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.

99 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Unexplained Cash Creditclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai735Delhi723Ahmedabad279Jaipur232Kolkata130Hyderabad129Chennai106Indore102Surat100Pune99Rajkot80Bangalore60Chandigarh51Amritsar43Cochin39Calcutta36Nagpur33Raipur30Allahabad29Agra26Lucknow21Visakhapatnam19Jodhpur10Jabalpur10Guwahati8Patna8Dehradun5Cuttack4Varanasi4Panaji3Telangana2Ranchi1Karnataka1

Key Topics

Addition to Income85Section 271(1)(c)83Section 14772Section 14869Section 6852Section 143(3)49Penalty47Cash Deposit46Section 142(1)34

MR. CHITTARANJAN TRIMBAK GAIKWAD,PUNE vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 759/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri B.C. MalakarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

unexplained credit. None of the decisions quoted by the appellant are relevant to the present case as the facts are different. Further, these case laws do not advance the arguments of the appellant since the appellant has revised his ITR only after the enquiry conducted by the department. 5.9 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

Showing 1–20 of 99 · Page 1 of 5

Section 115B33
Section 14430
Reopening of Assessment20

LEELAVATI VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 is

ITA 1294/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1294 To 1297/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Nirupama Kotru
Section 127Section 139Section 153ASection 68

penalty u/s 271(1)(b).” 17. In ground No. 1 and 2 of appeal, the assessee has assailed transfer of jurisdiction u/s. 127 of the Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed the objections raised by assessee against change of jurisdiction by observing as under: “3.3 At the fag end of the assessment proceedings, Appellant objected to the order

LEELAVATI VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 is

ITA 1295/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1294 To 1297/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Nirupama Kotru
Section 127Section 139Section 153ASection 68

penalty u/s 271(1)(b).” 17. In ground No. 1 and 2 of appeal, the assessee has assailed transfer of jurisdiction u/s. 127 of the Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed the objections raised by assessee against change of jurisdiction by observing as under: “3.3 At the fag end of the assessment proceedings, Appellant objected to the order

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1121/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde &
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 155BSection 68

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the ITA, 1961. 11. Final assessment u/s 115BBC-As against the firm belief till 29/11/2019, the learned AO, vide 147 order dated 24/12/2019, has taxed the donations of Rs. 1.39 CR as 'Anonymous donations' u/s 115BBC of the ITA, 1961. Ground of Appeal No. 1 & 2 12. Conention-1-Substantial difference between

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1124/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde &
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 155BSection 68

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the ITA, 1961. 11. Final assessment u/s 115BBC-As against the firm belief till 29/11/2019, the learned AO, vide 147 order dated 24/12/2019, has taxed the donations of Rs. 1.39 CR as 'Anonymous donations' u/s 115BBC of the ITA, 1961. Ground of Appeal No. 1 & 2 12. Conention-1-Substantial difference between

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1126/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde &
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 155BSection 68

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the ITA, 1961. 11. Final assessment u/s 115BBC-As against the firm belief till 29/11/2019, the learned AO, vide 147 order dated 24/12/2019, has taxed the donations of Rs. 1.39 CR as 'Anonymous donations' u/s 115BBC of the ITA, 1961. Ground of Appeal No. 1 & 2 12. Conention-1-Substantial difference between

INDRAJEET RAJKUMAR KHARDE,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1879/PUN/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am

For Appellant: Shri Prasad S. BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

unexplained cash credit. The assessee has filed an appeal to the CIT(A)-2 and no proper hearing opportunity was given. So I can’t able produce the documents and not given sufficient time for hearing the case. Hence the penalty proceedings are not proper and hence we request you to kindly delete the penalty and oblige.” 2. The assessee

JAMNAGIRI HARIGIRI GIRI,,NANDED vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3,, NANDED

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1796/PUN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Dec 2022AY 2010-11
For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 4Section 68

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved by the above addition, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A), who vide order dated 06.03.2017 confirmed the addition of Rs.13,00,000/- on account of unsecured loans. However, on further appeal before the ITAT, the ITAT vide order dated 16.10.2018 sustained addition of Rs.4

