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.

5 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 54Fclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai62Delhi54Ahmedabad23Chennai20Jaipur20Indore13Pune11Bangalore10Surat7Patna6Kolkata6Agra5Raipur5Chandigarh4Amritsar4Lucknow4Visakhapatnam3Hyderabad3Nagpur3Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 14710Section 54F8Section 2638Section 685Section 143(3)4Section 544Deduction4Addition to Income4Section 271(1)(c)3House Property

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR PATEL,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

ITA 212/RPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur08 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 212/Rpr/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Sakshi Gopal Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 147Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 68

271(1)(c) of the Act, whereas the case is related to AY 2017-18, therefore, the penalty provisions of section 271AAC are applicable. Accordingly, the assessment order 7 Shri Vijay Kumar Patel, Raipur vs PCIT, Raipur-1 dated 26.03.2022, is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue, therefore, the same is set aside

3
Section 1322
Long Term Capital Gains2

SURESH CHAND SURANA,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4(1), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 25/RPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 25/Rpr/2021) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Singh, CIT.DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54ESection 54F

54F in respect of only one residential unit. Further, A.O failed to initiate the penalty u/s 271(1)© of the I.T.Act, 1961. Thus, the assessment order passed in this case is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 4. Since the issues discussed supra have not been properly verified by the AO while passing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), RAIPUR vs. SHRI RAKESH SINGH, RAIPUR

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

ITA 231/RPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.231/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Acit-3(1), Raipur Vs Shri Rakesh Singh, A-4, Mahaveer Singh, Tagore Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan No. : Acwps 6453 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri G.N.Singh, Sr. Dr ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri G.N.Singh, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

u/s 54F. However, from the order of Ld CIT(A) it does not transpires that this aspect was ever confronted with the AO to clarify that the CIT(A) and AO have referred the same documents. On this issue it is also observed that the assessee has submitted before the CIT(A) that the amount deposited in capital gain account

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(3),, RAIPUR vs. SMT. RACHNA DEVI SADHWANI L/H OF LATE SHRI KALYAN DAS SADHWANI, RAIPUR

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed, with no order as to cost

ITA 15/BIL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur03 Feb 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No. 15/Blpr/2012 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2003-2004

For Appellant: None for the assesseeFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 250Section 253(2)Section 54FSection 68

54F was claimed in the ITR. 5.2 The Ld AO doubted the share transaction on the information from the ITO Ward 1(2), Kota to the effect that, certain investigation was carried out by the Deputy Director of Income Tax, Investigation [for short “DDIT(Inv)”], New Delhi ITAT-Raipur Page 3 of 8 AY2003-2004 on the directors

SMT BUDHAREEN BAI,BHATAPARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, BHATAPARA

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

ITA 157/RPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Budhia Reen Bai, Ito, Near Shitala Mandir, Bhatapara (Cg). Hathanipara Ward, Vs. Bhatapara (Cg) – 493118. Pan : Bxxpb0771Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vikash Sharma, Adv. Department By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 13-05-2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-05-2019 O R D E R Per Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Am :

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 223(2)Section 44ASection 55Section 69A

Penalty proceedings under section 271(1) (c) are separately initiated for concealment of income. 3.2 Appellant’s submission- …. During the year under consideration assessee had sold a property situated at Hathnipara, Bhatapara admeasuring 0.154 hect at amount to Rs. 48 lakhs, the land was actually belong to the name of her husband since 1970 after death of her husband