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.

5 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 46Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi212Mumbai131Jaipur60Ahmedabad56Kolkata26Hyderabad26Allahabad19Pune18Amritsar13Indore12Chandigarh12Chennai12Rajkot11Lucknow11Bangalore9Agra9Raipur7Guwahati5Dehradun5Surat5Cochin4Panaji3Visakhapatnam2Jodhpur2Patna1SC1Jabalpur1Varanasi1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)17Section 1486Penalty5Addition to Income5Section 132(4)4Section 1324Section 133A4Section 143(3)4Survey u/s 133A

LATE NOORULKALAM ABDULMAJID SHAIKH REPRESENTED THROUGH HIS SON HUSNEJAMAL NURULKALAM SHAIKH,SURAT vs. ITO WARD-3(2)(1), SURAT

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

ITA 140/SRT/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

u/s 271(1)(c)] (Virtual hearing) Late Noorulkalam Abdulmajid Shaikh I.T.O., represented through his son Ward-3(2)(1), Vs. Husnejamal Nurulkalam Shaikh, Surat. (PAN: IAHPS 9546 C) 313, Phoolwadi, Survey No. 734, Saheb Telecom, Singanpore, Bharimata Road, Ved Road, Surat-395004. PAN No. AZVPS 7495 K Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee represented by Shri Hiren Vepari, CA Department represented

4
Cash Deposit3
Section 254(1)2
Section 1472

LATE NOORULKALAM ABDULMAJID SHAIKH REPRESENTED THROUGH HIS SON HUSNEJAMAL NURULKALAM SHAIKH,SURAT vs. ITO WARD-3(2)(1), SURAT

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

ITA 139/SRT/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

u/s 271(1)(c)] (Virtual hearing) Late Noorulkalam Abdulmajid Shaikh I.T.O., represented through his son Ward-3(2)(1), Vs. Husnejamal Nurulkalam Shaikh, Surat. (PAN: IAHPS 9546 C) 313, Phoolwadi, Survey No. 734, Saheb Telecom, Singanpore, Bharimata Road, Ved Road, Surat-395004. PAN No. AZVPS 7495 K Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee represented by Shri Hiren Vepari, CA Department represented

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI vs. M/S. BHARAT STEEL SUPPLIERS,, VAPI

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 652/AHD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Meenaassessment Year: 2007-08 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S.Remi Steel House, Ward-7, Vapi. Plot No.95 & 96, Gidc, Nr.Emkay Dyecasting, Silvassa Road, Vapi – 396 195. [Pan: Aaefr 2266 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2007-08 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S.Bharat Steel Suppliers, Income Tax, Vapi Circle, Vapi. Plot No.95 & 96, Gidc, Nr.Emkay Dyecasting, Silvassa Road, Vapi – 396 195. [Pan: Aacfb 5446 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act of Rs.31,41,900/- ignoring the fact that disclosure was made u/s 132(4) of the I.T.Act and the assessee is not eligible for the benefit of immunity and exemption under clause 2 of Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances

THE ITO, WARD- 7,, VAPI vs. M/S. REMI STEEL HOUSE,, VAPI

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 621/AHD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Meenaassessment Year: 2007-08 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S.Remi Steel House, Ward-7, Vapi. Plot No.95 & 96, Gidc, Nr.Emkay Dyecasting, Silvassa Road, Vapi – 396 195. [Pan: Aaefr 2266 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2007-08 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S.Bharat Steel Suppliers, Income Tax, Vapi Circle, Vapi. Plot No.95 & 96, Gidc, Nr.Emkay Dyecasting, Silvassa Road, Vapi – 396 195. [Pan: Aacfb 5446 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act of Rs.31,41,900/- ignoring the fact that disclosure was made u/s 132(4) of the I.T.Act and the assessee is not eligible for the benefit of immunity and exemption under clause 2 of Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances

PRIME CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD,SURAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), SURAT

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

ITA 19/SRT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.19/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 (Hybrid Hearing) Prime Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Vs. Acit, Khatodra, Ring Road, Surat – Circle-1(1)(1), 395002 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcp7117M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Hiren Vepari, Ca Respondent By Shri Aashish Pophare, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/11/2025

Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)

section 151 of the Act. The Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) observed that as per NMS data, the assessee had entered into the following bank transactions: (i) cash transactions of Rs.6,00,000/-, (ii) cash deposits of Rs.62,92,50,000/- in savings bank account and (iii) cash deposits of Rs.61,01,50,000/- with banking companies. Though there