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.

5 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 34clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,556Mumbai1,407Ahmedabad404Jaipur345Bangalore230Indore202Kolkata193Pune170Surat167Hyderabad164Chennai156Raipur135Karnataka126Chandigarh110Rajkot85Amritsar63Lucknow61Allahabad46Cochin45Agra42Visakhapatnam40Nagpur40Calcutta35Cuttack26Panaji21Guwahati20Jodhpur15Kerala15Dehradun14SC9Patna9Varanasi9Jabalpur9Ranchi7Telangana5Rajasthan4

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)3Addition to Income3Section 260A2Section 3022Section 3642Section 2012Penalty2

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

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

The appeal stands dismissed

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

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

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

34 of 85 28.3. Section 2(e) of Foreign Exchange Management (Establishment in India of Branch of Office or Other place of business) Regulations, 2000 defines 'Liaison office' to mean a place of business to act as a channel of communication between the principal place of business or HO and entities in India, but which does not undertake any commercial/trading/industrial

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

34 categorically admits to having no knowledge of the name of the Court where he has been produced. Had SK indeed addressed the application to the ACMM, New Delhi, he would have also known the Court in which he was being produced to record his confession. Additionally, prior to 28.02.2007, SK was being produced before the learned CJM Ghaziabad. Hence