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.

7 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 34clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,556Mumbai1,407Ahmedabad404Jaipur345Bangalore230Indore202Kolkata193Pune170Surat167Hyderabad164Chennai156Raipur135Karnataka126Chandigarh110Rajkot85Amritsar63Lucknow61Allahabad46Cochin45Agra42Visakhapatnam40Nagpur40Calcutta35Cuttack26Panaji21Guwahati20Jodhpur15Kerala15Dehradun14SC9Patna9Varanasi9Jabalpur9Ranchi7Telangana5Rajasthan4

Key Topics

Section 27421Section 271(1)(c)18Section 2719Section 2637Section 153A7Penalty4Section 1472Section 50C2Short Term Capital Gains

SATENDRA KUMAR JALAN (HUF),RANCHI vs. ACIT, C.C.-2, RANCHI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 283/RAN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi15 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

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

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

34,14,765/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. It emerges from ITA No.283/Ran/2019 A.Y. 2014-15 Satendra Kr. Jalan (HUF) Vs. ACIT, CC.2, RNC Page 2 the penalty notice dated 22.12.2017 that the Assessing Officer did not specify as to whether the assessee is accused of concealment of particulars of any taxable income or he had furnished inaccurate

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

ITA 334/RAN/2017[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 Apr 2019

Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

2
Business Income2
Cash Deposit2
Addition to Income2
Bench:
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. r) The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, principles of natural justice is offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed to the assessee. s) Taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another

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

ITA 333/RAN/2017[12-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 Apr 2019

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

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

Section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. r) The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, principles of natural justice is offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed to the assessee. s) Taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another

SHRI AJAY KUMARS/O SHRI KISAN BHAGWAT,HAZARIBAGH vs. ITO WARD-2(5), HAZARIBAGH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA NO

ITA 243/RAN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 Jul 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.243/Ran/2016 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.207/Ran/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Choudhry, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Inderjeet Singh, CIT (DR)
Section 147Section 50C

271(1)(c ) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”). 2. First we shall take assessee’s appeal in ITA NO. 243/Ran/2016 for A.Y. 2009- 10. 3. The Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: 1. Assessing officer does not consider sale of land as business income instead of capital gain, he is also

SRI AJAY KUMAR ,HAZARIBAGH vs. ITO WARD-1(1), HAZARIBAGH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA NO

ITA 207/RAN/2017[09-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 Jul 2020

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.243/Ran/2016 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.207/Ran/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Choudhry, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Inderjeet Singh, CIT (DR)
Section 147Section 50C

271(1)(c ) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”). 2. First we shall take assessee’s appeal in ITA NO. 243/Ran/2016 for A.Y. 2009- 10. 3. The Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: 1. Assessing officer does not consider sale of land as business income instead of capital gain, he is also

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

section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 31.3.2015 for assessment years 2010-2011 to 2013-13 without mentioning that whether the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income, we are of the considered view that when the assessee has not been specifically made aware of the charges leveled against

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

section 142(1) of the Act, dated 20.06.2016, which were furnished by the assessee during the original assessment proceedings, the copy of notice u/s 142(1) of the Act is reproduced below for ready reference: “Sub: Income Tax assessment in your case AY 2012-13 notice u/s 142(1) reg. Following details / explanations / clarifications may be furnished on or before