← All Phrases

“Section 275(1)(a)”

Section References (mined)Section 275Section 275(1)(a)96 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 275(1)(a) is CIT v. Eli Lily & Co. (312 ITR 225), cited in 221 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 275(1)(a)

CIT v. Eli Lily & Co.
312 ITR 225 · 2009 · Supreme Court
221
citing judgments

Section 195 of the Income Tax Act, which mandates tax withholding on payments to non-residents, applies only to sums that are otherwise chargeable to tax under the Act. Tax withholding provisions are not charging provisions.

CIT v. Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd.
261 ITR 275 · 2003 · Supreme Court
204
citing judgments

A liability recognized in accordance with the Accounting Standards prescribed by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) is an allowable expense for income tax purposes.

CIT v. Hissaria Bros.
291 ITR 244 · 2007 · High Court
132
citing judgments

Penalty proceedings for defaults under Sections 269SS and 269T are independent of assessment proceedings; therefore, the limitation period under Section 275(1)(c) for imposing such penalties is not contingent on the completion of appellate quantum proceedings.

Pr. CIT v. Golden Peace Hotels and Resorts (P) Ltd.
124 Taxmann.com 249 · 2021 · Supreme Court
105
citing judgments

A penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) is not sustainable if the notice issued under Section 274 fails to specifically mention whether the charge relates to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessing Officer must specify the exact charge for the penalty to be valid.

Sanjay Sawhney v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax
116 Taxmann.com 701 · 2020 · High Court
87
citing judgments

Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules allows a respondent to defend a favourable order of the CIT(A) by raising grounds decided against them, even without filing an appeal or cross-objection. Such issues can be raised orally and for the first time before the Tribunal.

Principal Commissioner of Income-tax\n(Central)-2 v. Mahesh Wood Products (P.) Ltd.
394 ITR 312 · 2017 · High Court
86
citing judgments

The date of initiation of penalty proceedings for the purpose of Section 275(1)(c) is when the Assessing Officer records a satisfaction or recommends penalty, not the later date when the Joint/Additional Commissioner of Income Tax issues the penalty notice.

CIT v. Hissaria Brothers
386 ITR 719 · 2016 · Supreme Court
68
citing judgments

The relevant date for determining the limitation period under Section 275(1)(c) for passing penalty orders under Sections 271D and 271E is the date of passing the assessment order.

CIT v. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills Ambala City
64 Taxmann.com 75 · 2015 · Supreme Court
49
citing judgments

For initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271D or 271E, the Assessing Officer must record satisfaction in the assessment order; non-recording of such satisfaction is fatal to the penalty.

Judgments citing Section 275(1)(a)

Vimal Todi, Indore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Indore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 188/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshishri Vimal Todi, Additional Commissioner बनाम/ 501, Darshan Residency, Of Income-Tax, Vs. 104-105, Anand Bazar, Indore Indore

Section 132Section 254(2)Section 271DSection 275Section 275(1)(c)

being contested before us, is that the penalty-order dated 28.03.2019 u/s 271D passed by AO was barred by time-limitation prescribed in section 275(1)(c). 5. This very issue stands already adjudicated by learned co-ordinate bench in favour of assessee in aforesaid earlier order dated 25.10.2024. Since ... section 275. The assessee also raised this very issue before CIT(A) but the CIT(A) referred following provision of section 275(1)(c): “275(1) No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be passed – (a) XXX (b) XXX (c) in any other case, after the expiry

Bhairav Tube (India), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 5494/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

Section 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(a)

appeals. It is 3 Bhairav Tube (India) submitted that the penalty order passed by the ld. AO is contrary to the provisions of section 275(1)(a) and is therefore liable to be annulled. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case

DCIT Central Circle 1 Delhi, Delhi vs. Sahara India Financial Corporation Ltd, Lucknow

ITA 4679/DEL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2010-11
Section 142Section 250Section 269SSection 271D

Show cause notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271D of the Act 30.11.2023 Last date for passing order u/s 271D of the Act [Refer Section 275(1)(c)] 31.03.2024 Order passed u/s 271D of the Act 30.05.2024 Through this chart the Ld. AR pointed out that the proceedings were time barred ... satisfaction by the Ld. AO in the body of the assessment order and since the assessment order is dated 12.05.2023 then as per Section 275(1)(c) of the Act the limitation could either have been 30.11.2023 or 31.03.2024, whichever is later. It was pointed out that since the impugned

Axis Bank Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1125/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