SIDDHESH SHRIAPD MITKAR,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 8(3),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 725/PUN/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jun 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vitthal Bhosale
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

unexplained credit, transfer through ATM. Thus, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings by issuing of show-cause notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on 07.01.2014 and further show-cause notice was issued on 08.05.2015 and in response to the same, an explanation

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

unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the I.T. Act 1961. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are hereby initiated for concealment

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

ITA 264/PUN/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 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

unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the I.T. Act 1961. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are hereby initiated for concealment

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION , KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1123/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2014-15
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 155BSection 68

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the ITA, 1961.\n11. Final assessment_u/s_115BBC-As against the firm belief till\n29/11/2019, the learned AO, vide 147 order dated 24/12/2019,\nhas taxed the donations of Rs.1.39 CR as 'Anonymous donations'\nu/s 115BBC of the ITA, 1961.\nGround of Appeal No. 1 & 2\n12. Conention-1-Substantial difference between S. 68 ν. S. 115BBC

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1125/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2016-17
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 155BSection 68

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the ITA, 1961.\n11. Final assessment_u/s_115BBC-As against the firm belief till\n29/11/2019, the learned AO, vide 147 order dated 24/12/2019,\nhas taxed the donations of Rs.1.39 CR as 'Anonymous donations'\nu/s 115BBC of the ITA, 1961.\nGround of Appeal No. 1 & 2\n12. Conention-1-Substantial difference between S. 68 ν. S. 115BBC

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1122/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2013-14
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 155BSection 68

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the ITA, 1961.\n11. Final assessment_u/s_115BBC-As against the firm belief till\n29/11/2019, the learned AO, vide 147 order dated 24/12/2019,\nhas taxed the donations of Rs.1.39 CR as 'Anonymous donations'\nu/s 115BBC of the ITA, 1961.\nGround of Appeal No. 1 & 2\n12. Conention-1-Substantial difference between S. 68 ν. S. 115BBC

J.P. BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 843/PUN/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.843/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2004-05

For Appellant: None (written submissions)For Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

unexplained cash credit U/s 68 of the Act. 2. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals)-1, Nashik, confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271

NAZMAIZHARUL HASAN SHAH,,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 249/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Verma
Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69

cash credits. The penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) was rightly levied for concealment of income. 5. Both sides heard. Orders of authorities below perused. The penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) for concealment of income has been levied in respect of two additions. i. Unexplained

BRAHM PRECISION MATERIALS PVT LTD,AURANGABAD vs. CIT(A), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC) DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1183/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Oct 2025AY 2018-19
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

penalty\nus/270A of the Income Tax Act. In order to furnish reply to the above\npenalty notice we consulted the Senior Counsel and were advised to\nimmediately file the appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal. The appeal\nwas accordingly filed on 17-02-2025. Thus the delay of 454 days has\nbeen caused in filing of the appeal

BRAHM PRECISION MATERIALS PVT. LTD.,AURANGABAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 425/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Oct 2025AY 2020-21
Section 143(3)Section 250

penalty\nus/270A of the Income Tax Act. In order to furnish reply to the above\npenalty notice we consulted the Senior Counsel and were advised to\nimmediately file the appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal. The appeal\nwas accordingly filed on 17-02-2025. Thus the delay of 454 days has\nbeen caused in filing of the appeal

AADHUNIK INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,JALGAON vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JALGAON

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 439/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

unexplained credits u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and added to the Total Income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings are separately initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) / NFAC challenging the validity

SUNIL TUKARAM ZAMBARE,,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 358/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2019AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Suhas Bora &For Respondent: Smt. Shabana Parveen
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271B

unexplained without appreciating the facts of the case and submissions made by the appellant. 4. The learned CIT(A) while confirming the levy of penalty of Rs. 15,38,496/- had erred in not appreciating the following important facts that: a) The appellant had filed a revised return and offered additional income, which constitutes a voluntary and bonafide