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.

10 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Condonation of Delayclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai306Jaipur189Ahmedabad179Delhi174Chennai161Pune135Surat122Kolkata121Hyderabad112Indore108Bangalore91Rajkot61Chandigarh50Nagpur47Cochin39Amritsar39Lucknow34Patna30Visakhapatnam26Cuttack25Guwahati24Agra22Raipur19Panaji13Jabalpur11Ranchi10Allahabad9Dehradun6Jodhpur6Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)45Section 27437Section 153A16Penalty10Section 132(1)9Section 132(4)9Capital Gains9Long Term Capital Gains9Undisclosed Income

GAJANAN FERRO PVT.LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

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

ITA 84/RAN/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 271(1)(c) should had been levied, hence, the impugned order levying penalty of Rs. 89,46,176/- needs to be quashed. 2. That the very initiation of penalty is bad in law as the Ld. AO has failed to record a proper or transparent satisfaction in his notice while initiating proceedings under section 271(1)(c), thus rendering

GAJANAN FERRO PVT.LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

9
Section 270A6

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

ITA 85/RAN/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 271(1)(c) should had been levied, hence, the impugned order levying penalty of Rs. 89,46,176/- needs to be quashed. 2. That the very initiation of penalty is bad in law as the Ld. AO has failed to record a proper or transparent satisfaction in his notice while initiating proceedings under section 271(1)(c), thus rendering

GAJANAN FERRO PVT.LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

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

ITA 86/RAN/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 271(1)(c) should had been levied, hence, the impugned order levying penalty of Rs. 89,46,176/- needs to be quashed. 2. That the very initiation of penalty is bad in law as the Ld. AO has failed to record a proper or transparent satisfaction in his notice while initiating proceedings under section 271(1)(c), thus rendering

NITU SINGH,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

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

ITA 82/RAN/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 271(1)(c) should had been levied, hence, the impugned order levying penalty of Rs. 7,39,160/- needs to be quashed. 2. That the very initiation of penalty is bad in law as the Ld. AO has failed to record a proper or transparent satisfaction in his notice while initiating proceedings under section 271(1)(c), thus rendering

RINKU SINGH,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

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

ITA 81/RAN/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 271(1)(c) should had been levied, hence, the impugned order levying penalty of Rs. 7,39,160/- needs to be quashed. 2. That the very initiation of penalty is bad in law as the Ld. AO has failed to record a proper or transparent satisfaction in his notice while initiating proceedings under section 271(1)(c), thus rendering

SACHIN PODDAR,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEPUR

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

ITA 87/RAN/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 271(1)(c) should had been levied, hence, the impugned order levying penalty of Rs. 12,94,533/- needs to be quashed. 2. That the very initiation of penalty is bad in law as the Ld. AO has failed to record a proper or transparent satisfaction in his notice while initiating proceedings under section 271(1)(c), thus rendering

JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALCIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

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

ITA 88/RAN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi22 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 271(1)(c) should had been levied, hence, the impugned order levying penalty of Rs. 1,27,663/- needs to be quashed. 2. That the very initiation of penalty is bad in law as the Ld. AO has failed to record a proper or transparent satisfaction in his notice while initiating proceedings under section 271(1)(c), thus rendering

CRYSTAL THERMOTECH PVT.LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

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

ITA 79/RAN/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 271(1)(c) should had been levied, hence, the impugned order levying penalty of Rs. 11,42,971/- needs to be quashed. 2. That the very initiation of penalty is bad in law as the Ld. AO has failed to record a proper or transparent satisfaction in his notice while initiating proceedings under section 271(1)(c), thus rendering

CRYSTAL THERMOTECH PVT.LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER PF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

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

ITA 80/RAN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 271(1)(c) should had been levied, hence, the impugned order levying penalty of Rs. 16,80,490/- needs to be quashed. 2. That the very initiation of penalty is bad in law as the Ld. AO has failed to record a proper or transparent satisfaction in his notice while initiating proceedings under section 271(1)(c), thus rendering

M/S EKLAVYA ESTATE PVT.LTD.,RANCHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RANCHI, RANCHI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 258/RAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaym/S Eklavya Estate Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T., H-95, Harmu Housing Colony, Central Circle-2, Vs. Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aabce 5815 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 133ASection 270ASection 274

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal disposed off on merits. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a private limited unlisted company, engaged in the real estate business. Survey under section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) was conducted in the case of assessee