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.

7 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 2(19)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,506Mumbai2,167Ahmedabad610Bangalore539Jaipur532Kolkata437Chennai382Pune323Hyderabad269Indore260Chandigarh171Surat164Raipur141Karnataka138Rajkot104Amritsar87Visakhapatnam86Cochin64Lucknow63Allahabad61Nagpur47Agra42Guwahati40Calcutta36Cuttack34Ranchi33Dehradun33Patna24Panaji22Kerala14Varanasi12Jodhpur11SC11Jabalpur8Telangana7Rajasthan4Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)8Penalty4Section 260A3Section 54F3Addition to Income3Section 36(1)2Section 3022Section 3642Section 201

Commissioenr of Income Tax vs. Dr. T. Ravi Kumar

ITTA/399/2011HC Telangana24 Jul 2013
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 143(3)?” 3. The counsel for the appellant and the assessee has taken us to the judgment of ITAT which held as under:- We have heard rival submissions and considered them carefully. After considering the submissions and perusing the material on record, we find that the id. CIT (A) was justified in canceling the levy of penalty

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)
2
Deduction2
Section 45(1)
Section 48
Section 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

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)

2. Reserve for Doubtful/ Loss Assets-Claim u/s 36(1)(viii) [c]: ITA No. 625/2017+connected Page 12 of 16 The Bank has provided a sum of Rs. 4.50 crores as Reserve for Doubtful assets/ loss assets covered by the provisions of Section 36(1) (viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Keeping in view the privilege available to Banks

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

The appeal stands dismissed

ITTA/577/2011HC Telangana28 Feb 2012

19,340/- being commission paid by it to M/s. Mrigiya Electronics Industries Private Limited for giving accommodation entries, when it was deposed by it’s Director that the company was involved in providing accommodation entries after charging commission for the same?” 3. The facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in real estate business and has launched

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

19 to the assessee's letter pursuant to the Hon'ble High Court's order explains his role and responsibilities. It has been written, inter alia, that,: 'Kenneth's profile was more of locating opportunity and providing marketing development strategies for the GE overseas entity.... Kenneth had no authority to take any decision with respect to the sale of product/parts

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

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)

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.13,61,450/- made by the AO for not charging of interest on loans and advances given to Directors and Subsidiaries. 3. It is prayed that the order of the ld. CIT(A) be set aide and that