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.

1 result for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 56(2)(viib)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi43Mumbai24Indore8Pune7Kolkata5Raipur4Chandigarh3Ahmedabad2Amritsar2Hyderabad2Jaipur2Nagpur2Cochin1Bangalore1SC1Surat1Visakhapatnam1

Key Topics

Section 69C2

KUNAPAREDDY SUJATHA,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VIJAYAWADA

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

ITA 444/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Balakrishnan. Sassessment Year: 2016-17 Kunapareddy Sujatha, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 3(1), Vijayawada. Vijayawada. Pan : Akfpk1757R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Ar. Revenue By: Ms. K. Sandhya Rani, Sr.Dr. Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Ms. K. Sandhya Rani, Sr.DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69C

viib) of the Act towards difference between SRO value and actual consideration paid for purchase of immovable property. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.4,50,350 made by the assessing officer u/s 69C of the Act towards alleged unexplained payment of stamp duty and registration charges.” 3. The brief