BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

4 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 282clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi92Mumbai60Jaipur43Bangalore43Ahmedabad30Amritsar19Hyderabad18Allahabad17Kolkata17Pune16Indore14Chandigarh13Rajkot8Patna5Surat4Cochin4Visakhapatnam3Dehradun3Chennai2Nagpur1Jodhpur1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)5Section 254(1)4Penalty4Addition to Income4Section 37(1)3Section 283Section 373Section 234A3Deduction3

RUCHIT DINESHBHAI DOSHI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 2(2)(1), SURAT

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

ITA 216/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Ruchit Dineshbhai Doshi, I.T.O., C-10, 5/6, Somakanji Estate-2, Opp- Ward-2(2)(1), Vs. Sanidev Mandir, Magdalla Bo, Surat. Surat-395007 (Gujarat) Pan No. Afxpd 4008 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. It is therefore, prayed that above penalty levied by the assessing officer may please be deleted. 3. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before on in the course of hearing of the appeal.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee

Disallowance3

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)

282 ITR 24) on identical facts holding in favour of the assessee by inferring that functioning of sugar mill is different from milk cooperative. 9. Levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 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

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)

282 ITR 24) on identical facts holding in favour of the assessee by inferring that functioning of sugar mill is different from milk cooperative. 9. Levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 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

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)

282 ITR 24) on identical facts holding in favour of the assessee by inferring that functioning of sugar mill is different from milk cooperative. 9. Levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 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