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.

2 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 55Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai25Pune7Ahmedabad3Lucknow2Surat2Delhi2Kolkata2Jaipur1Chandigarh1Rajkot1SC1Bangalore1

Key Topics

Section 2504Section 55A2Addition to Income2

LATE MANISHBHAI NAGINDAS GAJJAR,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for in ITA

ITA 1335/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1335/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/A.Y.:2011-12 Late Manishbhai Nagindas Gajjar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Through L/H Illaben Manishbhai Ward- 6(3) Surat Gajjar, 316Kh Luhar Mohhallo , Palgam, Chaurasi Surat 359009 Pan: Aovpg 1860K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143Section 55A

u/s. 55A of the Act by the AO to estimate Fair Market Value (FMV) as on 01.04.1981 of agricultural land despite value adopted by the appellant was much more than FMV determined by the DVO. Ld CIT (A) ought to have quashed such action of the AO beyond the mandate of the section. 2. Ld. CIT (A) erred

KANTILAL DAYALBHAI RAMBHAI ,SURAT vs. ITO(INT. TAX), SURAT

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

ITA 928/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: Disposed
ITAT Surat
21 Jan 2025
AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.928/Srt/2024

Section 250Section 253(3)Section 45

55A whereby fair market value on the date of selling of agriculture ancestral property to be obtained in order to determine the taxability of long-term capital gain which is bad in law hence require to be deleted. 4. The learned AO has erred in making addition of Rs.3,79,59,184/- which is sale consideration against sale of ancestral