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.

11 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 21(5)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,501Mumbai1,970Ahmedabad574Jaipur463Bangalore433Kolkata423Chennai323Pune291Hyderabad272Indore251Surat164Chandigarh149Raipur146Karnataka143Rajkot88Visakhapatnam70Lucknow66Amritsar63Nagpur60Allahabad56Cochin47Agra40Calcutta36Cuttack32Guwahati31Dehradun26Panaji21Patna21Jabalpur12Ranchi11SC11Varanasi10Jodhpur8Telangana6Rajasthan3Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 26325Section 27418Section 271(1)(c)17Section 153A17Penalty10Section 2717Section 270A6Section 143(3)4Section 271A4

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)

section 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e., the notice failed to specify whether the penalty was imposed for concealment of income, furnishing inaccurate particulars, or both. As such the entire penalty proceeding is void-ab-initio and liable to be quashed. 4. For that Ld. AO and the Ld. CIT(A) have erred on facts

Addition to Income4
Search & Seizure4
Disallowance3

M/S SHRI RAM POWER & STEEL PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ACIY, C.C.1, RANCHI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 284/RAN/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi21 Jul 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2016-17

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 271MSection 274

21-07-2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R PER BENCH (Oral):- This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2016-17 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Dhanbad’s order dated 05.09.2019 passed in case No. CIT(A) Dhanbad/10069/2018-19, affirming Assessing Officer’s action imposing penalty

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)

penalty of Rs. 21,12,388/- u/s 271(1)(c) and the ld. CIT(A) is not justified in upholding the same. 3. That the other and further grounds shall be urged at the time of hearing." 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessment in this case was completed under Section 143(3) of the Income

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

21-03-2017. 2. The assessee’s sole substantive grievance raised in the appeal challenging correctness of both the lower authorities action imposing the penalty in issue of Rs. 49,79,239/-, u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act. It emerge from the relevant penalty notice dated 20-03- 2015 that the Assessing Officer did not specify

BABITA JALAN,RANCHI vs. ACIT, C.C.-2, RANCHI

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 271/RAN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi21 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2014-15

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

21-07-2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R PER BENCH (Oral):- This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Patna’s order dated 22.10.2019 passed in case No. CIT(A),Patna-3/10055/2018-19, affirming Assessing Officer’s imposing penalty

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

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

RAMESH KUMAR SINGH,RANCHI vs. PR. CIT(C), PATNA, PATNA

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 11/RAN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi29 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was also initiated in this case. 5. Subsequently, the ld. PCIT vide its order under Section 263 of the Act for the A.Y. 2012-13 dated 03/12/2020, set aside the assessment order dated 29/12/2017 passed under Section 153A/143(3) of the Act on the ground that the said assessment order

PR. CIT (C), PATNA, PATNA vs. RAMESH KUMAR SINGH, RANCHI

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 10/RAN/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi29 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was also initiated in this case. 5. Subsequently, the ld. PCIT vide its order under Section 263 of the Act for the A.Y. 2012-13 dated 03/12/2020, set aside the assessment order dated 29/12/2017 passed under Section 153A/143(3) of the Act on the ground that the said assessment order

RAMESH KUMAR SINGH,RANCHI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PATNA, RANCHI

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 9/RAN/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi29 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was also initiated in this case. 5. Subsequently, the ld. PCIT vide its order under Section 263 of the Act for the A.Y. 2012-13 dated 03/12/2020, set aside the assessment order dated 29/12/2017 passed under Section 153A/143(3) of the Act on the ground that the said assessment order

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