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.

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

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,506Mumbai2,167Ahmedabad610Bangalore539Jaipur532Kolkata437Chennai382Pune323Hyderabad269Indore260Chandigarh171Surat164Raipur141Karnataka138Rajkot104Amritsar87Visakhapatnam86Cochin64Lucknow63Allahabad61Nagpur47Agra42Guwahati40Calcutta36Cuttack34Ranchi33Dehradun33Patna24Panaji22Kerala14Varanasi12Jodhpur11SC11Jabalpur8Telangana7Rajasthan4Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 80P(2)(a)18Section 80P18Section 143(3)14Section 271(1)(c)14Disallowance10Penalty9Deduction8Section 2717Section 254

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
Section 2(19)6
Section 36
Addition to Income6

DILIP KUMAR SINGH,BALLIA vs. ITO, WARD - 2(4),, BALLIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 72/VNS/2018[2010-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi22 Jul 2022AY 2010-2012

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharay: 2010-11 Sh. Dilip Kumar Singh, V. Income Tax Officer, Sarani Koth, Sikanderpur, Ballia, Ward-2(4), Ballia Uttar Pradesh Pan-Adups6163M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.07.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

19,622/-. The CIT(A) restricted the penalty only in respect of addition of Rs. 3,11,649/- against which the assessee has filed the present appeal. 4. The learned DR has submitted that in the assessment passed under section 143(3), the AO made the addition of Rs. 63,89,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposit

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 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

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 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 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

M/S BANARAS SWARN KALA KENDRA PVT. LTD.,,VARANASI vs. ACIT, CC, VARANASI

ITA 4/VNS/2019[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi21 Nov 2022AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Banaras Swarn Kala Kendra Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of Ck-65/70A, Bari Piari, V. Income Tax, Varanasi-221002, U.P. Central Circle, Aaykar Bhawan, M A Road, Varanasi-221002, U.P. Pan:Aaccb1623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assesseeby: Shri A.K. Pandey, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Neeraj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2022

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Pandey, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Neeraj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153A

Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA is being initiated separately on this point. (Addition of Rs. 8,06,04,299/-) That is how the addition of Rs. 8,06,04,299/- was made by the AO, which was the first addition made by the AO , w.r.t. differential in value of stock based on seized material vis-à-vis stock found

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

M/S AVANTIKA INFRAVENTURE (P) LTD.,,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VARANASI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment Years

ITA 22/VNS/2020[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi13 Oct 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Vishwakarma, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 234ASection 36

2 arid para 3 respectively of its reply dated 02.11.2018 has failed to state M/s Avantika Infraventures (P) Ltd. any reason or establish any relation for advancement of such loan. Again in its reply dated 22.11.2018 the assessee has submitted that, "It is pertinent to mention that the assessee company has received/made interest free loan/advances from Tulsiani Construction & Developers

M/S AVANTIKA INFRAVENTURE (P) LTD.,,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VARANASI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment Years

ITA 23/VNS/2020[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi13 Oct 2022AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Vishwakarma, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 234ASection 36

2 arid para 3 respectively of its reply dated 02.11.2018 has failed to state M/s Avantika Infraventures (P) Ltd. any reason or establish any relation for advancement of such loan. Again in its reply dated 22.11.2018 the assessee has submitted that, "It is pertinent to mention that the assessee company has received/made interest free loan/advances from Tulsiani Construction & Developers