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.

12 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 234Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi475Mumbai453Ahmedabad199Bangalore82Pune53Hyderabad43Jaipur41Kolkata38Rajkot29Allahabad23Karnataka21Indore21Raipur20Chandigarh12Surat12Amritsar11Dehradun11Lucknow10Guwahati7Patna6Agra5Chennai5Jodhpur5Nagpur3Cuttack3Visakhapatnam3SC2Jabalpur1Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)14Addition to Income12Penalty10Section 1489Section 254(1)7Section 143(3)7Section 234A7Section 1476Deduction5

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

u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act, in the assessment order in respect of long term capital gain only for one limb, that is, concealment of income, vide para 9 of assessment order. However, in the penalty order under section 271(1) (c ) of the Act, the assessing officer has initiated the penalty for both limbs, that is, concealment

Section 69A4
Disallowance4
Section 14A3

SADIK DAUDBHAI NANDOLIYA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), BHARUCH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 889/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Jigar Adhiyaru, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 271(1)(b)Section 44ASection 69Section 69A

penalty proceedings as initiated u/s 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c) & 271Fof the Act being unlawful and devoid of any merit kindly be quashed. Sadik Daudbhai Nandoliya vs. ITO Asst. Year –2012-13 - 3– 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in charging interest u/s 234A

LIGI BIJU KODDASARY,VAPI vs. ITO, WARD-5, VAPI, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 727/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.727/Srt/2024 (Ay 2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Ligi Biju Koddasary Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, B-302, Sapphire Apartment, Vapi, 8Th Floor Fortune Square बनाम Raveshia Park, Murarji Circle, Ii, Above Tvz. Chala, Vs Gidc, Vapi-396 195 Vapi-396 191 [Pan : Anypk 5855 G] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

234C & 234D are unjustified. 9. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is unjustified.” 2. Rival submissions of the parties have been heard and record perused. The Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld.AR) of the assessee submits that assessee filed first appeal on 16.04.2022. Notice under section

SHAUKET HUSSAIN M PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(9), SURAT

In the result, the grounds of the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 250/SRT/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shaukethussain M Patel, I.T.O., A-504, Sanjay Residency, Ward-1(3)(9), Vs. Causeway Road, Room No. 509, 5Th Floor, Rander, Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395009. Surat-395001. Pan No. Artpp 2101 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 144Section 234ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 54F

234C of the Act is unjustified. 8. Initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is unjustified. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal.” 2. At the outset of hearing, the learned Authorised

SHREE NARMADA KHAND UDYOG SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.,NARMADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), BHARUCH

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse are allowed

ITA 104/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 234ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 37Section 37(1)

234C & 234D of the Act is unjustified. 10. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is unjustified.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a cooperative society, engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of white sugar and its by-products such as molasses, press-mud, bagasse and etcetera. The assessee

SHREE NARMADA KHAND UDYOG SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.,NARMADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), BHARUCH

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse are allowed

ITA 102/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 234ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 37Section 37(1)

234C & 234D of the Act is unjustified. 10. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is unjustified.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a cooperative society, engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of white sugar and its by-products such as molasses, press-mud, bagasse and etcetera. The assessee

SHREE NARMADA KHAND UDYOG SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.,NARMADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), BHARUCH

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse are allowed

ITA 103/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 234ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 37Section 37(1)

234C & 234D of the Act is unjustified. 10. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is unjustified.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a cooperative society, engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of white sugar and its by-products such as molasses, press-mud, bagasse and etcetera. The assessee

BAKIR PACHORIWALA,VALSAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, , VALSAD

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 280/SRT/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) Bakir Pachorwala, I.T.O., Raj Sheet Metal Engg. Works, C- Ward-1, Vs. 1/16-B, Gidc Estate, Pardi, Valsad. Valsad. Pan No. Adxpp 9237 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 115BSection 168Section 234ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

234C and 234D of the Act is unjustified. 4. Initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is unjustified. 5. The order passed by the AO and confirmed by CIT(A) is illegal, invalid and bad in law and required to be quashed.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that

SHRI VINAYAK RATILAL MEHTA,BHARUCH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee and Revenue are allowed to the extent indicated above

ITA 778/SRT/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.778 & 724/Srt/2018 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Vinayak Ratilal Mehta Vs. The Income Tax Officer, A-2, Sundaram Society, Gnfc To Ward-1, Surat. Zadeshwar Road, Bharuch 392011 [Pan: Afqpm6438M The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Vinayak Ratilal Mehta A-2, Ward-1, Surat. Sundaram Society, Gnfc To Zadeshwar Road, Bharuch 392011 [Pan: Afqpm6438M अपीलाथ" / Assessee ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, A.R. राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla – Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 68

234C & 234D of the Act is unjustified. 4. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not justified. The assessee craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal.” 4. The appeal filed by assessee

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3),, VADODARA vs. SHRI VINAYAK RATILAL MEHTA,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee and Revenue are allowed to the extent indicated above

ITA 724/SRT/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.778 & 724/Srt/2018 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Vinayak Ratilal Mehta Vs. The Income Tax Officer, A-2, Sundaram Society, Gnfc To Ward-1, Surat. Zadeshwar Road, Bharuch 392011 [Pan: Afqpm6438M The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Vinayak Ratilal Mehta A-2, Ward-1, Surat. Sundaram Society, Gnfc To Zadeshwar Road, Bharuch 392011 [Pan: Afqpm6438M अपीलाथ" / Assessee ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, A.R. राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla – Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 68

234C & 234D of the Act is unjustified. 4. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not justified. The assessee craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal.” 4. The appeal filed by assessee

KETAN NATVARLAL SHAH,VAPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 894/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year:2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234BSection 274

penalty proceedings u/s 274 rws 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in charging interest u/s 234B and 234C

SHRI GORDHANBHAI R. ASODARIA,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, SURAT

In the result, the ground No

ITA 267/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Shri Gordhanbhai R. Asodaria, A.C.I.T., 8, Raghuvir Bunglow, City Light Road, Central Circle-3, Vs. Parle Point, Surat-395007. Surat. Pan No. Abapa 6910 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 10Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 234ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

234C and 234D and when no such interest is chargeable. It may be deleted. 4. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the assessee’s case, the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in dismissing ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal before him challenging initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) on the ground that