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.

6 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 12clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi3,684Mumbai3,078Ahmedabad843Bangalore691Kolkata679Jaipur672Pune535Indore475Chennai462Surat379Hyderabad373Chandigarh270Raipur200Amritsar162Rajkot154Karnataka140Lucknow133Visakhapatnam128Cochin105Nagpur101Cuttack99Agra68Allahabad66Ranchi59Guwahati56Dehradun48Calcutta37Panaji35Jabalpur31Jodhpur28Patna28Kerala14Varanasi12SC12Telangana6Rajasthan4Gauhati1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)6Section 260A3Section 54F3Penalty3Section 36(1)2Section 3022Section 3642Section 2012Deduction2

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Nara Constructions,

ITTA/672/2017HC Telangana15 Nov 2017

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. However, Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) states that where in respect of any facts material to computation of total income of an assessee, the assessee offers no explanation or where an assessee offers an explanation, which he is ITA No. 625/2017+connected Page 3 of 16 not able

The Commissioner of Income Tax -III vs. Sri T.C. Reddy

The appeal stands dismissed

Addition to Income2
ITTA/577/2011HC Telangana28 Feb 2012

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) r.w 274 of the Income-tax Act for concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars are initiated separately. (iv) The assessee has booked various expenses of contractual nature, vide order sheet entry dated 29.12.2009, the assessee was asked to show cause why the same should not disallowed u/s40a(ia). In response thereto the assessee

M/S.R.S.RANGADAS vs. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are disposed of, with no order as to costs

ITTA/406/2005HC Telangana19 Oct 2022

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 2(47)Section 271(1)(c)Section 45(1)Section 48Section 54F

u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961? ITA No. 405/2005 (3) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in taking the market value of the shares quoted at the stock exchange on 05.05.1998 as the basis for computing the capital gains under Section 48 of the Income Tax Act?" 2. ITA No.389/2007 filed by the Director of Income

Commissioner of Income Tax-2, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITTA/407/2011HC Telangana17 Nov 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,SANJAY KUMAR

Section 271(1)(c)

Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars/concealment of the income are being initiated separately on this issue.” Aggrieved by the order passed by the AO, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) however deleted the impugned disallowances with the following observations: “9. After considering rival contentions and perusing material on record

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Shri Raaj Kumar Jain

ITTA/147/2013HC Telangana28 Jun 2013
For Appellant: - Sri Yug Mohit Chaudhary assistedFor Respondent: - A.G.A., Sri Amit Mishra, Sri Gyan
Section 156(3)Section 201Section 302Section 363Section 364Section 366Section 376

Section 27 begins with a proviso and states that when any fact is deposed to as discovered, in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved, 49 whether it amounts to a confession

PR COMMR OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. K RAVINDER REDDY, HYDERABAD

ITTA/621/2017HC Telangana23 Aug 2018

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

Section 260A

12 to the assessee's letter pursuant to the Hon'ble High Court's order explains his roles and responsibilities. It has been written that, inter alia, : 'Pratyush was not involved in any sales..... was never involved in negotiating deals, terms and conditions and pricing for or on behalf of any GE overseas entity. He was more involved in overall