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.

7 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 27(1)(c)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai746Delhi722Jaipur220Ahmedabad193Hyderabad163Bangalore154Chennai148Raipur124Kolkata116Pune99Chandigarh86Indore85Rajkot56Surat49Allahabad46Amritsar45Visakhapatnam28Lucknow28Nagpur20Panaji13Patna11Cuttack9Guwahati9Dehradun8Ranchi7Agra5Cochin4Jodhpur3Jabalpur1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 26318Section 271(1)(c)16Section 153A12Section 271A7Penalty7Section 2746Section 132(4)5Section 132(1)4Section 143(3)4

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)

27,87,360/- which comes to Rs. 68,36,208/-is disallowed and added to its total income since the said aggregate amount is actually a business receipt. Also, penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act is separately initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and finally imposed a penalty

JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALCIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

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

Search & Seizure4
Undisclosed Income3
Addition to Income3
ITA 88/RAN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi22 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

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

u/s 271(1)(c) should had been levied, hence, the impugned order levying penalty of Rs. 1,27,663/- needs to be quashed. 2. That the very initiation of penalty is bad in law as the Ld. AO has failed to record a proper or transparent satisfaction in his notice while initiating proceedings under section

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)

27, 2023 Date of pronouncing the order : April 28 , 2023 ORDER Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: 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

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

27 1AAB was initiated. However, no sub-section on clause under the subs-section was ever specified in the assessment order. The extract thereof is as under: [Penalty u/s 271AAB Is Initiated for concealment of income to the tune of Rs. 5,50,06,383/-) Rather the assessment order suggested that the penalty was initiated for "concealment" of Income when

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

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