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.

1 result for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 234clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi127Mumbai109Ahmedabad27Jaipur25Bangalore22Chennai21Nagpur15Hyderabad12Kolkata11Cuttack5Pune5Guwahati5Surat4Chandigarh4Indore2Raipur2Agra1Cochin1Rajkot1Ranchi1Lucknow1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)3Section 2742

SHRI NAVNEET MODI,RANCHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 53/RAN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi28 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.53/Ran/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Navneet Modi….…..…………..…...…......................……...…..….. Appellant Modi House, Kanke Dam Side Road, Kanke, Ranchi-834008. [Pan: Actpm1511F] Vs. Dcit, Circle-2, Ranchi.………………………….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 28, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 28, 2023 Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 03.10.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ranchi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40A(3)

234/- and assessed the total income by the assessee at Rs.31,65,966/- and initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. During the penalty proceedings, the ld counsel for the assessee has submitted that certain disallowances were made on ad hoc basis and in that case, there was neither concealment of income nor furnishing of inaccurate