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.

245 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Condonation of Delayclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai515Delhi351Kolkata313Jaipur250Ahmedabad250Chennai245Pune200Bangalore191Hyderabad169Surat138Karnataka120Indore116Chandigarh100Cochin66Rajkot53Amritsar52Nagpur50Lucknow47Visakhapatnam39Cuttack39Calcutta36Patna33Agra25Guwahati25Raipur22Panaji17Allahabad14Jabalpur13Ranchi11Dehradun9Jodhpur7SC5Varanasi2Telangana1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Addition to Income62Section 14760Section 234E58Penalty54Section 271(1)(c)53Section 40A(3)30Condonation of Delay28Section 14826Section 14420

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

ITA 908/CHNY/2020[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 May 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 was a vague notice in a printed form without specifying the exact charge for which the assessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non-application of mind while initiating penalty against the assessee. The Ld. AO, while initiating the penalty was not clear as to specific limb which was applicable

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

Showing 1–20 of 245 · Page 1 of 13

...
Section 271(1)20
Limitation/Time-bar19
TDS19

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

ITA 910/CHNY/2020[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 May 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 was a vague notice in a printed form without specifying the exact charge for which the assessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non-application of mind while initiating penalty against the assessee. The Ld. AO, while initiating the penalty was not clear as to specific limb which was applicable

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

ITA 906/CHNY/2020[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 May 2022AY 1999-2000

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 was a vague notice in a printed form without specifying the exact charge for which the assessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non-application of mind while initiating penalty against the assessee. The Ld. AO, while initiating the penalty was not clear as to specific limb which was applicable

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

ITA 911/CHNY/2020[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 May 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 was a vague notice in a printed form without specifying the exact charge for which the assessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non-application of mind while initiating penalty against the assessee. The Ld. AO, while initiating the penalty was not clear as to specific limb which was applicable

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

ITA 912/CHNY/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 May 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 was a vague notice in a printed form without specifying the exact charge for which the assessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non-application of mind while initiating penalty against the assessee. The Ld. AO, while initiating the penalty was not clear as to specific limb which was applicable

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

ITA 905/CHNY/2020[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 May 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 was a vague notice in a printed form without specifying the exact charge for which the assessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non-application of mind while initiating penalty against the assessee. The Ld. AO, while initiating the penalty was not clear as to specific limb which was applicable

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

ITA 907/CHNY/2020[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 May 2022AY 2000-01

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 was a vague notice in a printed form without specifying the exact charge for which the assessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non-application of mind while initiating penalty against the assessee. The Ld. AO, while initiating the penalty was not clear as to specific limb which was applicable

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

ITA 909/CHNY/2020[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 May 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 was a vague notice in a printed form without specifying the exact charge for which the assessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non-application of mind while initiating penalty against the assessee. The Ld. AO, while initiating the penalty was not clear as to specific limb which was applicable

D.SENTHIL KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1209/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate ) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 on 31.12.2010 is a vague notice in a printed form without striking-off irrelevant portion and do not specify the exact charge for each head of addition for which the assessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non- application of mind while initiating penalty against the assessee. Even

S MATHIALAGAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT , CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 766/CHNY/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jul 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 766/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri. S. Mathialagan, Assistant Commissioner Of C/O. Durv & Associates Llp, V. Income Tax, Old No. 19, New No. 13B, New Non-Corporate Circle 13, Bangaru Colony First Street, Chennai. K K Nagar West, Chennai – 600 078. [Pan: Agnpm-2592-F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, Fca अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2023

For Respondent: Shri. AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(vii)

delay needs to be condoned is 490 days. He further submits that the appellant has accepted the CIT(A) order and paid tax along with interest based on the advice of his tax consultant on the bonafide belief that no penalty would be leviable on additions made on notional basis. However, the Assessing Officer has initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271

PENTA MEDIA GRAPHICS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1402/CHNY/2015[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 May 2023AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1402/Chny/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2000-01 M/S. Penta Media Graphics Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of ‘Taurus’, No. 25, First Main Road, Vs. Income Tax, Media Circle I, Room No. 311, 3Rd Floor, New Block, United India Colony, Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaacp1647B] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & : Smt. Sree Valli Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By None [Dept. Letter Submission] : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 12.04.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai Dated 30.03.2015 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

