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 11(6)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi3,834Mumbai3,182Ahmedabad913Kolkata770Bangalore752Jaipur735Pune624Chennai501Indore494Hyderabad410Surat389Chandigarh269Raipur201Rajkot173Amritsar166Karnataka148Lucknow137Visakhapatnam136Cochin125Cuttack124Nagpur117Agra72Ranchi70Allahabad68Guwahati63Dehradun50Panaji37Calcutta37Patna35Jodhpur28Jabalpur27Kerala14SC12Varanasi11Telangana7Rajasthan4Gauhati1

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

11:30 AM/PM on 23.06.2017" ·” 8. From the above, it is evident that the notice was absolutely vague. There is no specific charge for initiation of penalty proceedings which the assessee could explain. The penalty notice mentions the failure of the assessee to comply with the notice under Section 142(1)/143(2). It also mentions about the concealment

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

6 Status Foreign Company 7 Whether Resident/Resident but Not Ordinarily Resident/ Non-reside Non-Resident 8 Previous year 2004-05 9 Date of Order 12.03.2015 Appeal Effect to the order of Hon'ble ITAT New Delhi The assessee filed return of income declaring a taxable income of Rs. 5,32,88,790/-. Assessment was completed u/s. 143(3)/250

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

6 of GDPR, that the provisions of GDPR have to be strictly followed and that only in cases of ‘legitimate interest’ that override the interest of privacy would disclosure of information of a Registrant be permitted. On the basis of said provision, the ld. Senior Counsel submits that GoDaddy has adopted a mechanism wherein a specific IP complaint form

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 6