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.

168 results for “disallowance”+ Section 271(1)(C)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,596Delhi2,994Bangalore561Ahmedabad515Chennai448Kolkata434Jaipur308Pune231Hyderabad209Indore171Surat168Chandigarh127Raipur96Rajkot93Nagpur69Lucknow57Visakhapatnam52Allahabad47Amritsar47Calcutta39Guwahati37Cuttack33Karnataka29Cochin29Panaji26Ranchi25SC22Jodhpur17Dehradun17Varanasi16Telangana15Jabalpur11Agra11Patna10Punjab & Haryana4Rajasthan2Gauhati1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)229Penalty77Addition to Income74Disallowance55Section 143(3)50Section 14836Deduction30Section 6826Section 14725Section 254(1)

SHRI PRAKASH F.SINGH,,VAPI vs. THE ITO, WARD-7,, VAPI

In the result, appeals of the Assessees (in ITA No

ITA 618/SRT/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.618/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Prakash F Singh, The Income Tax Officer, V Ward-7, Room No.810, 8Th Floor, Rbl, 63/751, Chanod Colony, Gidc, S. Vapi-396195 Fortune Square-Ii, Vapi Daman Road, Chala, Vapi-396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Asnps 4835N (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A. Gopalakrishnan,C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. AnupamaSingla– Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c), the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income is deemed to represent the concealed

Showing 1–20 of 168 · Page 1 of 9

...
24
Section 10A23
Bogus Purchases22

SHRI GUFRAN AHMED CHAUDHARI,,VALSAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, VAPI WARD-1,, VAPI

In the result, appeals of the Assessees (in ITA No

ITA 623/SRT/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.618/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Prakash F Singh, The Income Tax Officer, V Ward-7, Room No.810, 8Th Floor, Rbl, 63/751, Chanod Colony, Gidc, S. Vapi-396195 Fortune Square-Ii, Vapi Daman Road, Chala, Vapi-396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Asnps 4835N (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A. Gopalakrishnan,C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. AnupamaSingla– Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c), the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income is deemed to represent the concealed

R.S. TRADELINK PVT.LTD.,SURAT vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-4,, SURAT

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

ITA 2130/AHD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2130/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S. R.S. Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Plot No.17, Magdalla Port Road, Of Income Tax, Circle-4, Surat. Magdalla, Surat-395007. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcr6607A (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah - CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra - CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Thus, the Assessing Officer has imposed penalty on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars, whereas the Tribunal has upheld. the order of the Assessing Officer on the ground of concealment of particulars. It is by now well settled that while issuing a notice under section 271(1)(c

SANTOSH SINGH HUKAM SINGH KARNAWAT,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT

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

ITA 655/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

disallowances were not pressed before the Ld. CIT(A) by the assessee. The AO after invoking the provisions of Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c

MOULIMANI IMPEX PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(1)(3), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 534/SRT/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1), which raises a presumption that the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income shall be deemed or represents the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed or inaccurate particulars have been furnished. Hence, he levied minimum penalty of Rs.2,81,669/- u/s 271(1)(c

MOULIMANI IMPEX PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 1(1)(3), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 536/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1), which raises a presumption that the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income shall be deemed or represents the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed or inaccurate particulars have been furnished. Hence, he levied minimum penalty of Rs.2,81,669/- u/s 271(1)(c

MOULIMANI IMPEX PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(1)(3), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 535/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1), which raises a presumption that the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income shall be deemed or represents the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed or inaccurate particulars have been furnished. Hence, he levied minimum penalty of Rs.2,81,669/- u/s 271(1)(c

MOULIMANI IMPEX PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 1(1)(3), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 533/SRT/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1), which raises a presumption that the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income shall be deemed or represents the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed or inaccurate particulars have been furnished. Hence, he levied minimum penalty of Rs.2,81,669/- u/s 271(1)(c

SHRI VIJAY CHAMPAK PATEL,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 281/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.281/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Vijay Champak Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pachhlu Faliyu, Near Water Ward-6(4), Surat Tank, Bharthana, Vesu, Surat

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah - CAFor Respondent: Shri O P Meena – Sr. DR
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54ESection 54F

disallowance under section 54EC of Rs. 50,00,000/-. It was argued that once the Tribunal has taken a view that the assessee is entitled for full deduction under section 54EC, no penalty under section 271(1)(c

SHRI VIJAYSING P. SOLANKI,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3(1), SURAT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees (in ITA No

ITA 697/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.697 & 698/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kabra - ARFor Respondent: Ms Anupama Singla – Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54B

