BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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”+ Cash Depositclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi404Mumbai402Jaipur213Ahmedabad194Hyderabad170Chennai116Bangalore93Rajkot87Indore85Surat82Pune75Kolkata62Chandigarh54Amritsar50Nagpur41Visakhapatnam40Cochin37Lucknow33Allahabad31Raipur26Agra20Guwahati20Jabalpur18Patna17Cuttack12Jodhpur10Varanasi6Dehradun4Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 14720Section 14811Section 271(1)(c)5Section 1445Penalty5Cash Deposit4Section 143(2)3Section 142(1)3Addition to Income3

M/S ROYAL SYMBOL REAL ESTATE AGROTECH CORPORATION LTD.,BALLIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(5), BALLIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 34/VNS/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi13 Apr 2023AY 2014-2015
For Appellant: Shri O.P.Shukla,Advocate.ARFor Respondent: Shri .A.K. Singh.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

cash deposits in the bank accounts. The Royal Symbol Real Estate Assessing Officer found the assesee’s explanations are satisfactory and passed the assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act dated29.09.2021 determining the total loss of Rs.6,83,308/-.The AO has initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271

Section 2502
Section 143(3)2
Limitation/Time-bar2

SANJAY TIWARI,GORAKHPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 22/VNS/2021[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi13 Feb 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2015-16 Sanjay Tiwari V. The Ito Prop. Tiwari Automobiles Ward 2(1) Bewari Chowk, Gola Bazar Gorakhpur Gorakhpur Pan:Agupt4822H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09 02 2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 02 2023 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144ASection 271B

penalty proceedings U/S 271(1) (C) 271 (1) (b) and 271 B of I.T. Act 1961. The Ld A.O. has estimated the Turnover from business at Rs. 1, 08, 62.500/- being deposits made in Bank A/c and adopted N.P. rate @ 8%. After treating the entire deposits as Turnover determined Income of Rs. 8, 69,000/-Aggrieved with the order

PANKAJ KUMAR GUPTA,AZAMGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 125/VNS/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi10 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: S/Shri Piyush Kumar Kamal and Abhishek Kumar Gupta, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Smt Amandeep Kaur, D.R
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(c)

cash deposits in Bank and held to be alleged unexplained credit u/s 69 of the Act. 3.1 That while confirming the above addition, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the factual substratum of the case, statutory provisions of law and as such, addition so made and sustained is highly misconceived, totally arbitrary, wholly unjustified

PANKAJ KUMAR GUPTA,AZAMGARH vs. ITO WARD3(1), INCOME TAX OFFICE AZAMGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 126/VNS/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi10 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: S/Shri Piyush Kumar Kamal and Abhishek Kumar Gupta, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Smt Amandeep Kaur, D.R
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(c)

cash deposits in Bank and held to be alleged unexplained credit u/s 69 of the Act. 3.1 That while confirming the above addition, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the factual substratum of the case, statutory provisions of law and as such, addition so made and sustained is highly misconceived, totally arbitrary, wholly unjustified

M/S RAJENDRA PRASAD SRIVASTAVA,AZAMGARH vs. ACIT, RANGE - AZAMGARH, AZAMGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 164/VNS/2019[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi07 Feb 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Rajendra Prasad Srivastava, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Sarfuddinpur, Near Railway Tax, Range-Azamgarh Station, Azamgarh-276001 Pan-Aakfr2986A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh.Hari N. Singh Bisen, C.A. Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.02.2023

For Appellant: Sh.Hari N. Singh Bisen, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 145(3)

Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1) (c) is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 7. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the CIT(A) and contended that the AO has assessed the interest on FDR as income from other sources instead of part of net profit. It was contended that the assessee is a civil contractor

BYAS PRASAD VERMA,KUSHINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4), KUSHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2/VNS/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi10 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Byas Prasad Verma V. The Income Tax Officer Vill. Dhaurahara Ward 2(4) Nadwa Bishunpur Kushinagar Fazilnagar, Kushinagar (U.P) Tan/Pan:Amupv6031E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Smt Amandeep Kaur, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.07.2023, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits To The Tune Of Rs.16,45,000/- In His Saving Bank Account. In Order To Examine These Facts, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Reopened The Case Of The Assessee Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act. Thereafter, The Ao Issued Statutory Notices To The Assessee, Requiring The Assessee To Furnish The Source Of Cash

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt Amandeep Kaur, D.R
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 69A

cash deposits of Rs.16,45,000/- made by the assessee in his bank account during the year under consideration as his unexplained income and added the same to the total income of the assessee under section 69A of the Act. Apart from this, the AO also added a sum of Rs.75,594/- to the total income of the assessee under