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.

9 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Exemptionclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,090Delhi1,027Ahmedabad349Bangalore270Jaipur202Chennai164Pune160Hyderabad142Kolkata134Indore107Chandigarh105Karnataka103Surat90Raipur80Rajkot60Nagpur53Lucknow43Amritsar41Cochin40Calcutta35Visakhapatnam23Guwahati21Jodhpur13Allahabad13Dehradun12Patna11Agra10Ranchi9Cuttack7Varanasi6SC6Telangana3Jabalpur2Rajasthan2Panaji2Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 143(1)14Section 10(27)10Section 1488Section 271(1)(c)7Section 2637Section 153A7Section 1476Penalty6Exemption6Addition to Income

DCIT,CIRCLE-1RANCHI, RANCHI vs. CENTRAL COALFIELD LTD, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 163/RAN/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayd.C.I.T., Central Coalfield Ltd., Circle-1, 4Th Floor, Central Revenue Building Vs. Ranchi. Annexee, 5A, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee M/S Central Coalfields Ltd., D.C.I.T., Darbhanga House, Kutchery Road, Circle-1, Vs. Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Exempt income & application of Sec. 14A of ₹ 2,62,95,000/- the Income-tax Act, 1961 (iii) Prior period expenses ₹ 8,99,66,000/- (iv) Land & Crop Compensation ₹ 89,82,07,000/- The penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were separately initiated with the issue of notice under Section 274 read with section 271

M/S. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD.,,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

5
Section 10(38)4
Disallowance4

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 207/RAN/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayd.C.I.T., Central Coalfield Ltd., Circle-1, 4Th Floor, Central Revenue Building Vs. Ranchi. Annexee, 5A, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee M/S Central Coalfields Ltd., D.C.I.T., Darbhanga House, Kutchery Road, Circle-1, Vs. Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Exempt income & application of Sec. 14A of ₹ 2,62,95,000/- the Income-tax Act, 1961 (iii) Prior period expenses ₹ 8,99,66,000/- (iv) Land & Crop Compensation ₹ 89,82,07,000/- The penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were separately initiated with the issue of notice under Section 274 read with section 271

SRI AJAY KUMAR MURARKA,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 202/RAN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi13 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Ringasia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 27.12.2017 and 14.02.2019 respectively, for AY 2011-12. 2. Grounds raised by the assessee in the Memorandum of Appeal in Form 36 are reproduced as under: “1. For that the proceedings being initiated u/s

SRI AJAY KUMAR MURARKA,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-1(1),, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 56/RAN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi13 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Ringasia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 27.12.2017 and 14.02.2019 respectively, for AY 2011-12. 2. Grounds raised by the assessee in the Memorandum of Appeal in Form 36 are reproduced as under: “1. For that the proceedings being initiated u/s

ITO EXEMPTION WARD , JAMSHEDPUR vs. ALL INDIA WOMEN'S CONFERENCE , JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assesse are allowed

ITA 230/RAN/2017[11-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi29 Nov 2018

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohanty, JCIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 215Section 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. At the outset, ld Authorised Representative of the assesse filed an order dated 12.10.2017 in the quantum appeal in ITA No.304 & 305/Ran/2014 for the assessment year 2010-11 and 2011-12 and submitted that as the very basis of addition regarding levy of penalty has been deleted by the Tribunal, the penalty deleted

PADAM KUMAE JAIN,RANCHI vs. CIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

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

ITA 289/RAN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.289/Ran/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Padam Kumar Jain Vs. Cit, Central, Cr Building, Beer Chand Patel Marg, Patna – 800001. Ratanlalsurajmal Compound, Main Road, Ranchi – 834001, Jharkhand "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abrpj 0001 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Chaudhury & Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Inderjeet Singh, CIT (DR)
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income tax Act, 1961 may be (in addition to tax, if any payable) imposed for a sum of ten thousand rupees for each such failure.” We note thatwhile making the second assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s.263 of the Act, the following issues were examined by the assessing officer: (i).Incentive on sales

M/S JHARKHAND STATE CO-OPERATIVE LAC MARKETING & PROCUREMENT FED.LTD.,RANCHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue i

ITA 199/RAN/2017[12-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi29 Nov 2018

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2011-2012 Dcit, Cirlce-1, Ranchi Vs M/S The Jharkhand State Co-Operative Lac Marketing & Procurement Fed. Ltd. Jhascolampf Building Purulia Road, Bharatpuri, Ranchi-834001 Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R Respondent (Appellant) .. & Assessment Year : 2012-2013 M/S The Jharkhand State Co- Vs Dcit, Cirlce-3, Ranchi Operative Lac Marketing & Procurement Fed. Ltd. Jhascolampf Building Purulia Road, Bharatpuri, Ranchi-834001 Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R Respondent (Appellant) .. Revenue By Shri A.K.Mohanty,Jcit(Jr. Dr) Assessee By Shri Nitin Pasari, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2018

Section 10(27)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

u/s 10(27) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Merely because another Samity or similarly situated Society did not claim exemption does not in any manner restrict the claim of the Appellant barred, on the contrary the requirement under Section 10(27) of the Act is being stretched too far by the Assessing Officer. VII. FOR THAT the Learned Appellate Authority

DCIT CIR-1, RANCHI vs. M/S JHARKHAND STATE CO-OPERATIVE LAC MARKETING AND PROCUREMENT FEDRATION LTD., RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue i

ITA 236/RAN/2017[11-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi29 Nov 2018

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2011-2012 Dcit, Cirlce-1, Ranchi Vs M/S The Jharkhand State Co-Operative Lac Marketing & Procurement Fed. Ltd. Jhascolampf Building Purulia Road, Bharatpuri, Ranchi-834001 Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R Respondent (Appellant) .. & Assessment Year : 2012-2013 M/S The Jharkhand State Co- Vs Dcit, Cirlce-3, Ranchi Operative Lac Marketing & Procurement Fed. Ltd. Jhascolampf Building Purulia Road, Bharatpuri, Ranchi-834001 Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R Respondent (Appellant) .. Revenue By Shri A.K.Mohanty,Jcit(Jr. Dr) Assessee By Shri Nitin Pasari, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2018

Section 10(27)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

u/s 10(27) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Merely because another Samity or similarly situated Society did not claim exemption does not in any manner restrict the claim of the Appellant barred, on the contrary the requirement under Section 10(27) of the Act is being stretched too far by the Assessing Officer. VII. FOR THAT the Learned Appellate Authority

SINGHBHUM GRAMODYOG VIKAS SANSTHAN,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD , JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 48/RAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi31 Jul 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.48/Ran/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri Arpit Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Mohanti, Addl. CIT Sr. DR
Section 271(1)

u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short the ‘Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. It transpires at the outset that the assessee’s quantum appeal relating to impugned penalty proceedings bearing ITA No. 367/Ran/2018 stands restored to the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 01.10.2019. We thus adopt consistency since the impugned