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.

5 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 250(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,147Delhi1,013Jaipur322Kolkata310Ahmedabad305Bangalore249Chennai223Pune158Surat141Indore140Hyderabad135Amritsar129Chandigarh128Raipur125Karnataka101Rajkot92Lucknow64Cochin52Patna47Allahabad44Nagpur43Guwahati42Visakhapatnam42Calcutta34Dehradun31Agra29Cuttack29Panaji28Jabalpur25Jodhpur14Varanasi6Ranchi5Rajasthan2Telangana2Gauhati1SC1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)19Section 2745Penalty5Section 2502Section 132(4)2Addition to Income2

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)

250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. Earlier, the present appeal was disposed of vide order dated 30.10.2019 of this Tribunal. However, the said order was recalled vide order dated 29.12.2022 passed in MA No.20/Ran/2019. In view of this, we proceed to decide the appeal afresh. I.T.A. No.53/Ran/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Navneet

MANISH KUMAR SAGU(HUF),RANCHI vs. ACIT, C.C.-2, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 26/RAN/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi28 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.26/Ran/2020 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Manish Kumar Sahu (Huf)..…...………………......................……...…..….. Appellant 201, Krishna Apartment, Ratu Road, Ranchi-834001. [Pan: Aaghm3591N] Vs. Acit, Central 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 27, 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 30.01.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. The assessee in this appeal has agitated the confirmation of penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that a search and seizure action u/s 132(4) was carried

SHRI ARUN KUMAR GUPTA ,WEST SINGHBHUM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 85/RAN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reason that the show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Ld. Counsel further brought to my notice that

SHRI ARUN KUMAR GUPTA ,WEST SINGHBHUM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 83/RAN/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reason that the show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Ld. Counsel further brought to my notice that

SHRI ARUN KUMAR GUPTA ,WEST SINGHBHUM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 84/RAN/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reason that the show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Ld. Counsel further brought to my notice that