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 292Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi115Mumbai111Bangalore69Kolkata31Chennai19Pune17Jaipur16Chandigarh16Indore13Cochin10Cuttack8Ahmedabad6Nagpur6Hyderabad5Jabalpur5Amritsar4Visakhapatnam3Lucknow2Patna2Agra2Raipur1Rajkot1SC1Surat1Karnataka1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)8Section 50C3Addition to Income3Section 142(1)2Section 2712Section 2922Penalty2

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. HARI PRASAD BHARARIA, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue as well as C

ITA 532/VIZ/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleacit, Central Circle-1, Vs. Sri Hari Prasad Bhararia, Visakhapatnam. B-101, Vuda Apartments, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Ablpb 6853 A (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.43/Viz/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 532/Viz/2018) (Asst. Year : 2009-10) Sri Hari Prasad Bhararia, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, B-101, Vuda Apartments, Visakhapatnam. Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Ablpb 6853 A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Sonawal – Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 271Section 274Section 292Section 292B

292B which came up for discussion in the case of CIT vs. Jagat Novel Exhibitions(P) Ltd.,(201 3)356 ITR 559(Del),wherein it was held that "The aforesaid provision (section 2928) has been enacted to curtail and negate (Sri Hari Prasad Bhararia) technical pleas due to any defect, mistake or omission in a notice/summons/return. The provision was enacted

MEKA RANGANAYAKAMMA,KRISHNA DISTRICT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 119/VIZ/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Sri Madhukar Aves, Sr. AR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 50GSection 54G

U/s. 271(1) is not valid because it has not been specified whether it was issued for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and the specific item have not been ticked. However, it is seen from the penalty order that the penalty has been initiated for specific reason of concealment of income which is categorically mentioned

MAHANKALI JYOTHI,DUBLIN, USA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 22/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69A

U/s. 143(2) was originally issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Vijayawada vide DIN No. ITBA/AST/S/143(2)/2018- 8 19/1011595547(1), dated 17/08/2018 which remained unsigned. Later on, the same notice was manually signed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ongole and the Revenue has produced an acknowledgement slip stating that it has been delivered