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.

7 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 55Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai24Pune7Ahmedabad2Kolkata2Lucknow2Surat1Delhi1Bangalore1Jaipur1Rajkot1

Key Topics

Section 14710Section 56(2)10Addition to Income7Reassessment5Section 14Section 14A2Section 194C2Section 143(2)2Capital Gains2

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLE 1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR vs. HAMAJA MOHAMMED MALPEKAR, MAHARASHTRA

ITA 23/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 194C

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are hereby initiated for concealment of income to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- (iii) Addition of Rs.6,45,95,500/- comprising of Rs.1,65,66,500/-, Rs.4,60,57,000/- and Rs.19,72,000/- on account of unexplained/ unsubstantiated sundry creditors/booking advance/unexplained liability by observing in paras 8.4, 9.2 and 10.3 as under

HAMAJA MOHAMMED MALPEKAR,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RATNAGIRI WARD, RATNAGIRI

Business Income2
ITA 264/PUN/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: Disposed
ITAT Pune
27 Nov 2024

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 194C

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are hereby initiated for concealment of income to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- (iii) Addition of Rs.6,45,95,500/- comprising of Rs.1,65,66,500/-, Rs.4,60,57,000/- and Rs.19,72,000/- on account of unexplained/ unsubstantiated sundry creditors/booking advance/unexplained liability by observing in paras 8.4, 9.2 and 10.3 as under

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 15/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. Phadke and Shri Piyush BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay
Section 1Section 147Section 56(2)

55A of ITA, 1961 and has further erred in assigning incorrect reasoning while dismissing this ground which incorrect and hence, bad-in-law. 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT-Appeal has erred in law and on facts, in impliedly sustaining the action of Ld. AO of rejecting the valuation report given

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 13/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. Phadke and Shri Piyush BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay
Section 1Section 147Section 56(2)

55A of ITA, 1961 and has further erred in assigning incorrect reasoning while dismissing this ground which incorrect and hence, bad-in-law. 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT-Appeal has erred in law and on facts, in impliedly sustaining the action of Ld. AO of rejecting the valuation report given

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 17/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. Phadke and Shri Piyush BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay
Section 1Section 147Section 56(2)

55A of ITA, 1961 and has further erred in assigning incorrect reasoning while dismissing this ground which incorrect and hence, bad-in-law. 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT-Appeal has erred in law and on facts, in impliedly sustaining the action of Ld. AO of rejecting the valuation report given

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 14/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. Phadke and Shri Piyush BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay
Section 1Section 147Section 56(2)

55A of ITA, 1961 and has further erred in assigning incorrect reasoning while dismissing this ground which incorrect and hence, bad-in-law. 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT-Appeal has erred in law and on facts, in impliedly sustaining the action of Ld. AO of rejecting the valuation report given

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 16/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025AY 2017-18
Section 147Section 56(2)

55A of ITA, 1961 and has further\nerred in assigning cryptic and incorrect reasoning while dismissing\nthis ground which incorrect and hence, bad-in-law.\n12. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT-\nAppeal/ AO has erred in law and on facts, in rejecting the valuation\nreport given by M/s Ray & Ray (Chartered Accountants) mainly