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.

2 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 36(1)(viia)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai72Delhi19Pune17Indore12Jaipur9Nagpur9Kolkata4Rajkot2Bangalore2Chandigarh2Chennai1Amritsar1Ahmedabad1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)4Section 36(1)(viia)3Section 271(1)2Section 362Deduction2Penalty2Disallowance2

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-2,, JAMNAGAR vs. THE JAMNAGAR DISTRICT CO. OP. BANK LTD.,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 247/RJT/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Verma, Sr. D.R
Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(viia)

36(1)(viia) of the Act, The relevant Observation of the aforesaid decision was as fallows : "20. The Ld. CIT has also acted under the misconception that deduction under Cl. (viia) is related to, the actual amount of provision made by the assesses for bad and doubtful debts. The true meaning of the clause, as indicated earlier, is that once

RAJKOT DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,,RAJKOT vs. DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), , RAJKOT

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 310/RJT/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Us In This Regard Reads As Under: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Rajkot-1 Has Erred In Confirming The Order Passed By Assessing Officer U/S 271(L)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Imposing A Penalty Of Rs. 18,50,900 On The Appellant Despite The Fact That The Claim For The Deduction Was Bona-Fide, The Details Furnished For The Claim For Allowance Were Not Found To Be Inaccurate & That There Was No Deliberate Attempt To Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars On The Part Of The Appellant Assesse. The Ao'S Action Being Erroneous On Facts & In Law, The Appellant Prays That The Penalty Of Rs. 18,50,900 Be Deleted..

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Rindani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Rathi, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)

36(1)(viia) of the Act. The same was disallowed in the assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act holding that such provisions for Standard assets do not qualify for deduction under the section as it relates only to bad and doubtful debts . Subsequently penalty u/s 271