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.

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

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,090Mumbai855Jaipur238Ahmedabad218Bangalore178Karnataka123Indore115Hyderabad100Kolkata93Pune93Chandigarh82Chennai76Raipur48Surat44Lucknow42Calcutta35Rajkot31Cuttack29Visakhapatnam26Amritsar26Allahabad26Agra25Cochin22Nagpur20Ranchi15Dehradun8Patna7Guwahati6Varanasi6SC5Jabalpur4Telangana3Jodhpur2Gauhati1Rajasthan1Panaji1

Key Topics

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

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

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

ITTA/621/2017
HC Telangana
23 Aug 2018

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

Section 260A

vi. Sanjeev Kakkar - He did his masters in Mechanical Engineering. His designation is 'Sales Director'. He is an employee of GEIIPL working since 2000. Annexure 10 discussing his roles and responsibilities provides through the sixth bullet point that:' As a part of his job, Sanjeev would understand the requirements of clients in terms of equipment required as well as financing

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