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 94(7)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi781Mumbai741Ahmedabad213Jaipur160Bangalore158Chennai156Karnataka128Raipur105Hyderabad101Kolkata101Indore78Pune75Chandigarh53Rajkot48Visakhapatnam40Calcutta35Lucknow27Allahabad26Surat23Cuttack22Guwahati21Amritsar19Patna15Cochin12Agra9Nagpur9Ranchi6Jabalpur4Dehradun3Panaji3Telangana2Rajasthan1Varanasi1SC1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)29Section 143(1)14Section 153A12Section 10(27)10Section 2748Section 132(1)7Penalty4Section 143(3)3Addition 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 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

94,920/- and also initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) read with explanation 5A of the Act. The AO passed penalty order u/s.271(1)(c) on 30.06.2017 and levied penalty of Rs.16,74,935/- being @100% of tax sought to be evaded. The penalty was levied on enhanced income of Rs.20,500/ (being the difference in the original return u/s

3
Undisclosed Income3
Deduction3
Disallowance3

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

94,920/- and also initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) read with explanation 5A of the Act. The AO passed penalty order u/s.271(1)(c) on 30.06.2017 and levied penalty of Rs.16,74,935/- being @100% of tax sought to be evaded. The penalty was levied on enhanced income of Rs.20,500/ (being the difference in the original return u/s

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)

94,38,209/- Income from gaming zone amounting ITA 400/Ran/2024 Jokhiram Durgadutt Vs DCIT to Rs. 25,45,651/-. Receipt from advertisement space amounting to Rs. 2,33,500/-, receipts from events amounting to Rs. 5,70,000/-, total amount comes to Rs. 2,27,87,360/-. From the above facts, the Assessing Officer held that the above receipts aggregating

SACHIN PODDAR,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEPUR

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

ITA 87/RAN/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

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

94,533/- 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 271(1)(c), thus rendering the entire penalty proceedings null and void. 3. That under the facts and circumstances, the initiation

M/S JHARKHAND STATE CO-OPERATIVE LAC MARKETING & PROCUREMENT FED.LTD.,RANCHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue i

ITA 199/RAN/2017[12-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi29 Nov 2018

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2011-2012 Dcit, Cirlce-1, Ranchi Vs M/S The Jharkhand State Co-Operative Lac Marketing & Procurement Fed. Ltd. Jhascolampf Building Purulia Road, Bharatpuri, Ranchi-834001 Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R Respondent (Appellant) .. & Assessment Year : 2012-2013 M/S The Jharkhand State Co- Vs Dcit, Cirlce-3, Ranchi Operative Lac Marketing & Procurement Fed. Ltd. Jhascolampf Building Purulia Road, Bharatpuri, Ranchi-834001 Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R Respondent (Appellant) .. Revenue By Shri A.K.Mohanty,Jcit(Jr. Dr) Assessee By Shri Nitin Pasari, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2018

Section 10(27)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

94,300/- vide intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act, dated 30.03.2013. 4. Aggrieved by the demand raised by the AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). In the appellate proceedings, the AR of the assessee appeared and argued the grounds and reiterated the submissions made before the AO. The CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee

DCIT CIR-1, RANCHI vs. M/S JHARKHAND STATE CO-OPERATIVE LAC MARKETING AND PROCUREMENT FEDRATION LTD., RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue i

ITA 236/RAN/2017[11-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi29 Nov 2018

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2011-2012 Dcit, Cirlce-1, Ranchi Vs M/S The Jharkhand State Co-Operative Lac Marketing & Procurement Fed. Ltd. Jhascolampf Building Purulia Road, Bharatpuri, Ranchi-834001 Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R Respondent (Appellant) .. & Assessment Year : 2012-2013 M/S The Jharkhand State Co- Vs Dcit, Cirlce-3, Ranchi Operative Lac Marketing & Procurement Fed. Ltd. Jhascolampf Building Purulia Road, Bharatpuri, Ranchi-834001 Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R Respondent (Appellant) .. Revenue By Shri A.K.Mohanty,Jcit(Jr. Dr) Assessee By Shri Nitin Pasari, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2018

Section 10(27)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

94,300/- vide intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act, dated 30.03.2013. 4. Aggrieved by the demand raised by the AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). In the appellate proceedings, the AR of the assessee appeared and argued the grounds and reiterated the submissions made before the AO. The CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee