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.

5 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Survey u/s 133Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi85Bangalore83Mumbai82Hyderabad65Pune58Jaipur55Rajkot40Indore29Chennai29Ahmedabad23Kolkata22Amritsar19Chandigarh19Patna16Ranchi15Surat15Nagpur8Lucknow7Jodhpur7Raipur6Visakhapatnam5Cuttack4Guwahati4Allahabad3Panaji3Cochin3Jabalpur1Dehradun1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)28Section 133A5Section 1485Survey u/s 133A5Section 143(3)4Addition to Income4Penalty4Section 143(2)3Section 147

RAGHURAM HUME PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED,GUNTUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 233/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shrik Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./ I.T.A.233/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2016-17) Raghuram Hume Pipes Private Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Guntur-522002. Income Tax, Pan: Aaccr6125N Circle-2(1), Guntur. (अपीलधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)
3
Unexplained Investment2
Disallowance2
Limitation/Time-bar2
Section 274(2)

survey U/s. 133A of the Act was conducted in this case on 25/03/2019 and subsequently, initiated proceedings U/s. 147 of the Act. In response to the notice U/s. 148 of the Act issued on 30/03/2019, the assessee filed the return of income on 28/12/2019 admitting a total income of Rs. 4,03,16,660/-. Subsequently, notices U/s

POTLURI PHANENDRA BABU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 241/VIZ/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.241 & 242/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 & 2012-13) Potluri Phanendra Babu, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-3(2), Pan: Agspp 7638 K Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 15/06/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 10/08/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

survey U/s. 133A was conducted in the case of the assessee on 5/11/2013 wherein huge investment was found which was not disclosed by the assessee while filing the return of income. The case was then reopened U/s. 147 of the Act and the assessment order was passed on 31/3/2015 u/s. 143(3) r.w.s

POTLURI PHANENDRA BABU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 242/VIZ/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.241 & 242/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 & 2012-13) Potluri Phanendra Babu, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-3(2), Pan: Agspp 7638 K Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 15/06/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 10/08/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

survey U/s. 133A was conducted in the case of the assessee on 5/11/2013 wherein huge investment was found which was not disclosed by the assessee while filing the return of income. The case was then reopened U/s. 147 of the Act and the assessment order was passed on 31/3/2015 u/s. 143(3) r.w.s

GINJALA ATCHIRAJU, L/R. OF GINJALA SIMHADRI RAJU, ,KAKINADA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, , KAKINADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 159/VIZ/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Sri G.V.N. Hari, ARFor Respondent: Sri Sankar Pandi, Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

penalty order U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was passed on 28/06/2019. 2. The facts of the case are that a survey operation U/s. 133A

APPARAO MUTCHAKARLA,VIZAG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIZAG

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 4/VIZ/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Apr 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.04/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2007-08) Apparao Mutchakarla, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Vizag. Income Tax, Pan: Ahvpm 9813 F Ward-1(4), Visakhapatnam. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/03/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 19/04/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

survey U/s. 133A of the Act was conducted in the assessee’s case and in the case of M/s. A.R. Builders. Subsequently, during the course of scrutiny proceedings in the case of the assessee for the AY 2008- 09 to 2011-12, it was noticed that the assessee has introduced a capital of Rs. 6 lakhs in cash