BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

56 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Disallowanceclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,032Delhi933Ahmedabad249Jaipur209Kolkata154Chennai153Hyderabad145Bangalore142Pune130Indore112Chandigarh89Surat86Raipur82Rajkot56Nagpur48Allahabad45Amritsar38Lucknow36Visakhapatnam33Cochin28Ranchi24Agra20Jodhpur16Cuttack16Guwahati11Dehradun9Jabalpur9Varanasi8Patna7Panaji7

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)77Addition to Income34Section 143(3)29Penalty27Section 25022Disallowance21Section 5717Section 14416Section 6815Section 153A

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAKJOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 78/RJT/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2010-11
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

disallowance made under section\n40(a)(ia) of the Act.\n18.\nThus, the proposal to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the disallowance

Showing 1–20 of 56 · Page 1 of 3

12
Section 13212
Survey u/s 133A12

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAKJOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 81/RJT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

disallowance made under section\n40(a)(ia) of the Act.\n18. Thus, the proposal to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the disallowance

PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 76/RJT/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

Disallowance of hedging loss Rs.79,37,455/-.\n\n6.\nIn respect of above additions, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, was also

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACTIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 77/RJT/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

disallowance made under section\n40(a)(ia) of the Act.\n18. Thus, the proposal to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the disallowance

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 79/RJT/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

disallowance made under section\n40(a)(ia) of the Act.\n18. Thus, the proposal to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the disallowance

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 80/RJT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

disallowance made under section\n40(a)(ia) of the Act.\n18. Thus, the proposal to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the disallowance

M/S SHREE RAJMOTI INDS.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE A. C.I.T., CIRCLE-2(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 172/RJT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 10(34)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

disallowances were made, the A.O. namely dividend income received from Rajkot Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd., while doing regular assessment and reassessment proceedings. Though the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars for the Assessment Year 2011-12, however not levied penalty. For other assessment years, penalty proceedings were not even initiated. Thus the Ld. Counsel relying upon

THE DCIT, (INTL. TAXN.), RAJKOT vs. M/S. KOREA SOUTH EAST POWER CO. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 132/RJT/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot15 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Dcit (Intl. Taxn.) M/S.Korea South East Power Amruta Estate Co.Ltd. Room No.312 Mg Road बनाम/ C/O. P.V. Page & Co., Girnar Cinema 201, Sardar Griha, 198 L.T. Marg Vs. Rajkot Mumbai – 400 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Pan : Ahvps 3555Q Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15/12/2023

Section 115ASection 271(1)(c)Section 44B

271(1)(c) of the Act was levied by the AO noting that despite the assessee being aware of the nature of receipts being FTS, yet it had wrongly returned the same u/s 44BBB of the Act. Taking up Ground No.1 challenging the deletion of penalty by the Ld.CIT(A) , we do not find any merit in the same

KLIN INDUSTRIES,SANDHA KHAMIDANA, JUNAGADH vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE, JUNAGADH, JUNAGADH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 857/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot15 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Gopi Nath Chaubey, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 273BSection 80J

disallowed by the assessing officer cannot automatically penalized u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Hon`ble Supreme Court, in the case of in Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC), held that penalty

KONARK OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in\nabove terms

ITA 502/RJT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Feb 2025AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

disallowance. During the course of penalty\nproceedings, the appellant sought an adjournment for submitting its reply for the\nproposed penalty due to pre-occupation in finalization of audits and filing of time-\nbaring returns.\nHowever, the Ld. AO has levied the penalty of Rs.40,250/- u/s. 271

JAGANI VINODRAI GOPALDAS (HUF),RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (2) (4),, RAJKOT

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

ITA 59/RJT/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot12 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 59/Rjt/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-15 Jagani Vinodrai Gopaldas Huf, Income-Tax Officer, 62 – Suraj Appartment, Vs. Ward-1(2)(4), No.1 Shroff Road, Rajkot. Opp. Church, Nfac, Delhi Rajkot-360001. Pan: Aaahj9710N

For Appellant: Shri R.D Lalchandani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.L Solanki, Sr. D.R
Section 10(38)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty was to be imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the same can be under the charge of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 7.1 Moving further, we note that it is a trite law that every addition or disallowance

SHRI KANJIBHAI B. RANGANI,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7/RJT/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 148 no return was filed. Despite various opportunities provided to the appellant no details/clarifications were provided to the AO during reassessment proceedings. The action of the AO has also been confirmed to the extent of Rs. 17,03,805/- by the Kanjibhai Bhimjibhai Rangani vs. ITO Asst.Year –2007-08 then CIT(A)-IV, Rajkot. Under these circumstances

SUBHAS HANSARAJ NANDU,BHACHAU, KUTCH vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 9/RJT/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hybrid Hearing) Assessment Year: (2010-11) Subhas Hansaraj Nandu Vs. National Faceless Assessment Opp:Shambhu Maharaj Bungalow Centre, Delhi. Bhachau, Gujarat. Pan : Afrpn 0720 J (Assessee) (Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

disallowed and added to the income of the assessee. Accordingly, the assessing officer has initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 274 r.w.s 271

SHRI BHAKTINAGAR CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO 3 (1) (1), RAJKOT

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee (ITA No

ITA 200/RJT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.200/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Shri Bhakti Nagar Co Operative Housing Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(1) Society Ltd. (Bhaktinagar Circle, Meghani Rang Bhavan, Aaykar Bhawan, Race Course Rajkot) Rong Road, A D Vyas & Co, Charted Accounts, Kotecha Rajkot - 360001 Nagar Main Road, Opp Kotecha Girl’S School, Off Kalawad Road. Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaas2363M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: ShriGautam Acharya, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(c)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee also took us through the paper-book page no. 67 and stated that the case under consideration was SHRI BHAKTINAGAR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ITA NO. 200 & Co. 03/RJT/2024 (AY 2014-15) registered under old provision, that the fact, Ld. Counsel of the assessee has submitted that

ATMAN RAJNIKANT BHESDADIYA L/R. LATE SHRI RAJNIKANT LAVJIBHAI BHEDADIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 112/RJT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 271ASection 274Section 68

disallowance made in the agricultural income is based on the estimation made by the Assessing Officer, in such case of estimation, no penalty could be levied and relied upon various case laws and therefore pleaded to delete the entire penalty. 7. Per contra, Ld. CIT-DR Shri Shramdeep Sinha appearing for the Revenue supported the orders passed by the Lower

M/S. SIMERO VITRIFIED P. LTD. ,MORBI vs. THE PR. CIT-3 , RAJKOT

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

ITA 276/RJT/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 May 2025AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32ASection 68

Disallowance of additional depreciation of Rs.63,75,068/- claimed u/s 32AC of the Act on electrification of Plant & Machinery worth Rs.4,25,00,454/- must be treated as unexplained expenses u/s 68 and added back to the assessee's total income. Penalty u/s 271

KANTILAL BABULAL SOLANKI,,JUNAGADH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, JUNAGADH

In the result, the quantum appeal in ITA No

ITA 115/RJT/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 57

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. It is seen from the Penalty order, the Ld. A.O. proceeded with the Penalty proceedings after the disposal of appeal by Ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed the disallowance

KANTILAL BABULAL SOLANKI,,JUNAGADH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2),, JUNAGADH

In the result, the quantum appeal in ITA No

ITA 124/RJT/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 57

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. It is seen from the Penalty order, the Ld. A.O. proceeded with the Penalty proceedings after the disposal of appeal by Ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed the disallowance

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRL-1,, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue, in ITA No

ITA 44/RJT/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jun 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 134 & 135/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2007-08 & 2008-09) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Shri Kherajmal Lekhrajbjai 5Th 1(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, Thavrani, 4- Parsana Nagar, Shri Vs. Floor, Room No. 517, Race Vaheguru Grupa, Near Refugee Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 Colony, Rajkot-360 001 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Adrpt 5807 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s. 271 (1)(c) of the IT Act is initiated for concealing the particulars of income." 3.12.2. Same finding has been given by the A.O. for the other assessment years in all the case of above mentioned appellant. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant filed detailed submission against the additions made. The appellant contended that they are engaged

SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,,JUNAGADH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 1(2)(4),, RAJKOT

ITA 16/RJT/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

u/s. 271 (1)(c) of the IT Act is initiated for concealing the particulars of income.\"\n3.12.2. Same finding has been given by the A.O. for the other assessment years in all the case of above mentioned appellant. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant filed detailed submission against the additions made. The appellant contended that they are engaged