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.

3 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 246clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi261Mumbai155Karnataka129Jaipur76Kolkata50Bangalore45Hyderabad36Ahmedabad35Pune34Chennai32Raipur28Lucknow22Indore21Nagpur12Surat10Agra9Chandigarh7Cuttack7Visakhapatnam6Cochin6Allahabad5Jodhpur4SC3Amritsar3Rajkot3Dehradun2Telangana2Guwahati1Varanasi1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(C)4Section 115Q2

DILIP N. SHROFF vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI &ANR

The appeal is allowed

C.A. No.-002746-002746 - 2007Supreme Court18 May 2007
For Respondent: Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr

u/s 271(1)(c) to any other person who might have helped him in the matter of preparation of the return and drawing the statement of income. It was further held : "\005This is very strange way of valuing the land after first arriving at the value of the building and deducting therefrom the value of the superstructure instead of directly

GENPACT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.A. No.-008945-008945 - 2019Supreme Court22 Nov 2019

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 115QSection 143(2)Section 77A

u/s 46A in the hands of shareholders. However, taking the benefit of Article 13 of India-Mauritius DTAA, which provides for capital gain arising on transfer of shares of Mauritius resident taxable in that country and under Mauritius tax laws capital gain is totally exempt, entire transaction used to escape the tax net. Thus to plug this loop hole

SRI T. ASHOK PAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

The appeal is allowed

C.A. No.-002747-002747 - 2007Supreme Court18 May 2007
For Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore
Section 271(1)(C)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(C) was not exigible in the present case?" 6. The High Court compared the returns filed by the appellant under the Income Tax Act and the Wealth Tax Act and arrived at the following decision : "The principal is responsible for all the act done by the agent. That apart, in the case on hand there