275 of the Act. (Tax effect - NIL) 2.1. The learned AO has erred in passing the order after the due date as per section 275(1)(a) of the Act. The Appellant had received the order of Tribunal on 24 November 2021. and it believes that the Principal Chief Commissioner ... Commissioner would have received the said order at around same lime. Considering the same, the time limit for passing penalty order as per section 275(1)(a) had been expired on 31 May 2022 However, penalty order had been received by the Appellant on 29 June 2022 Despite this fact

Axis Bank Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1124/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

275 of the Act. (Tax effect - NIL) 2.1. The learned AO has erred in passing the order after the due date as per section 275(1)(a) of the Act. The Appellant had received the order of Tribunal on 24 November 2021. and it believes that the Principal Chief Commissioner ... Commissioner would have received the said order at around same lime. Considering the same, the time limit for passing penalty order as per section 275(1)(a) had been expired on 31 May 2022 However, penalty order had been received by the Appellant on 29 June 2022 Despite this fact

Axis Bank Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1123/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

275 of the Act. (Tax effect - NIL) 2.1. The learned AO has erred in passing the order after the due date as per section 275(1)(a) of the Act. The Appellant had received the order of Tribunal on 24 November 2021. and it believes that the Principal Chief Commissioner ... Commissioner would have received the said order at around same lime. Considering the same, the time limit for passing penalty order as per section 275(1)(a) had been expired on 31 May 2022 However, penalty order had been received by the Appellant on 29 June 2022 Despite this fact

Axis Bank Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1122/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

275 of the Act. (Tax effect - NIL) 2.1. The learned AO has erred in passing the order after the due date as per section 275(1)(a) of the Act. The Appellant had received the order of Tribunal on 24 November 2021. and it believes that the Principal Chief Commissioner ... Commissioner would have received the said order at around same lime. Considering the same, the time limit for passing penalty order as per section 275(1)(a) had been expired on 31 May 2022 However, penalty order had been received by the Appellant on 29 June 2022 Despite this fact

Axis Bank Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1121/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

275 of the Act. (Tax effect - NIL) 2.1. The learned AO has erred in passing the order after the due date as per section 275(1)(a) of the Act. The Appellant had received the order of Tribunal on 24 November 2021. and it believes that the Principal Chief Commissioner ... Commissioner would have received the said order at around same lime. Considering the same, the time limit for passing penalty order as per section 275(1)(a) had been expired on 31 May 2022 However, penalty order had been received by the Appellant on 29 June 2022 Despite this fact

Sujith Surampudi, Ghatkesar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mancherial

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1630/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1630/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23) Shri Sujith Surampudi Vs. Income Tax Officer Ghatkesar Ward 1 Pan:Cwcps7355A Mancherial (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C.A Swathi Sheela राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Helan Ruby Jesindha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 23/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Sujith Surampudi (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 15.09.2025 For The A.Y 2022-23. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order U/S250 Of The Act Dt. 15-09-2025 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi Is Page 1 Of 7

For Appellant: C.A Swathi SheelaFor Respondent: : Smt. Helan Ruby Jesindha, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 144rSection 250Section 272Section 272A(1)(d)

ITA No1630 of 2025 Sujith Surampudi Ghatkesar आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Mr. B. Anand Babu, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-3, Coimbatore

In the result, all the penalty appeals are allowed

ITA 2087/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 269SSection 271D

Prejudice to the above ground, for that the penalty order passed u/s.271D of the Act is barred by limitation within the meaning of section 275(1)(c) of the Act, in as much as the Learned Assessing Officer had made a reference to the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income ... Income Tax Unit) levying penalty on 31.08.2023, submitted that the time-limit for levying penalty u/s 271D of the Act is governed by Section 275(1)(c) of the Act, which reads as under:- ITA Nos.2085, 2086 & 2087/Chny/2025 (AYs 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2019-20) Mr.B. Anand Babu :: 6 :: “275

B. Anand Babu, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-3, Coimbatore

ITA 2086/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Mr.A.G. SathyanarayanaFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 269SSection 271D

Prejudice to the above ground, for that the penalty order passed u/s.271D of the Act is barred by limitation within the meaning of section 275(1)(c) of the Act, in as much as the Learned Assessing Officer had made a reference to the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income ... Income Tax Unit) levying penalty on 31.08.2023, submitted that the time-limit for levying penalty u/s 271D of the Act is governed by Section 275(1)(c) of the Act, which reads as under:- "275(1) No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be passed

