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.

9 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 80P(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi39Mumbai30Bangalore26Cochin22Amritsar18Pune16Ahmedabad16Jaipur12Visakhapatnam11Indore9Surat9Chandigarh9Chennai6Varanasi6Rajkot6Lucknow5Nagpur4Kolkata3Jodhpur2Telangana1Guwahati1Panaji1Patna1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)36Section 80P(2)13Section 143(3)11Penalty9Deduction8Section 80P(2)(d)7Disallowance7Addition to Income7Section 143(2)

SHRI GUFRAN AHMED CHAUDHARI,,VALSAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, VAPI WARD-1,, VAPI

In the result, appeals of the Assessees (in ITA No

ITA 623/SRT/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.618/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Prakash F Singh, The Income Tax Officer, V Ward-7, Room No.810, 8Th Floor, Rbl, 63/751, Chanod Colony, Gidc, S. Vapi-396195 Fortune Square-Ii, Vapi Daman Road, Chala, Vapi-396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Asnps 4835N (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A. Gopalakrishnan,C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. AnupamaSingla– Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that penalty levied for both concealment as well as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income is double mind of the Assessing Officer. The Ld Counsel referred to the decisions of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samson Perinchery, 88 taxmann.com 413 and the decision

4
Section 271D4
Section 2744
Section 10A3

SHRI PRAKASH F.SINGH,,VAPI vs. THE ITO, WARD-7,, VAPI

In the result, appeals of the Assessees (in ITA No

ITA 618/SRT/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.618/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Prakash F Singh, The Income Tax Officer, V Ward-7, Room No.810, 8Th Floor, Rbl, 63/751, Chanod Colony, Gidc, S. Vapi-396195 Fortune Square-Ii, Vapi Daman Road, Chala, Vapi-396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Asnps 4835N (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A. Gopalakrishnan,C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. AnupamaSingla– Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that penalty levied for both concealment as well as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income is double mind of the Assessing Officer. The Ld Counsel referred to the decisions of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samson Perinchery, 88 taxmann.com 413 and the decision

RUGHNATHPURA SAURASHTRA NAGRIK DHIRAN SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), SURAT

In the result, both the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are dismissed

ITA 551/SRT/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80P(2)

penalty of Rs. 1,62,407/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. That on facts, in law and on evidence on record, it ought to have been held that there is no neither concealment of income nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The appellant craved

RUGHNATHPURA SAURASHTRA NAGRIK DHIRAN SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), SURAT

In the result, both the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are dismissed

ITA 552/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80P(2)

penalty of Rs. 1,62,407/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. That on facts, in law and on evidence on record, it ought to have been held that there is no neither concealment of income nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The appellant craved

RUGHNATHPURA SAURASHTRA NAGRIK DHIRAN SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), SURAT

In the result, both the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are dismissed

ITA 550/SRT/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80P(2)

penalty of Rs. 1,62,407/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. That on facts, in law and on evidence on record, it ought to have been held that there is no neither concealment of income nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The appellant craved

V. M. MANIYAR EXPORTS,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(2), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1368/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1368/Srt/2024 Assessment Year : 2015-16 (Hybrid Hearing) V.M.Maniyar Exports Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ Plot No.103-104, Surat Income-Tax, Circle-2(2), Surat Vs. Special Economic Zone, Gidc, Sachin,Surat-394230 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaifv 6884 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 10ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)

u/s 80P(2)(d) on account of interest income earned from State Bank of India and Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Ld. (DGVCL) and levied penalty under section 271(1

SHRI NEHRUNAGAR CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(5), SURAT

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

ITA 507/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.507/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Hearing) Shri Nehrunagar Co.Op. Housing Vs. The Ito, Society, Ward – 1(3)(5), Umang Hall, Nehrunagar Society, Surat Ichchanath Road, Surat – 395007. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabas2271H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 57Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

1) of the Act. Further, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Surat Vankar Sahakari Sangh Ltd., v. ACIT [2016] 72 taxmann.com 169 (Guj) held that assessee co-operative society is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) in respect of gross interest received from co- operative bank without adjusting interest paid to said bank. 16. The Co-ordinate

VIHAN VIBHAG CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(2)(5), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 707/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.707/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Vihan Vibhag Credit Co-Operative Vs. Ito, Society Ltd., Ward – 2(2)(5), At & Po: Vihan, Tal – Kamrej, Surat Tapi – 394320, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabav5113F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Akshay M. Modi, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/11/2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the appellant informed its new tax consultant who advised to file appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submitted that the delay was neither wilful nor intentional. He requested that the delay may be condoned in the interest of justice. ITA No.707/SRT/2025/AY.2017-18 Vihan Vibhag Credit

THE ITO, WARD -1,, SURAT vs. SHREE MADHI SURALI VIBHAG NAGRIK SAHAKARI DHIRAN MANDLI LTD., SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 612/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.612/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shree Madhi Surali Vibhag Nagrik, Ward-1, Bardoli. Sahakari Dhiran Mandli Ltd., Madhi, Tal.Bardoli, Dist: Surat. [Pan: Aadas 5644 L] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Shaunak Zaveri– Ca & Shri Yogesh Gamit - Advocate राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri Sreenivas T.Bidari – Cit-Dr

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271Section 271DSection 271ESection 274

1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the action of Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the penalty of Rs.28,66,93,898/- & Rs.27,12,01,825/- levied u/s. 271D and u/s. 271E of the I.T. Act respectively was not perverse as he based his decision relating to the deletion of the penalty