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.

3 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 80lclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi5Pune3Mumbai2Ahmedabad1

Key Topics

Section 2749Section 271(1)(c)6Section 292B6Section 2713Section 80L3Deduction3Penalty3Addition to Income3

SANDIP D. PATIL, L/H OF LATE DINKAR A. PATIL,,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (2),, KOLHAPUR

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1682/PUN/2019[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Oct 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No’S.1680, 1681 & 1682 /Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 1996-97, 97-98 & 1998-99 Late Dinkar Arjun Patil, The Income Tax Officer, L/H Sandip D. Patil, Vs Ward-1(2), Kolhapur. 790/40, Raigad Colony, Panchgaon Road, Kolhapur – 416008. Pan: Ahipp 8226 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 20/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 11/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Kolhapur For Assessment Years I.E.1996-97, 97-98, 98-99, All Dated 23.07.2019, Emanating Out Of Orders Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 30.03.2009.These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By Common Order As The Issue Involved Is Same. For The Sake Of Convenience We Take The Appeal Number 1680/Pune/2019 Ay 1996-97 As Lead Case. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld Cit Erred In Not Accepting The Contention Of The Appellant That The Notice

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292BSection 80L

penalty under section 271 (1) (c) in respect of the following additions ADDITIONS 2000- 2001- 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 SUSTAINED 01 02 1 Estimated Profit on 28,411 52,869 2,70,927 92,610 42,135 Undisclosed turnover 2 Amount shown as 5,16,776 appreciation in Capital A/c 3 Capital Introduction

SANDIP D. PATIL, L/H OF LATE DINKAR A. PATIL,,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (2),, KOLHAPUR

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1680/PUN/2019[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Oct 2022AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No’S.1680, 1681 & 1682 /Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 1996-97, 97-98 & 1998-99 Late Dinkar Arjun Patil, The Income Tax Officer, L/H Sandip D. Patil, Vs Ward-1(2), Kolhapur. 790/40, Raigad Colony, Panchgaon Road, Kolhapur – 416008. Pan: Ahipp 8226 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 20/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 11/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Kolhapur For Assessment Years I.E.1996-97, 97-98, 98-99, All Dated 23.07.2019, Emanating Out Of Orders Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 30.03.2009.These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By Common Order As The Issue Involved Is Same. For The Sake Of Convenience We Take The Appeal Number 1680/Pune/2019 Ay 1996-97 As Lead Case. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld Cit Erred In Not Accepting The Contention Of The Appellant That The Notice

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292BSection 80L

penalty under section 271 (1) (c) in respect of the following additions ADDITIONS 2000- 2001- 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 SUSTAINED 01 02 1 Estimated Profit on 28,411 52,869 2,70,927 92,610 42,135 Undisclosed turnover 2 Amount shown as 5,16,776 appreciation in Capital A/c 3 Capital Introduction

SANDIP D. PATIL, L/H OF LATE DINKAR A. PATIL,,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (2),, KOLHAPUR

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1681/PUN/2019[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Oct 2022AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No’S.1680, 1681 & 1682 /Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 1996-97, 97-98 & 1998-99 Late Dinkar Arjun Patil, The Income Tax Officer, L/H Sandip D. Patil, Vs Ward-1(2), Kolhapur. 790/40, Raigad Colony, Panchgaon Road, Kolhapur – 416008. Pan: Ahipp 8226 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 20/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 11/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Kolhapur For Assessment Years I.E.1996-97, 97-98, 98-99, All Dated 23.07.2019, Emanating Out Of Orders Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 30.03.2009.These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By Common Order As The Issue Involved Is Same. For The Sake Of Convenience We Take The Appeal Number 1680/Pune/2019 Ay 1996-97 As Lead Case. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld Cit Erred In Not Accepting The Contention Of The Appellant That The Notice

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292BSection 80L

penalty under section 271 (1) (c) in respect of the following additions ADDITIONS 2000- 2001- 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 SUSTAINED 01 02 1 Estimated Profit on 28,411 52,869 2,70,927 92,610 42,135 Undisclosed turnover 2 Amount shown as 5,16,776 appreciation in Capital A/c 3 Capital Introduction