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.

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

Sorted by relevance

Delhi950Mumbai897Jaipur292Ahmedabad250Chennai197Bangalore192Hyderabad187Indore143Kolkata138Raipur135Pune123Chandigarh97Rajkot79Amritsar59Surat56Allahabad53Visakhapatnam42Lucknow40Nagpur34Guwahati30Patna22Cochin21Ranchi18Panaji17Dehradun15Agra14Cuttack11Jodhpur9Varanasi8Jabalpur2

Key Topics

Section 80P(2)(a)18Section 80P18Section 143(3)13Penalty8Section 2717Disallowance7Section 2546Section 2(19)6Section 36Section 22

RAEES ALAM SIDDIQUI,GHAZIPUR vs. DY. C.I.T., RANGE - 1, VARANASI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 39/VNS/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi31 Dec 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Arvind Shukla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amandeep Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) without appreciating that the Ld. A.O. levied penalty without establishing that the explanation furnished by the appellant was false. 6. Because on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC erred in upholding penalty order pervasive to binding decisions interpreting provision explained by courts. 7. Because

6
Deduction6
Addition to Income2

DY. C. I. T., CIRCLE - 1, GORAKHPUR vs. BARODA UTTAR PRADESH GRAMIN BANK NOW AMALGAMATED WITH BARODA U.P. BANK, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 52/VNS/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi26 Sept 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Robin Chaudhary, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 2(19)Section 22Section 254Section 271Section 3Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

19 and 20 all of 2022 arise from the Assessment Orders for Assessment Year 2012-13, 2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2014-15 respectively, whereas the :-4-: Income Tax Appeal No. 23 of 2022 and Income Tax Appeals (Defective) Nos. 17, 21, 24 and 22 all of 2022 arise from the Penalty orders under Section 271

DY. C. I. T., CIRCLE - 1, GORAKHPUR vs. BARODA UTTAR PRADESH GRAMIN BANK NOW AMALGAMATED WITH BARODA U.P. BANK, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 53/VNS/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi26 Sept 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Robin Chaudhary, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 2(19)Section 22Section 254Section 271Section 3Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

19 and 20 all of 2022 arise from the Assessment Orders for Assessment Year 2012-13, 2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2014-15 respectively, whereas the :-4-: Income Tax Appeal No. 23 of 2022 and Income Tax Appeals (Defective) Nos. 17, 21, 24 and 22 all of 2022 arise from the Penalty orders under Section 271

DY. C. I. T., CIRCLE - 1, GORAKHPUR vs. BARODA UTTAR PRADESH GRAMIN BANK NOW AMALGAMATED WITH BARODA U. P.. BANK, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 54/VNS/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi26 Sept 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Robin Chaudhary, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 2(19)Section 22Section 254Section 271Section 3Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

19 and 20 all of 2022 arise from the Assessment Orders for Assessment Year 2012-13, 2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2014-15 respectively, whereas the :-4-: Income Tax Appeal No. 23 of 2022 and Income Tax Appeals (Defective) Nos. 17, 21, 24 and 22 all of 2022 arise from the Penalty orders under Section 271

DY. C. I. T., CIRCLE - 1, GORAKHPUR vs. BARODA UTTAR PRADESH GRAMIN BANK NOW AMALGAMATED WITH BARODA U.P. BANK, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 51/VNS/2023[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi26 Sept 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Robin Chaudhary, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 2(19)Section 22Section 254Section 271Section 3Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

19 and 20 all of 2022 arise from the Assessment Orders for Assessment Year 2012-13, 2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2014-15 respectively, whereas the :-4-: Income Tax Appeal No. 23 of 2022 and Income Tax Appeals (Defective) Nos. 17, 21, 24 and 22 all of 2022 arise from the Penalty orders under Section 271

DY. C. I. T., CIRCLE - 1, GORAKHPUR vs. BARODA UTTAR PRADESH GRAMIN BANK NOW AMALGAMATED WITH BARODA U.P. BANK, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 56/VNS/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi26 Sept 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Robin Chaudhary, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 2(19)Section 22Section 254Section 271Section 3Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

19 and 20 all of 2022 arise from the Assessment Orders for Assessment Year 2012-13, 2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2014-15 respectively, whereas the :-4-: Income Tax Appeal No. 23 of 2022 and Income Tax Appeals (Defective) Nos. 17, 21, 24 and 22 all of 2022 arise from the Penalty orders under Section 271

DY. C. I. T., CIRCLE - 1, GORAKHPUR vs. BARODA UTTAR PRADESH GRAMIN BANK NOW AMALGAMATED WITH BARODA U.P. BANK, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 55/VNS/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi26 Sept 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Robin Chaudhary, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 2(19)Section 22Section 254Section 271Section 3Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

19 and 20 all of 2022 arise from the Assessment Orders for Assessment Year 2012-13, 2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2014-15 respectively, whereas the :-4-: Income Tax Appeal No. 23 of 2022 and Income Tax Appeals (Defective) Nos. 17, 21, 24 and 22 all of 2022 arise from the Penalty orders under Section 271

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

2) of the Act on 21.9.2017, but there was no response from the assessee. Thereafter, a notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 25.9.2017, in response to which the ld. A. R. of the assessee appeared and sought adjournment. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued notices under section 142(1) of the Act, but there