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.

1 result for “section 68”+ Section 271D(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi57Jaipur54Mumbai41Hyderabad27Chennai26Karnataka21Ahmedabad19Kolkata14Pune13Indore12Agra9Bangalore9Surat7Rajkot5Chandigarh3Cuttack3Jabalpur2Nagpur2Visakhapatnam2Lucknow1Ranchi1SC1Cochin1Varanasi1Amritsar1

Key Topics

Section 269S5Section 271D4

SANTPURIA ALLOYS PVT. LTD.,GIRIDIH vs. ADDITIONAL CIT, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 142/RAN/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Sept 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No.142/Ran/2015 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Santpuria Alloys Pvt. Ltd……………..…...…......................……...…..….. Appellant Manjhladih, Giridih - 815301. [Pan: Aaics4215J] Vs. Acit, Central Range-2, Ranchi….……………….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances By: Shri Rahul Saboo, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pranob Ku. Koley, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 25, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 20, 2022 Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.09.2015 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 250Section 269SSection 271DSection 68

2. The sole issue raised by the assessee, in this appeal, is relating to levy of penalty of Rs.51,00,000/- u/s 271D of the Act being the amount of loan/deposit taken by the assessee in cash in contravention of the provision of section 269SS of the Act. 3. The brief facts of the case are that during