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.

6 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 272A(2)(e)clear

Sorted by relevance

Indore47Chennai44Mumbai32Surat28Cuttack16Bangalore14Jaipur10Kolkata6Visakhapatnam6Rajkot6Delhi4Jabalpur3Chandigarh3Pune3Ahmedabad2Nagpur2Allahabad2Raipur2Guwahati1Cochin1Lucknow1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(b)28Section 142(1)7Penalty6Addition to Income6Section 1472Section 272A(1)(d)2

SHREENATHJI DEVLOPERS,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 (1) (1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 130/RJT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

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

Section 271(1)(b)

e] Dtd.20/12/2018 filed in response to notice of A.O.dtd.12/11/2018. 6](a) The fact is that the assessee had complied to the various notices and filed voluminous submissions in the course of assessment proceedings and therefore the assessment order passed u/s.144 was not called for on the facts of the case and was not in accordance with Jaw; as such

SHREENATHJI DEVLOPERS,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 (1) (1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 131/RJT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

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

Bench:
Section 271(1)(b)

e] Dtd.20/12/2018 filed in response to notice of A.O.dtd.12/11/2018. 6](a) The fact is that the assessee had complied to the various notices and filed voluminous submissions in the course of assessment proceedings and therefore the assessment order passed u/s.144 was not called for on the facts of the case and was not in accordance with Jaw; as such

SHREENATHJI DEVLOPERS,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 (1) (1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 132/RJT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

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

Section 271(1)(b)

e] Dtd.20/12/2018 filed in response to notice of A.O.dtd.12/11/2018. 6](a) The fact is that the assessee had complied to the various notices and filed voluminous submissions in the course of assessment proceedings and therefore the assessment order passed u/s.144 was not called for on the facts of the case and was not in accordance with Jaw; as such

SHREENATHJI DEVLOPERS,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 (1) (1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 133/RJT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

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

Section 271(1)(b)

e] Dtd.20/12/2018 filed in response to notice of A.O.dtd.12/11/2018. 6](a) The fact is that the assessee had complied to the various notices and filed voluminous submissions in the course of assessment proceedings and therefore the assessment order passed u/s.144 was not called for on the facts of the case and was not in accordance with Jaw; as such

SHREENATHJI DEVLOPERS,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 (1) (1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 134/RJT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

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

Section 271(1)(b)

e] Dtd.20/12/2018 filed in response to notice of A.O.dtd.12/11/2018. 6](a) The fact is that the assessee had complied to the various notices and filed voluminous submissions in the course of assessment proceedings and therefore the assessment order passed u/s.144 was not called for on the facts of the case and was not in accordance with Jaw; as such

KAJAL NIMISHBHAI SINOJIA,RAJKOT vs. ITO WD 1(1)(1) , RKT, RAJKOT

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 664/RJT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.664/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Kajal Nimishbhai Sinojia Vs. Income-Tax Officer, B-21 Shreeji Haridwar Society,Nr Ito Ward – 1(1)(1), Gokuldham, Aaykar Bhavan, Rajkot - 360004 Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bsups2455J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri K. L. Solanki, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24 / 04 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09 / 07/2025

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri K. L. Solanki, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 273BSection 69C

E R PER DINESH MOHAN SINHA JM; Captioned appeal filed by assessee pertaining to Assessment Year 2015-16 (penalty), is directed against order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), vide order dated 25/07/2024, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 11.01.2024 u/s 271 (1) (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Kajal