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 183clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi331Mumbai186Karnataka100Bangalore89Raipur52Jaipur42Ahmedabad36Pune26Indore25Allahabad23Chennai23Hyderabad22Chandigarh20Kolkata20Rajkot18Lucknow14Nagpur12Surat9Agra8Patna6Cuttack5Dehradun5Amritsar3Ranchi2Rajasthan2Telangana2Visakhapatnam1Varanasi1Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)4Section 41(1)4Section 143(3)2Section 271(1)2Section 133(6)2Addition to Income2

JOKHIRAM DURGADUTT,RANCHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 400/RAN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayjokhiram Durgadutt, D.C.I.T., 9, J.D. Corporate, Behind J.D. High Circle-1, Vs. Street, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 Ranchi. (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aabfj 2200 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) is not leviable. Few instances are given as follows :- 1. B. L. Murarka v Commissioner of Income Tax ( 2001 ) 118 Taxman 421 (Raj - H. C. ) attached as Annexure no. 7, 2. CIT v Prithipal Singh & Co. ( 1990 ) 183 ITR 69 ( Punj. & Har. —H. C. ) attached as Annexure - 8. This judgement has been upheld by the Honourable

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

ITA 222/RAN/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed
ITAT Ranchi
11 Dec 2020
AY 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