← All Phrases

“Section 274(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 274Section 274(1)58 judgments

VICKY NAVANI,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), JABALPUR, WARD )), JABALPUR

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

ITA 124/JAB/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 253(3)Section 271Section 271BSection 273BSection 275Section 44A

contended on behalf of the assessee that if regard be had to section 275 it must be held that the notice under section 274(1) should be issued in the course of the assessment proceeding. Section 275 prescribes the period of limitation for making a penalty order. The period

SH.MOHIT BATOLA,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, CC, DDN, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 101/DDN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun30 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Mohit Batola Vs Acit 155, Village Miyanwala Central Circle P.O.-Harrawala, Dehradun, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand-248001 Pan-Aftpb3533M Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Verendra Kalra, Ca Revenue By Shri S.K.Chaterjee, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.10.2025 Order

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 153A(1)(b)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274(1)

ITA No.101/DDN/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN “DB” BENCH: DEHRADUN BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, TIRUVANNAMALAI,

ITA 1655/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2025AY 2021-22
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

{ "clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'बी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n'B' BENCH, CHENNAI\nश्री जॉर्ज

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, THIRUVANNAMALAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

ITA 1654/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2025AY 2020-21
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

{ "clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'बी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n'B' BENCH, CHENNAI\nश्री जॉर्ज

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, THIRUVANNAMALAI

ITA 1653/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2025AY 2019-20
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

{ "clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'बी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n'B' BENCH, CHENNAI\nश्री जॉर्ज

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, TIRUVANNAMALAI

ITA 1652/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkata Raman, CA
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

{ "clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'बी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n'B' BENCH, CHENNAI\nश्री जॉर्ज

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, TIRUVANNAMALAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

ITA 1651/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2025AY 2017-18
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

{ "clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'बी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n'B' BENCH, CHENNAI\nश्री जॉर्ज

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, CHENNAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

ITA 1650/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

{ "clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'बी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n'B' BENCH, CHENNAI\nश्री जॉर्ज

SANDEEP KUMAR SETHIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 44(2), , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is\nallowed

ITA 584/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2025AY 2011-2012
Section 250Section 269SSection 271D

{ "clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण\nकोलकाता 'डी' पीठ, कोलकाता में\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nKOLKATA 'D' BENCH, KOLKATA

JHUMA CHATTERJEE,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(3), ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2500/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ito, Ward-1(3) Jhuma Chatterjee Aaykar Bhavan, Opposite Bf-151 Ground Floor, Sector-1, Ramakrishna School, Po Salt Lake, Kolkata-700064 Vs. Asansol, Pin-713305, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ajepc3975K Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sandip Sarkar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.08.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sandip Sarkar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 274(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM ITO

3I INFOTECH DIGITAL BPS LIMITED FORMERLY KNOWN AS 3I INFOTECH BPO LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, 25(1), DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5196/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 271CSection 275(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI

3I INFOTECH DIGITAL BPS LIMITED FORMERLY KNOWN AS 3I INFOTECH BPO LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, 25(1), DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5195/DEL/2024[2014-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2025AY 2014-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 271CSection 275(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI

M/S KUMAON MANDAL VIKASH NIGAM LTD.,NANITAL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, NANITAL

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 44/DDN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN BENCH: DEHRADUN BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

ST. JOSEPHS INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

ITA 3297/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jun 2025AY 2020-21
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 270ASection 271A

Only then it can be\ndeemed that reasonable opportunity of being heard has been given to the\nappellant before imposing penalty as per Section 274(1) of the Act.\n:: 27 ::\nHence the notice is an invalid notice and as such an order (dated 30.03.2022)\npassed based on an invalid

ST. JOSHEPHS INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-193), CHENNAI

ITA 3296/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jun 2025AY 2019-20
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 270ASection 271A

Only then it can be\ndeemed that reasonable opportunity of being heard has been given to the\nappellant before imposing penalty as per Section 274(1) of the Act.\n:: 26 ::\nHence the notice is an invalid notice and as such an order (dated 30.03.2022)\npassed based on an invalid

ST. JOSEPHS INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCOT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3295/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. V. Balaji, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 270ASection 271A

Only then it can be deemed that reasonable opportunity of being heard has been given to the appellant before imposing penalty as per Section 274(1) of the Act. ITA Nos.3293 & 3294/Chny/2024 (AYs 2018-19 & 2020-21) St. Joseph’s Educational Trust & ITA Nos.3295 to 3297/Chny/2024

ST. JOSEPHS EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-193), CHENNAI

ITA 3294/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jun 2025AY 2020-21
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 270ASection 271A

Only then it can be\ndeemed that reasonable opportunity of being heard has been given to the\nappellant before imposing penalty as per Section 274(1) of the Act.\n:: 27 ::\nHence the notice is an invalid notice and as such an order (dated 30.03.2022)\npassed based on an invalid

ST.JOSEPHS EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-193), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3293/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. V. Balaji, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 270ASection 271A

Only then it can be deemed that reasonable opportunity of being heard has been given to the appellant before imposing penalty as per Section 274(1) of the Act. ITA Nos.3293 & 3294/Chny/2024 (AYs 2018-19 & 2020-21) St. Joseph’s Educational Trust & ITA Nos.3295 to 3297/Chny/2024

KALYANASUNDARAM SURESH,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, CHENNAI

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

ITA 297/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.297/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Kalyanasundaram Suresh, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Old No. 12-A, New No. 24, Income Tax, Swarnamangalam East Road, West Non Corporate Circle 2, Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chennai. Chennai 600 035. [Pan: Aobps4696F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Ravi Kannan, Advocate & Shri Varun Ranganathan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.12.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Ld. Ar Shri K. Ravi Kannan, Advocate Drew Our Attention To The Additional Grounds Of Appeal Filed On 10.12.2023 & Submits That The Said 3 Grounds Of Appeal May Be Taken Up First The Ld. Dr Shri R.V.

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi Kannan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. CIT
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 5

stage at which it was left by his predecessor. There has been a breach of the valuable rights of the assessee, specified in section 274(1) read with section 129. The 9 I.T.A. No.297/Chny/19 AAC was justified in cancelling the penalties and the Tribunal was justified in confirming the said

JAMNA DEVI SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 540/JPR/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

case. The very purpose of affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to an assessee as per the mandate of section 274(1) would not only be frustrated, but would be rendered as redundant if he is not conveyed in clear terms the specific default for which penalty under ... being proceeded against, therefore, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) imposed by him being in clear violation of the mandate of section 274(1) cannot be sustained. Thus, for the aforesaid reasons 17 SMT. JAMNA DEVI SHARMA VS ITO, WRD 7(2), JAIPUR the order of the Commissioner (Appeals

Showing 1–20 of 58 · Page 1 of 3