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.

2 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 80Jclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi8Mumbai7Jaipur2Cochin2Pune2Ahmedabad1Kolkata1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)6Section 80I6Section 80H2Section 80J2Deduction2Penalty2Addition to Income2

HINDUMAL BALMUKUND INVESTMENT CO.PVT.LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2938/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nitin RanderFor Respondent: Ms. Sabana Parveen
Section 271(1)(c)Section 80HSection 80ISection 80J

80J, there is no provision for withdrawal of special deduction for the subsequent years for breach of certain conditions. Hence unless the relief granted for the assessment year 1980-81 was withdrawn, the Income-tax Officer could not have withheld the relief for the subsequent years.” From the above, it is evident that unless the relief claimed in the first

HINDUMAL BALMUKUND INVESTMENT CO.PVT.LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2939/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nitin RanderFor Respondent: Ms. Sabana Parveen
Section 271(1)(c)Section 80HSection 80ISection 80J

80J, there is no provision for withdrawal of special deduction for the subsequent years for breach of certain conditions. Hence unless the relief granted for the assessment year 1980-81 was withdrawn, the Income-tax Officer could not have withheld the relief for the subsequent years.” From the above, it is evident that unless the relief claimed in the first