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.

4 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 80clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,176Mumbai976Jaipur298Ahmedabad284Bangalore203Chennai176Hyderabad144Indore137Pune134Karnataka133Kolkata120Chandigarh113Raipur109Surat87Rajkot66Amritsar58Cochin43Visakhapatnam39Nagpur39Lucknow36Calcutta34Cuttack26Allahabad25Patna18Guwahati18Agra12Dehradun7Ranchi6Jodhpur6SC5Jabalpur5Telangana4Varanasi3Panaji2Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)4Section 260A3Section 36(1)2Section 2602Section 3022Section 3642Section 2012Penalty2

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/s Hyderabad Security and Off Set Printers Ltd.,

ITTA/500/2017HC Telangana07 Nov 2017

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

Section 10BSection 260

80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560095 ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.) AND : M/s DECCAN MINING SYNDICATE PVT. LTD., S-7, 2ND FLOOR, ESTEEM ARCADE, NO.26, RACE COURCE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001 PAN:AAACD 7081R …RESPONDENT (BY SRI A.SHANKAR & SRI M.LAVA, ADVS.) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED

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 260A
Section 271(1)(c)
Section 28
Section 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 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

section. Nonetheless, as an overall matter, GE is correct that in some instances, ITAT‟s characterization of certain conversations appears to overstate the importance of the activities in India (for e.g. e- mail chain on Reliance-GT Exhaust Height; e-mail chain on confirmation of RIL PO No. DG8/3389741). Nevertheless, in many other instances, ITAT‟s decision is sound