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.

3 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 160clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi123Mumbai107Jaipur60Ahmedabad40Raipur36Chennai36Pune29Allahabad20Kolkata14Rajkot14Nagpur14Chandigarh14Visakhapatnam13Panaji13Bangalore12Lucknow10Indore8Hyderabad6Jabalpur5Surat4Ranchi3Dehradun2SC2Cochin1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)14Section 2747Section 153A5Penalty3Undisclosed Income3Section 132(1)2Section 132(4)2Capital Gains2Long Term Capital Gains

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI, RANCHI vs. SHRI KAMAL BHUSHAN, RANCHI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 36/RAN/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 139Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 271 (1)(c) of Rs.1,07,63,160/- as an assessee is not absolved of penalty, if he offers an explanation which he is not able to substantiate and fails to prove that such explanation is bona fide. 5. That the applicant craves leave to add, alter, delete, modify the grounds of appeal before the Hon'ble Court

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

2

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

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