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.

8 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 69Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai466Delhi152Jaipur101Ahmedabad59Indore43Surat35Pune34Kolkata31Chandigarh28Lucknow19Rajkot19Bangalore13Chennai12Raipur8Hyderabad6Amritsar6Jabalpur5Nagpur5Patna4Agra2Guwahati2Jodhpur1Cochin1Visakhapatnam1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)11Section 1478Section 2637Section 686Section 69C5Section 1435Addition to Income5Section 143(3)4Penalty4Section 57

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

penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act, was not applicable for the Asstt. Year 2017-18. Ld. PCIT further observed that, it is a well-known fact that from the Asstt. Year 2017-18 onwards in cases where income determined includes any income referred to in section, 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C

2
Unexplained Cash Credit2
Disallowance2

RAIPUR SECURITIES AND INVESTMENT LIMITED,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), RAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issue

ITA 164/RPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaiआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 164/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Raipur Securities & Investment Ltd. Mig 21, Indravati Colony, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaccr4419F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Puja Bajaj, ARFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 69 or unexplained expenditure u/s-69C. Because the assessee had himself submitted that VAT of Rs.10051/- is refundable means assets or in other word the refundable VAT is VAT Credit (purchase). Therefore, considering the above, I hereby add of Rs.2,51,275/- in the hand of the assessee u/s- 69C with initiating penalty proceeding u/s-271(1)(c) of Income

SHRI SWAPNIL KUMAR JAIN,CHAMPA (CG) vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- JANJGIR, CHAMPA,

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of aforestated observation

ITA 106/BIL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur01 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battull

For Appellant: Shri R. B. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Gitesh Kumar
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69C

u/s 69C. 4.3 Ld. CIT(A) echoing the views of assessing officer confirmed the penalty imposed by Ld AO and aggrieved thereby, the appellant assessee is before us with the grounds assailed at para 2 herein above. 5. During the course of hearing, Ld. AR took us through the relevant facts of the case vis-à-vis paper book filed

M/S. RUKMANI ENGINEERING WORKS, (NOW RUKMANI INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,,ODISHA vs. THE DY. CIT- CIRCLE- KORBA,, KORBA(CG)

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee firm being devoid and bereft of any merit is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 81/RPR/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.81/Rpr/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Rukmani Engineering Works (Now Rukmani Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd.) Mig-384, Svbp Nagar, Jamnipali, Korba (C.G.) Pan: Aaifr4667G

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Anubhaa Tah Goel, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 251Section 40

69C. The AO has not made any specific comment regarding penalty imposable on such addition. Rather, he treated the addition as confirmed by CIT(Appeals) u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. In view of the above, I find that no penalty on the impugned sum is also imposable for the reasons mentioned above. 6. Regarding penalty imposed on addition

ASHOK KUMAR WADHWANI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 117/RPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.117 &118/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2016-17 Ashok Kumar Wadhwani, Ujwal Udyog, Sinodha, Neora, Tilda, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Aahpw1400B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

69C of the Income tax Act, 1961” The assessee stated vide order sheet dated 07/12/2016 that:- "all the purchase and sale made by the assesses during the F.Y. 2013- 14 is genuine, stock of material has been duly received & dispatched. Further, such transactions are recorded properly in the books of accounts and stock register of F.Y. 2013-14. The assessee

ASHOK KUMAR WADHWANI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 118/RPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.117 &118/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2016-17 Ashok Kumar Wadhwani, Ujwal Udyog, Sinodha, Neora, Tilda, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Aahpw1400B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

69C of the Income tax Act, 1961” The assessee stated vide order sheet dated 07/12/2016 that:- "all the purchase and sale made by the assesses during the F.Y. 2013- 14 is genuine, stock of material has been duly received & dispatched. Further, such transactions are recorded properly in the books of accounts and stock register of F.Y. 2013-14. The assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR vs. VIRENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 485/RPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur03 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 485/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.L Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 57Section 68Section 69C

69C of the act by admitting additional evidences in contravention of Income Tax Rules 46A(1) and 46A(2) and thereby ignoring the facts brought on the record by the AO?" 3. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case Id. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions made by the AO to the tune

INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1),BHILAI, BHILAI vs. ASHISH GUPTA, DURG

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 624/RPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.624/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 69C

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act are 6 ITO-2(1), Bhilai Vs. Ashish Gupta initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Subject to above total income is computed as under: Income as shown in the return Rs.23,01,210/- Add: Addition as discussed above : Rs.5,52,334/- Total Income : : Rs.28,53,544/- Or say : Rs.28