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.

7 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 80P(2)(d)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi31Mumbai29Bangalore26Cochin21Ahmedabad16Amritsar13Visakhapatnam11Jaipur11Chandigarh9Pune7Varanasi6Surat6Chennai6Lucknow5Nagpur4Rajkot3Indore3Kolkata2Guwahati1Panaji1Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)33Section 80P18Addition to Income6Deduction6Penalty6Section 80P(2)(a)5Section 1445Section 80P(2)(d)5Section 269S5Section 147

PRAKASHBAPU PATIL GRAMIN BIGAR SHETI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA LTD,SANGLI vs. ACIT CIRCLE SANGLI, SANGLI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1325/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1325& 1328/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Prakashbapu Patil Gramin V The Acit, Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat S Circle-Sangli. Sanstha Ltd., Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd., Savali Miraj, Sangli – 416410. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaaap1616N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare – Ar Revenue By Shri Rajesh Gawali – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16; Dated 05.04.2024 & 10.04.2024 Respectively; Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Since The Issue Involved Is Common

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)
4
Section 2714
Business Income3
Section 80P(4)

2)(d) of the Act was denied on the basis of exclusion by section u/s 80P(4) of the Act. Penalty proceedings u/s 271

PRAKASHBAPU PATIL GRAMIN BIGAR SHETI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA LTD,SANGLI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- SANGLI , SANGLI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1328/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1325& 1328/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Prakashbapu Patil Gramin V The Acit, Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat S Circle-Sangli. Sanstha Ltd., Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd., Savali Miraj, Sangli – 416410. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaaap1616N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare – Ar Revenue By Shri Rajesh Gawali – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16; Dated 05.04.2024 & 10.04.2024 Respectively; Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Since The Issue Involved Is Common

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

2)(d) of the Act was denied on the basis of exclusion by section u/s 80P(4) of the Act. Penalty proceedings u/s 271

SHREE SANT SAVTA GRAMIN BIGAR SETI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PIMPALGAON vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1597/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1597/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shree Sant Savta Gramin Bigar V Assessment Unit, Seti Sahakari Patsanstha S Income Tax Maryadit, Department, Delhi. Pimpalgaon, Niphad, Maharashtra – 422209. Pan: Aacas4098M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi (Virtual) Revenue By Shri Sadananda – Jcit Date Of Hearing 10/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 11/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2016-17 Dated 27.11.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 Of The I.T.Act, Dated 05.03.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act as business income. Moreover, the same shall be added as income from the other sources u/s. 56 of the Act for the Act. In view of the above, I am satisfied that this is a fit case for initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c)-of the Act. with regards to concealing

AMAN CHHOTE VYAPARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,,ICHALKRANJI vs. आयकर अधिकारी, वार्ड - 4,, ICHALKARANJI

In the result, all the three appeals of assessee are allowed on legal grounds

ITA 143/PUN/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Mar 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.142 To 144/Pun/2018 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2000-01, 2005-06 & 2006-07 Aman Chhote Vyapari Sahakari Patsanshta Maryadit, Gala No.61, 62 & 63, Weekly Market, Ichalkaranji. Pan: Aabta0044M .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 4, Ichalkaranji ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri M.K. Kulkarni Revenue By : Shri S.P. Walimbe

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80P

2) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty levied u/s 271 (1)(c) by the AO though she has not recorded her satisfaction as to which specific default in respect which the penalty is levied by her, there by rendering her order of levying the penalty

AMAN CHHOTE VYAPARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,,ICHALKRANJI vs. आयकर अधिकारी, वार्ड - 4,, ICHALKARANJI

In the result, all the three appeals of assessee are allowed on legal grounds

ITA 142/PUN/2018[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Mar 2020AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.142 To 144/Pun/2018 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2000-01, 2005-06 & 2006-07 Aman Chhote Vyapari Sahakari Patsanshta Maryadit, Gala No.61, 62 & 63, Weekly Market, Ichalkaranji. Pan: Aabta0044M .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 4, Ichalkaranji ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri M.K. Kulkarni Revenue By : Shri S.P. Walimbe

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80P

2) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty levied u/s 271 (1)(c) by the AO though she has not recorded her satisfaction as to which specific default in respect which the penalty is levied by her, there by rendering her order of levying the penalty

BAPUJIBUWA NAGARI SAH PAT SANSTHA LTD.,,PUNE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 946/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.946/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Bapujibuwa Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, S.No.10/2, Dagadu Patil Nagar, Thergaon, Pune – 411033. Pan : Aaaab8597J. बनाम / V/S. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, ……""यथ" / Respondent Range – 9, Pune.

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Vitthal Bhosale
Section 269SSection 271DSection 80P

2. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty amounting to ₹67,52,000/- levied by the AO under section 271D of the Act. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case is a co- operative society and is engaged in the activity of providing

SHRI. DUDHGANGA VEDGANGA SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1,, KOLHAPUR

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

ITA 1568/PUN/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Aug 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Pranjal S. PhadnisFor Respondent: Shri Hitendra B. Ninawe
Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)

section 40A(2) of the Act, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court supra. Needless to say, the assessee will be allowed a reasonable opportunity of hearing by the AO in such fresh determination of the issue. 7. It is noted that in some of the appeals, the assessees have raised an alternate ground for allowing deduction