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.

4 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 10(5)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi4,331Mumbai3,549Ahmedabad1,030Kolkata834Jaipur803Bangalore778Pune688Chennai549Indore546Surat430Hyderabad421Chandigarh336Rajkot212Raipur209Amritsar180Visakhapatnam153Karnataka149Lucknow140Cochin134Cuttack131Nagpur121Ranchi83Allahabad75Guwahati72Agra69Patna55Dehradun53Panaji41Jabalpur37Calcutta37Jodhpur37Varanasi17Kerala14SC12Telangana6Rajasthan4Gauhati1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 2546Section 2635Section 2645Section 271(1)4Section 2503Section 92C2Section 2742

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HARI NARAIN PARWAL

ITA/90/2020HC Rajasthan21 Feb 2024

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

5,00,14,046/-, claimed in the ITR. 10. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were initiated by the AO and after recording his satisfaction, notice u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) was issued, whereby, the assessee was asked to show cause as to why penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) may not be imposed upon

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I vs. M/S K.S. CAPITAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED

ITA/63/2024
HC Rajasthan
03 Jul 2024

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR

Section 153Section 250Section 254Section 263Section 264Section 2ASection 92C

u/s 143(3)/250 Rs. 125,52,57,206/- Less: Relief granted by the Hon'ble ITAT (Royalty from Brew Operator Agreement) Rs 2,72,68,740/- The other additions made in the assessment order under head Royalty on Handsets of Rs.78,53,40,000/- and Royalty on Infrastructure Equipments of Rs 39,04,76,313/- are also being reduced

M/S SARAF SEASONING UDYOG vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR

ITA/322/2017HC Rajasthan09 Jul 2024

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR

Section 96

u/s 107 & 150 Cr.P.C. DEFENDANT’S WITNESSES DW1 DW2 Smt. Ram Bala, the defendant Shri Surender Dayal Gupta, husband of the defendant 6. DW1 Ram Bala and DW2 Surender Dayal Gupta have proved their affidavits as Ex.DW1/A and Ex.DW2/A respectively. DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON OR PUT TO THE DEFENDANT Ex.DW1/1 Marriage card of daughter of defendant RFA No. 322/2017 Page

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SKYWAYS INDUSTRIAL ESTATE COMPANY (P) LTD.

ITA/82/2020HC Rajasthan14 Feb 2022

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

5) and Article 25 of the GDPR and the same are extracted hereunder: “Article 1: Subject-matter and objectives: 1. This Regulation lays down rules relating to the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and rules relating to the free movement of personal data. 2. This Regulation protects fundamental rights and freedoms of natural