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 50C(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai61Delhi55Ahmedabad26Jaipur20Surat10Lucknow10Agra9Dehradun7Hyderabad6Indore6Chennai6Visakhapatnam6Bangalore6Pune4Chandigarh4Kolkata3Nagpur3Rajkot3Jodhpur2Allahabad2Jabalpur1Raipur1Patna1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)15Section 50C8Section 2504Penalty4Addition to Income4Section 143(3)3Section 682Section 1482Section 2752

DINAR UMESHKUMAR MORE,MALEGAON vs. ITO WARD 1, MALEGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2125/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

2] The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) dated 12.02.2020 is barred by limitation u/s 275(1A) since the same was passed after the period of six months from end of March 2019 i.e. six months from the end of the month in which ITAT Order dated 25.01.2019 was received

VIJAY BALBHIM PISE,SOLAPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(2), SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 195/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.195/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Vijay Balbhim Pise, Vs Ito Ward 1(2), 110, Railway Lines, Solapur- Solapur 413001 Maharashtra Pan-Ajgpp4660A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kushal Soni (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

2) Solapur. Ld. AO erred in exercising inconsistent jurisdiction over this case in assessment which is not as per the I.T. Act, 1961. 5. Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for concealment of income which was based on the additions made on the basis of estimation of fair market value

SHITAL PRAVIN JAIKRISHNIA,NASHIK vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 681/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.681/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shital Pravin Jaikrishnia, The Income Tax Officer, 37 38 39 40, Aditya Avenue, V Ward-1(3), Nashik. Tidke Colony, S Nashik – 422002. Pan: Adipj1793J Appellant/Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 31/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2015-16 Dated 20.02.2024 Emanating From The Penalty Order U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 13.05.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit(A)-Nfac Erred In Law In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Ita, 1961 To Rs 10,13,112 (Being 100% Of Tax Evaded) As Against The Penalty Of Rs. 20,64,224 (Being 200% Of Tax Evaded For Concealment Of Income). The Learned I-T Authorities Ought To Have Appreciated That There Is No Any Concealment Of Income.

Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is unsustainable. Submission of LD.DR : 3. Ld.DR accepted that after the order of CIT(A) income of the assessee has been reduced to loss. 2 Finding and Analysis: 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. It is mentioned in the assessment order that AO received information that assessee along with Shri

SHIVAJI VISHNU CHAVAN,PUNE vs. UITO WARD-5(4), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1143/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1143/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shivaji Vishnu Chavan, V The Income Tax Officer, Gomukh, 92/2, Gangtok, S Ward-5(4), Pune. Narsapur, Pune – 411004. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaspc1061B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Renge – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 31/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/08/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Shivaji Vishnu Chavan In Form No.36 Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, Dated 31.05.2024 For The A.Y.2011-12 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2011-12, Dated 12.12.2018. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 274Section 50CSection 68

section 50C of the Income tax Act, 1961. Hence, assessee’s share of Rs.5,42,000 is treated as his income of the year under the head Income from capital gain and unexplained money u/s. 68 of the Act and brought to tax . Penalty proceedings u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(l)(c ) of the Act has been initiated separately by issuing