application for revision under section 264 shall be admissible against the order of assessment or reassessment, referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1), in a case where an order under sub- section (4) has been made accepting the application." 20. Sub-section (18) of Section 155 of the Income

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3,, ICHALKARANJI vs. SHRI. DANWADE KUTUBUDDIN SHAHABUDIN,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1688/PUN/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Aug 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Jasnani
Section 131(1)Section 132Section 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 275Section 275(1)(c)

246 or an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 253, after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings in the course of which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed, or 6 months from the end of the month in which the order of Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARAD SATARA vs. THE KARAD JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LTD, KARAD SATARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 919/PUN/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)

section 143(3) proceedings the AO disallowed excess expenditure of Rs 2,08,09,305/- claimed u/s 36(i)(viia) of the IT Act for which provision was not made in the books of account . The disallowance of expenditure was confirmed by CIT(A) as well as by this Tribunal . On the basis of this disallowance the then AO proceeded

SANDIP GULAB GOGAWALE,PUNE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

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

ITA 667/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.667/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Sandip Gulab Gogawale, Vs. Ito, Ward-5(3), Pune. 143, A/P- Gogalwadi, Taluka- Haveli, District- Pune- 412205. Pan : Allpg3405D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sandip Gogawale Revenue By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 09.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.09.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.01.2025 Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The It Act By The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. When The Appeal Was Called For Hearing, The Assessee Himself Appeared In Person & Submitted That Due To Ignorance & 2 Inadvertent Error The Instant Appeal Against The Penalty Order Was Filed Directly Before This Tribunal Instead Of Filing The First Appeal Before Ld. Cit(A). In This Regard, The Assessee Also Filed An Application & Requested Before The Bench To Pass Appropriate Order. He Submitted That He Will File The Appeal Before The Cit(A) As Per Law. 3. We Have Heard Ld. Counsels From Both The Sides & Perused The Material Available On Record. Considering The Application Filed By The Assessee On 09.09.2025, We Find That Admittedly The Assessee Was Required To File First Appeal Before Ld. Cit(A) Against The Penalty Order Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The It Act. However, Due To Ignorance The Assessee Inadvertently Filed The Instant Appeal Before This Tribunal. As Per Section 246 & 246A Of The Income Tax Act, Appeal Against The Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Lies Before Jcit(A)/Cit(A) & Not Before This Tribunal. Therefore, The Instant Appeal Directly Filed Before This Tribunal Is Not Maintainable & Accordingly The Present Appeal Is Dismissed As Infructuous.

For Appellant: Shri Sandip GogawaleFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 246Section 271(1)(c)

penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. However, due to ignorance the assessee inadvertently filed the instant appeal before this Tribunal. As per section 246