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 259clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi109Mumbai87Chennai72Jaipur37Bangalore22Chandigarh22Lucknow10Panaji10Ahmedabad9Patna8Indore8Kolkata6Hyderabad6Guwahati5Pune4Allahabad3Jodhpur2Nagpur2Raipur2Cochin2Cuttack2Visakhapatnam1Amritsar1Rajkot1Surat1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)11Section 1488Section 143(2)4Penalty4Addition to Income4Section 2502Section 2712Section 139(1)2Section 1472

RAMCHANDRAUDAYSINGHJADHAVRAO,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, PUNE

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

ITA 1399/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Feb 2025AY 2016-17
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 45(2)

259 (Del) has held that where income surrendered\nby the assessee during survey had been shown by it in its regular income tax return\nfiled within prescribed time, penalty could not be imposed upon it u/s 271(1)(c) of\nthe Act. We find the relevant observations of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court read\nas under:\n“12. After

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLHPAUR vs. RBL BANK LTD, KOLHAPUR

Section 133A2

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 657/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(l)(c) of the Act requires the Ld. AO to record is satisfaction before imposition of penalty, the AO could not have imposed penalty merely because the assessee has not filed any response. The CIT(A) has held the order imposing penalty to be bad in law on this count too. The assessee submits that there

MEERA ANIRUDHA MIRGUNDE,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-6(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 550/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri C.H. Naniwadekar &For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

259 (Del), Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Armoury International Pereira Compound in ITA Nos. 3299, 3300 & 3301/Mum/2017, Delhi Tribunal in the case of Meeta Gutgutia in ITA No. 327/Del/2014 and argued that unless it is found the actual concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, penalty cannot be imposed. 5. The ld. DR relied on the decision

SANDIPAN BHAGWANRAO JADHAV,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, LATUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1247/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1247/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sandipan Bhagwanrao Jadhav, V The Income Tax Officer, 1, Padmin, Behind Hanuman S. Ward-1, Latur. Temple, Prakash Nagar, Latur – 413512. Maharashtra. Pan: Abcpj1410E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Shilchandra Hajgude – Ar Revenue By Shri Akhilesh Srivastva– Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/06/2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y.2016-17, dated 15.09.2024 emanating from Assessment Order u/s.147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, dated 25.03.2022. ITA No.1247/PUN/2025 [A] Submission of ld.AR : 2. Ld.AR for the Assessee submitted a paper book. At the outset, ld.AR submitted that there is a delay of 180 days in filing appeal before the ITAT