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.

3 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 220(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi375Mumbai211Karnataka99Jaipur97Indore63Bangalore61Chennai60Ahmedabad50Raipur35Pune29Kolkata23Hyderabad23Allahabad19Rajkot17Chandigarh14Lucknow13Cochin10Visakhapatnam7Cuttack7Dehradun7Ranchi3Nagpur3Agra2Guwahati2SC2Surat2Jodhpur1Telangana1Rajasthan1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)10Section 114Section 2743Penalty3Section 2712Addition to Income2

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

SMT. SAROJ RAI,RANCHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2, RANCHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 62/RAN/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi30 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar,AdvFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mondal, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

220/- & 2,55,050/- imposed u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment years 2010-2011 to 2013-14. 3. At the outset, the ld. counsel filed a copy of the notices issued u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act dated 31.3.2015. Referring to the same, he P a g e 1 | 5 ITA Nos.62

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)

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 deleted