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

condone 2 I.T.A. No. 1402/Chny/2015 the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under: 1. The Order of the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) dated 30.03.2015, confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271

PVP VENTURES LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(2), CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 778/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar (Advocate)-Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(2)Section 143(3)Section 22(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69A

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 on 31.12.2010 is a vague notice in a printed form without striking-off irrelevant portion and do not specify the exact charge for each head of addition for which the assessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non-application of mind while initiating penalty against the assessee. Even in the body

M/S. JAYASREE CONSTRUCTION,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 8 (2),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 682/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri. Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 682/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Jayasree Construction, The Income Tax Officer, No.3/A, Sekkiyar Street, V. Non Corporate Ward-8(2), Netaji Avenue Extn., Chennai – 600 034. Nerkundram, Chennai – 600 107. [Pan: Aadfj 2389N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri.T.V. Muthu Abirami Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.03.2022

For Appellant: Shri.T.V. Muthu Abirami AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. G. Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

delay of 88 days is condoned. 3. The assessee raised following grounds which are as follows: “1. For that the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case and at any rate against the principles of equity, natural justice and fair play. 2. For that the Commissioner of Income

SUN COMBINE,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT,CC-1, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 170/CHNY/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri A. Arjun Raj, CAFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT
Section 153ASection 271Section 271A

condonation of delay, has simply mentioned that the delay was on account of change of authorized representative. This reason does not constitute sufficient cause as it is appellant' s responsibility to be vigilant and pursue his tax case. It is further pertinent to note that the authorized representative filed reply on 31-01-2011 in the penalty proceedings u/s 271

SUN COMBINE,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT,CC-1, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 171/CHNY/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri A. Arjun Raj, CAFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT
Section 153ASection 271Section 271A

condonation of delay, has simply mentioned that the delay was on account of change of authorized representative. This reason does not constitute sufficient cause as it is appellant' s responsibility to be vigilant and pursue his tax case. It is further pertinent to note that the authorized representative filed reply on 31-01-2011 in the penalty proceedings u/s 271

SUN COMBINE,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT,CC-1, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 172/CHNY/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri A. Arjun Raj, CAFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT
Section 153ASection 271Section 271A

condonation of delay, has simply mentioned that the delay was on account of change of authorized representative. This reason does not constitute sufficient cause as it is appellant' s responsibility to be vigilant and pursue his tax case. It is further pertinent to note that the authorized representative filed reply on 31-01-2011 in the penalty proceedings u/s 271

SUN COMBINE,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT,CC-1, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 173/CHNY/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri A. Arjun Raj, CAFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT
Section 153ASection 271Section 271A

condonation of delay, has simply mentioned that the delay was on account of change of authorized representative. This reason does not constitute sufficient cause as it is appellant' s responsibility to be vigilant and pursue his tax case. It is further pertinent to note that the authorized representative filed reply on 31-01-2011 in the penalty proceedings u/s 271

M/S.ENRICA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1165/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271ASection 274

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 was a vague notice in a printed form without specifying the exact charge for which the assessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non-application of mind while initiating penalty against the assessee. The Ld. AO, while initiating the penalty was not clear as to specific limb which was applicable

M/S ENRICA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1164/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271ASection 274

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 was a vague notice in a printed form without specifying the exact charge for which the assessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non-application of mind while initiating penalty against the assessee. The Ld. AO, while initiating the penalty was not clear as to specific limb which was applicable

MR. PARASMAL JAIN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3303/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Manu Kumar Giri

For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami

delay in filing appeals before this ITAT is hereby condoned. We admit both the appeals for adjudication. We further find that the ld.CIT(A) has decided the appeals on merits hence, we also proceed to hear these appeals on merit. ITA No 3303-3304/Chny/2025 (AY 2012-13, 2013-24) MANI SRIDHAR(Vs.) CIT (A) :: 5 :: 3. Brief Facts