271(1)(c) of the Act. She contends that assessee has claimed deduction under section 54B of the Act knowingly to cheat the Revenue. She stated that case law relied on by the Learned Counsel in case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts, 322 ITR 158 (SC) is not applicable to the assessee’s case under consideration. She pointed out that

MAYUR MATHURDAS PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO WARD 1(3)(7), SURAT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees (in ITA No

ITA 698/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.697 & 698/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kabra - ARFor Respondent: Ms Anupama Singla – Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54B

271(1)(c) of the Act. She contends that assessee has claimed deduction under section 54B of the Act knowingly to cheat the Revenue. She stated that case law relied on by the Learned Counsel in case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts, 322 ITR 158 (SC) is not applicable to the assessee’s case under consideration. She pointed out that

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 497/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 147Section 148Section 234DSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

1)(c) of the Act. On appeal before Ld. CIT(A) in quantum assessment, the disallowance of deduction under section 80IA was upheld. However, the disallowance of sludge disposal charges and depreciation was allowed. The Assessing Officer after receipt of order of Ld. CIT(A), levied the penalty under Section 271

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1845/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 147Section 148Section 234DSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

1)(c) of the Act. On appeal before Ld. CIT(A) in quantum assessment, the disallowance of deduction under section 80IA was upheld. However, the disallowance of sludge disposal charges and depreciation was allowed. The Assessing Officer after receipt of order of Ld. CIT(A), levied the penalty under Section 271

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ACIT.,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2019/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 147Section 148Section 234DSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

1)(c) of the Act. On appeal before Ld. CIT(A) in quantum assessment, the disallowance of deduction under section 80IA was upheld. However, the disallowance of sludge disposal charges and depreciation was allowed. The Assessing Officer after receipt of order of Ld. CIT(A), levied the penalty under Section 271

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1474/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 147Section 148Section 234DSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

1)(c) of the Act. On appeal before Ld. CIT(A) in quantum assessment, the disallowance of deduction under section 80IA was upheld. However, the disallowance of sludge disposal charges and depreciation was allowed. The Assessing Officer after receipt of order of Ld. CIT(A), levied the penalty under Section 271

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ACIT.,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2018/AHD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 147Section 148Section 234DSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

1)(c) of the Act. On appeal before Ld. CIT(A) in quantum assessment, the disallowance of deduction under section 80IA was upheld. However, the disallowance of sludge disposal charges and depreciation was allowed. The Assessing Officer after receipt of order of Ld. CIT(A), levied the penalty under Section 271

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX., BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 498/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 147Section 148Section 234DSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

1)(c) of the Act. On appeal before Ld. CIT(A) in quantum assessment, the disallowance of deduction under section 80IA was upheld. However, the disallowance of sludge disposal charges and depreciation was allowed. The Assessing Officer after receipt of order of Ld. CIT(A), levied the penalty under Section 271

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1471/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 147Section 148Section 234DSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

1)(c) of the Act. On appeal before Ld. CIT(A) in quantum assessment, the disallowance of deduction under section 80IA was upheld. However, the disallowance of sludge disposal charges and depreciation was allowed. The Assessing Officer after receipt of order of Ld. CIT(A), levied the penalty under Section 271

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1473/AHD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 147Section 148Section 234DSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

1)(c) of the Act. On appeal before Ld. CIT(A) in quantum assessment, the disallowance of deduction under section 80IA was upheld. However, the disallowance of sludge disposal charges and depreciation was allowed. The Assessing Officer after receipt of order of Ld. CIT(A), levied the penalty under Section 271

HAMILTON HOUSEWARES PVT.LTD.,,SILVASA vs. THE ACIT.,VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 353/SRT/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.380/Srt/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Hamilton Housewares Private Limited, V The Assistant Commissioner Of Plot No.49/50, Dan Udyog Industrial Income Tax, S. Estte, Amli, Piparia, Silvassa, U.T. Of D. Vapi Circle, Vapi. & N. H. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcd 1683 Q (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.353/Srt/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Hamilton Housewares Private Limited, V The Assistant Commissioner Of Plot No.49/50, Dan Udyog Industrial S. Income Tax, Estte, Amli, Piparia, Silvassa, U.T. Of D. Vapi Circle, Vapi. & N. H. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcd 1683 Q (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.Gopala Krishnan - Ca Respondent By : Ms.Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 23/06/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/06/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2013-14 & (A.Y.) 2011-12, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Order & Penalty Order Passed By The Ld.Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act & Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri A.Gopala Krishnan - CAFor Respondent: Ms.Anupama Singla – Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

section 271(1)(c) of the Act), in ITA No.353/SRT/2017, for the A.Y. 2012-13, wherein the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: “01. The order imposing penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is contrary to the facts of the case and prejudicial to the Law. The appellant has neither concealed its income