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.

6 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 80clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,176Mumbai976Jaipur298Ahmedabad284Bangalore203Chennai176Hyderabad144Indore137Pune134Karnataka133Kolkata120Chandigarh113Raipur109Surat87Rajkot66Amritsar58Cochin43Visakhapatnam39Nagpur39Lucknow36Calcutta34Cuttack26Allahabad25Patna18Guwahati18Agra12Dehradun7Ranchi6Jodhpur6SC5Jabalpur5Telangana4Varanasi3Panaji2Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)14Section 2747Addition to Income5Penalty4Section 2713Disallowance3Section 402Section 153A2Section 1472

M/S. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD.,,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 209/RAN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayd.C.I.T., Central Coalfield Ltd., Circle-1, 4Th Floor, Central Revenue Building Vs. Ranchi. Annexee, 5A, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee M/S Central Coalfields Ltd., D.C.I.T., Darbhanga House, Kutchery Road, Circle-1, Vs. Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40

271(1)(c) as imposed by AO & sustained by CIT (A) on disallowances of prior period expenses and land and crop compensation s under, on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Besides, penalty has also been imposed on disallowance of Provision of Executive pay Revision which was not disputed by the appellant even before Ld. CIT(A) since the return

Section 50C2
Revision u/s 2632
Short Term Capital Gains2

DCIT,CIRCLE-1,RANCHI, RANCHI vs. CENTRAL COALFIELD LTD, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 206/RAN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayd.C.I.T., Central Coalfield Ltd., Circle-1, 4Th Floor, Central Revenue Building Vs. Ranchi. Annexee, 5A, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee M/S Central Coalfields Ltd., D.C.I.T., Darbhanga House, Kutchery Road, Circle-1, Vs. Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40

271(1)(c) as imposed by AO & sustained by CIT (A) on disallowances of prior period expenses and land and crop compensation s under, on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Besides, penalty has also been imposed on disallowance of Provision of Executive pay Revision which was not disputed by the appellant even before Ld. CIT(A) since the return

M/S. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD.,,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 208/RAN/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaym/S Central Coalfields Ltd., D.C.I.T., Darbhanga House, Kutchery Road, Circle-1, Vs. Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e., the notice failed to specify whether the penalty was imposed for concealment of income, furnishing inaccurate particulars, or both. As such the entire penalty proceeding is void-ab-initio and liable to be quashed. 4. For that Ld. AO and the Ld. CIT(A) have erred on facts

CRYSTAL THERMOTECH PVT.LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER PF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

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

ITA 80/RAN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Jun 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. 16,80,490/- 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

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