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.

15 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 20clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,547Mumbai2,253Ahmedabad614Jaipur575Bangalore502Kolkata379Pune371Chennai367Indore318Hyderabad292Surat221Chandigarh196Raipur152Rajkot139Karnataka135Amritsar101Lucknow78Visakhapatnam76Nagpur71Cuttack66Cochin61Allahabad53Agra48Calcutta36Guwahati27Dehradun26Panaji23Jabalpur19Patna15Ranchi15Kerala14Jodhpur12SC11Varanasi11Telangana5Rajasthan4Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)39Section 27433Section 271A26Section 153A19Section 27112Penalty12Addition to Income9Section 132(1)7Section 263

PADAM KUMAR JAIN,RANCHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

ITA 16/RAN/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi17 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 80G

section 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 4. For that ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming penalty on alleged addition of Rs. 54,00,000/- as undisclosed income of the appellant. It is admitted fact the addition related to the expenditure

7
Section 143(3)6
Undisclosed Income6
Search & Seizure3

PADAM KUMAR JAIN,RANCHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

ITA 17/RAN/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi17 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 80G

section 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 4. For that ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming penalty on alleged addition of Rs. 54,00,000/- as undisclosed income of the appellant. It is admitted fact the addition related to the expenditure

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 208/RAN/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaym/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 143(3)Section 14ASection 2Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

20,00,000/- (ix) Provisions towards NCWA-VIII ₹ 2,13,49,00,000/- Total Additions/Disallowances ₹ 2,56,30,71,000/- 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(1)(c) of the Act and finally, the Assessing Officer vide the impugned penalty

M/S NANDLAL KESHARDEO,RANCHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE (1), RANCHI

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

ITA 15/RAN/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi12 Nov 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

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

Section 271AAB(3) of the Act. In the notice issued to the assessee there is no mention about the various conditions provided u/s 271 AAB of the Act relating to levy of penalty @ 10% or 20

SRI SANJAY KUMAR SHARDA,WEST SINGHBHUM vs. ACIT, C.C.-1, RANCHI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 282/RAN/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi16 Jul 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessment Year:2016-17 बनाम Sri Sanjay Kumar Sharda Acit, Central Circle-1, Ranchi / Barajamda, West Singhbhum, V/S. Jharkhand-833221. Pan No.Ahwps4875Q अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent ..

Section 271Section 271ASection 274

Section 271AAB(3) of the Act. In the notice issued to the assessee there is no mention about the various conditions provided u/s 271 AAB of the Act relating to levy of penalty @ 10% or 20

SRI SAURABH TIWARY,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT CIR-3 , JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 284/RAN/2017[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi28 Nov 2018

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

For Appellant: Shri Devasis Sanigrahi, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohanty, JCIT
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 271(1 )(c) of the Act. P a g e 4 | 7 ITA No. 284. /R an/ 2017 Asse ssment Year : 20 13- 14 9. The penalty provisions of section

SRI MAKHAN LAL AGRWAL,WEST SINGHBHUM vs. ACIT CIR-3, JSTR

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

ITA 142/RAN/2018[12-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi22 Feb 2019

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Inderjeet Singh, CIT/ld.DR
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

271(1)(c) of the Act. It emerge from the relevant penalty notice dated 20-03- 2015 that the Assessing Officer did not specify as to whether the assessee is accused of Page1 concealment of particulars of any taxable income or it had furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. This tribunal’s co-ordinate bench Kolkata’s decision in Nishith

SHRI NIRANJAN KUMAR AGARWAL,DHANBAD vs. ITO WD-2(1), DHANBAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 329/RAN/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi16 Nov 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.S Saini

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohanty, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 22Section 22(4)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

20 04- 05 3. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271

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

U/s 270A is uncalled for since the addition in dispute pertains to estimation of Gross Profit @ 10% after rejecting the books of the assessee. We would like to mention that the quantum appeal against the addition made is still (as on date) pending with Id CIT(A) 3 Patna wherein an application under Vivad se Vishwas Scheme 2024 was filed

SIDHI VINAYAK METCOM LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are dismissed

ITA 79/RAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaysidhi Vinayak Metcom Limited, A.C.I.T., C-2, 2Nd Floor, Basant Jamini Road, Jamshedpur. Vs. Contractors Area, Bistupur-831001 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaics 3599 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 27Section 271ASection 274

Section 271AAB (1) or Clause (a) or (b) of 271 AAB (1 A) of the Act, penalty is leviable on the assessee. Thus, it is submitted that the notice initiating the penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act is a vague notice and therefore, illegal consequently, the order of penalty and the order of the Ld. CIT(A) thereon deserves

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

271(1)(c ) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”). 2. First we shall take assessee’s appeal in ITA NO. 243/Ran/2016 for A.Y. 2009- 10. 3. The Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: 1. Assessing officer does not consider sale of land as business income instead of capital gain, he is also

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

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

271(1)(c ) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”). 2. First we shall take assessee’s appeal in ITA NO. 243/Ran/2016 for A.Y. 2009- 10. 3. The Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: 1. Assessing officer does not consider sale of land as business income instead of capital gain, he is also

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.” 11. We note that by way of issue of notice under section 142(1) of the Act, as noted above, the assessing officer, during the original assessment proceedings

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)

section 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

M/S KRISH CONSTRUCTION,RANCHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 74/RAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi16 Sept 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S.S. Godara, Jm Assessment Year:2015-16 बनाम M/S Krish Construction, Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Ranchi / V/S. Kte 4, Krish Tower, Singh More, Hatia, Ranchi-834003. Pan No.Aakfk6755G अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent ..

Section 143(3)Section 37

u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; (in short ‘the Act’). Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex parte. The case is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 2. The assessee’s sole substantive grievance challenges correctness of both the lower authorities’ action disallowing proportionate bank interest of Rs.7