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.

4 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 145(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi403Mumbai365Jaipur121Karnataka120Ahmedabad106Bangalore66Kolkata47Indore47Hyderabad44Raipur41Surat40Chandigarh36Calcutta36Allahabad31Chennai30Amritsar26Pune25Cuttack22Rajkot21Lucknow18Agra12Cochin12Visakhapatnam11Dehradun9Guwahati7Nagpur6Ranchi4Jodhpur2Varanasi2SC1Rajasthan1Telangana1Patna1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 270A6Section 41(1)4Addition to Income4Section 133(6)2Section 1472Section 50C2Short Term Capital Gains2Business Income2Cash Deposit

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

145(3). It has been held in various decisions that penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when the profit is estimated. The same corollary in our opinion is also applicable to the provisions of section 270A. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) cancelling the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under

SHRI AJAY KUMARS/O SHRI KISAN BHAGWAT,HAZARIBAGH vs. ITO WARD-2(5), HAZARIBAGH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA NO

2
Natural Justice2
ITA 243/RAN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 Jul 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.243/Ran/2016 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.207/Ran/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Choudhry, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Inderjeet Singh, CIT (DR)
Section 147Section 50C

3,94,145/--. Section 50C of Income Tax Act, 1961 is not applicable if income is taxable under Section 28, in this regard, we are also refer case Inderlok Hotels (P) Ltd. vs. ITO [2009] 32 SOT 419 (Mum).” 9. Therefore, the ld Counsel has contended before us that during the assessment stage it was submitted before the AO that

SRI AJAY KUMAR ,HAZARIBAGH vs. ITO WARD-1(1), HAZARIBAGH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA NO

ITA 207/RAN/2017[09-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 Jul 2020

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.243/Ran/2016 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.207/Ran/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Choudhry, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Inderjeet Singh, CIT (DR)
Section 147Section 50C

3,94,145/--. Section 50C of Income Tax Act, 1961 is not applicable if income is taxable under Section 28, in this regard, we are also refer case Inderlok Hotels (P) Ltd. vs. ITO [2009] 32 SOT 419 (Mum).” 9. Therefore, the ld Counsel has contended before us that during the assessment stage it was submitted before the AO that

ACIT, CIRCLE-3, RANCHI vs. SHRI SUMIT RAMSISARIA, RANCHI

ITA 222/RAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi11 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT. Act, 1961 are separately initiated on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income." The above statement of the Assessing Officer IS not legally tenable due to the following reasons.- The AO has assumed that no such liability existed in the form of sundry creditors to the tune of Rs.3