B. Anand Babu, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore

In the result, all the penalty appeals are allowed

ITA 2085/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 269SSection 271D

Prejudice to the above ground, for that the penalty order passed u/s.271D of the Act is barred by limitation within the meaning of section 275(1)(c) of the Act, in as much as the Learned Assessing Officer had made a reference to the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income ... Income Tax Unit) levying penalty on 31.08.2023, submitted that the time-limit for levying penalty u/s 271D of the Act is governed by Section 275(1)(c) of the Act, which reads as under:- ITA Nos.2085, 2086 & 2087/Chny/2025 (AYs 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2019-20) Mr.B. Anand Babu :: 6 :: “275

Koyamu Kakkat, Kozhikode vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Kozhikode

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 716/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2015-16 Koyamu Kakkat .......... Appellant K.K. House, Odayalathodi, Kallithodi Road Chungam, Feroke, Kozhikode 673631 [Pan: Bxypk2972H] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Kozhikode ......... Respondent Assessee By: ------- None ------- Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(a)

quantum appeal was remitted back to the file of the AO vide order dated 16.05.2025 in ITA No. 228/Coch/2025. Therefore, in terms of section 275(1)(a) of the Act the present appeal is also remanded back to the file of AO. 3 Koyamu Kakkat 8. In the result

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Gokul Kripa Colonizers & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 1178/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

action for imposition of penalty is initiated, whichever period expires later. In this case the limitation period is governed by clause (c) of Section 275(1). As per this section, the penalty order is to be passed before the end of the FY. in which the proceeding in the course ... Additional CIT issuing notice under Section 271-E of the Act. The Additional CIT ought to have been conscious of the limitation under Section 275 (1) (c). i.e., that no order of penalty could have been passed under Section 271-E after the expiry of the financial year in which

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Gokul Kripa Colonizers & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

ITA 1177/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

action for imposition of penalty is initiated, whichever period expires later. In this case the limitation period is governed by clause (c) of Section 275(1). As per this section, the penalty order is to be passed before the end of the FY. in which the proceeding in the course ... action for imposition of penalty is initiated, whichever period expires later. In this case the limitation period is governed by clause (c) of Section 275(1). As per this section, the penalty order is to be passed before the end of the FY. in which the proceeding in the course

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Gokul Kripa Colonizers & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 1176/JPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

action for imposition of penalty is initiated, whichever period expires later. In this case the limitation period is governed by clause (c) of Section 275(1). As per this section, the penalty order is to be passed before the end of the FY. in which the proceeding in the course ... action for imposition of penalty is initiated, whichever period expires later. In this case the limitation period is governed by clause (c) of Section 275(1). As per this section, the penalty order is to be passed before the end of the FY. in which the proceeding in the course

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Gokul Kripa Colonizers & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 1175/JPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

action for imposition of penalty is initiated, whichever period expires later. In this case the limitation period is governed by clause (c) of Section 275(1). As per this section, the penalty order is to be passed before the end of the FY. in which the proceeding in the course ... Additional CIT issuing notice under Section 271-E of the Act. The Additional CIT ought to have been conscious of the limitation under Section 275 (1) (c). i.e., that no order of penalty could have been passed under Section 271-E after the expiry of the financial year in which

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Gokul Kripa Colonizers & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 1174/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

action for imposition of penalty is initiated, whichever period expires later. In this case the limitation period is governed by clause (c) of Section 275(1). As per this section, the penalty order is to be passed before the end of the FY. in which the proceeding in the course ... action for imposition of penalty is initiated, whichever period expires later. In this case the limitation period is governed by clause (c) of Section 275(1). As per this section, the penalty order is to be passed before the end of the FY. in which the proceeding in the course

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Gokul Kripa Colonizers & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

ITA 1170/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

action for imposition of penalty is initiated, whichever period expires later. In this case the limitation period is governed by clause (c) of Section 275(1). As per this section, the penalty order is to be passed before the end of the FY. in which the proceeding in the course ... Additional CIT issuing notice under Section 271-E of the Act. The Additional CIT ought to have been conscious of the limitation under Section 275 (1) (c). i.e., that no order of penalty could have been passed under Section 271-E after the expiry of the financial year in which

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Gokul Kripa Colonizers & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 1169/JPR/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

action for imposition of penalty is initiated, whichever period expires later. In this case the limitation period is governed by clause (c) of Section 275(1). As per this section, the penalty order is to be passed before the end of the FY. in which the proceeding in the course ... Additional CIT issuing notice under Section 271-E of the Act. The Additional CIT ought to have been conscious of the limitation under Section 275 (1) (c). i.e., that no order of penalty could have been passed under Section 271-E after the expiry of the financial year in which