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.

4 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 54clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai497Delhi413Jaipur146Raipur122Ahmedabad119Bangalore112Hyderabad66Chennai59Pune51Indore44Rajkot38Chandigarh34Nagpur30Amritsar28Kolkata28Allahabad27Surat26Visakhapatnam20Lucknow15Patna10Guwahati9Cochin6Varanasi6Jodhpur5Dehradun5Ranchi4Cuttack4Jabalpur1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)20Section 153A10Section 1488Section 1476Section 132(1)6Section 10(38)4Section 143(2)4Penalty4Addition to Income

PADAM KUMAR JAIN,RANCHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

ITA 16/RAN/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi17 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 80G

u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) was bad in law, as it did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 4. For that ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming penalty on alleged addition

4
Section 234A2
Long Term Capital Gains2
Penny Stock2

PADAM KUMAR JAIN,RANCHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

ITA 17/RAN/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi17 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 80G

u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) was bad in law, as it did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 4. For that ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming penalty on alleged addition

SRI AJAY KUMAR MURARKA,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 202/RAN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi13 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Ringasia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 27.12.2017 and 14.02.2019 respectively, for AY 2011-12. 2. Grounds raised by the assessee in the Memorandum of Appeal in Form 36 are reproduced as under: “1. For that the proceedings being initiated u/s

SRI AJAY KUMAR MURARKA,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-1(1),, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 56/RAN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi13 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Ringasia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 27.12.2017 and 14.02.2019 respectively, for AY 2011-12. 2. Grounds raised by the assessee in the Memorandum of Appeal in Form 36 are reproduced as under: “1. For that the proceedings being initiated u/s