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 5Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi136Mumbai109Kolkata64Jaipur64Pune62Indore38Ahmedabad34Bangalore21Hyderabad17Amritsar17Raipur17Chennai16Ranchi16Surat12Cochin10Guwahati9Cuttack8Chandigarh7Patna7Panaji3Visakhapatnam2Rajkot2Calcutta1Karnataka1Jodhpur1Nagpur1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)25Section 3718Section 153A12Penalty12Addition to Income12Section 234A8Deduction8Disallowance8Section 1326

SURESH B DESAI,,SURAT vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1721/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A.No’S.1720 & 1721/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Suresh B Desai, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 101, Vishal Apartment, Near Jamna Income Tax, Central Circle – Nagar Bus Stand, Ghod Dod Road, 3, Surat. Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Aappd 7237 H] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Rasesh Shah – Ca िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri S.R.Meena –Sr.Dr राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By 26.07.2019 सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 26.07.2019 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On: आदेश /O R D E R Per O.P.Meena, Am: The Above Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The 1. Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Surat (In Short The “Cit(A)”) Dated 29.05.2017 For The A.Y. 2011-12 & 2012-13 Challenging The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act Amounting To Rs.2,01,980/- & Rs.18,370/- Respectively.

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

penalty under Section 271(1)(c), what has to be seen is whether there is any concealment in the Suresh B Desai Vs. DCIT, C.C.-3, Surat /ITA No’s.1720 & 1721/AHD/2017 A.Y. 2011-12 & 12-13 Page 8 of 9 return filed by the assessee under Section 153A, and not vis-a vis the original return under Section

Section 143(3)6
Section 2715
Section 132(4)4

SURESH B DESAI,,SURAT vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1720/AHD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A.No’S.1720 & 1721/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Suresh B Desai, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 101, Vishal Apartment, Near Jamna Income Tax, Central Circle – Nagar Bus Stand, Ghod Dod Road, 3, Surat. Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Aappd 7237 H] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Rasesh Shah – Ca िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri S.R.Meena –Sr.Dr राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By 26.07.2019 सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 26.07.2019 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On: आदेश /O R D E R Per O.P.Meena, Am: The Above Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The 1. Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Surat (In Short The “Cit(A)”) Dated 29.05.2017 For The A.Y. 2011-12 & 2012-13 Challenging The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act Amounting To Rs.2,01,980/- & Rs.18,370/- Respectively.

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

penalty under Section 271(1)(c), what has to be seen is whether there is any concealment in the Suresh B Desai Vs. DCIT, C.C.-3, Surat /ITA No’s.1720 & 1721/AHD/2017 A.Y. 2011-12 & 12-13 Page 8 of 9 return filed by the assessee under Section 153A, and not vis-a vis the original return under Section

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)

u/s 133A of the Act. As a result the appellant cannot be visited with the penalty as per specific provisions contained under Expl. 5A of section 271

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)

u/s 133A of the Act. As a result the appellant cannot be visited with the penalty as per specific provisions contained under Expl. 5A of section 271

SHREE GANESH KHAND UDHYOG,,BHARUCH vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, BHARUCH

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

ITA 248/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 234ASection 271Section 37

penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act is unjustified.” ITA 1190/AHD/2017/AY.2012-13/249 & 248/SRT/2018/2013-14 & 2014-15 Shree Ganesh Khand Udhyog Sahakari Mandli 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Cooperative Society is running Cooperative Sugar Mill engaged in production of sugar and its bye-products. The assessee filed its return of income for AY.2012-13

SHREE GANESH KHAND UDHYOG,,BHARUCH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3),, VADODARA

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

ITA 1190/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 234ASection 271Section 37

penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act is unjustified.” ITA 1190/AHD/2017/AY.2012-13/249 & 248/SRT/2018/2013-14 & 2014-15 Shree Ganesh Khand Udhyog Sahakari Mandli 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Cooperative Society is running Cooperative Sugar Mill engaged in production of sugar and its bye-products. The assessee filed its return of income for AY.2012-13

SHREE KHEDUT SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDALI LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2),, VADODARA

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

ITA 1243/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 234ASection 271Section 37

penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act is unjustified.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Cooperative Society is running Cooperative Sugar Mill engaged in production of sugar and its bye-products. The assessee filed its return of income for AY.2012-13 on 25.09.2012 declaring at ‘Nil’ income. The case was selected for scrutiny

SHREE KHEDUT SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDLI LTD.,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), BHARUCH

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

ITA 251/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 234ASection 271Section 37

penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act is unjustified.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Cooperative Society is running Cooperative Sugar Mill engaged in production of sugar and its bye-products. The assessee filed its return of income for AY.2012-13 on 25.09.2012 declaring at ‘Nil’ income. The case was selected for scrutiny

SHREE KHEDUT SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDLI,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), BHARUCH

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

ITA 252/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 234ASection 271Section 37

penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act is unjustified.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Cooperative Society is running Cooperative Sugar Mill engaged in production of sugar and its bye-products. The assessee filed its return of income for AY.2012-13 on 25.09.2012 declaring at ‘Nil’ income. The case was selected for scrutiny

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)

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 filed its return of income

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)

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 filed its return of income

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)

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 filed its return of income