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.

164 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Exemptionclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,090Delhi1,027Ahmedabad349Bangalore270Jaipur202Chennai164Pune160Hyderabad142Kolkata134Indore107Chandigarh105Karnataka103Surat90Raipur80Rajkot60Nagpur53Lucknow43Amritsar41Cochin40Calcutta35Visakhapatnam23Guwahati21Jodhpur13Allahabad13Dehradun12Patna11Agra10Ranchi9Cuttack7Varanasi6SC6Telangana3Jabalpur2Rajasthan2Panaji2Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)134Section 14A79Penalty79Section 271A47Section 143(3)46Addition to Income46Exemption43Section 14834Disallowance33Section 153A

R.MAHALAKSHMI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 17(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3106/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.3106/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Vs The Acit, Smt. R. Mahalakshmi, No.24, Abm Avenue, Non-Corporate Circle – 17(1), Chennai. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Agqpm8406N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gurubashyam, JCIT
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271A

exempted from Income tax and penalty cannot be levied on the agricultural income. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the arguments and findings of the Assessing Officer made in the Assessment Order and the penalty order. The Ld. AR explained in the penalty proceedings that the assessee has admitted additional income to purchase peace and avoid :-7-: ITA No. 3106/Chny/2018 litigation

Showing 1–20 of 164 · Page 1 of 9

...
28
Section 1127
Section 5425

FICHTNER CONSULTING ENGINEERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT (OSD) CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, CHENNAI

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

ITA 959/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 959/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Fichtner Consulting Assistant Commissioner Of Engineers (India) Pvt Ltd., V. Income Tax (Osd), No. 165, 9Th Floor, Menon Corporate Circle -2, Eternity St. Mary’S Road, Chennai – 600 034. Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. [Pan: Aaacf-5620-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.10.2023

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, CAFor Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 147

exemption u/s 10 8 made during the course of reassessment proceedings is disallowed and an amount of Rs. 3,98,41,955/-is added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271

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

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 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 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

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 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

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(1)(c) was issued to the assessee on 10.03.2014 which read as under: - “Whereas in the course of proceedings before me for the assessment year 2009-10, it appears to me that you:- *have without reasonable cause failed to furnish me within of income which you were required to furnish by a notice given under Section

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. SRI MUTHUKUMARAN EDUCATIONAL TRUST, CHENNAI

In the result, we set aside the orders of the ld

ITA 114/CHNY/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Mrs. Ilavarasi, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 11(5)Section 115BSection 12ASection 132Section 139Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

penalty is attracted automatically as per the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of IT Act in view of the specific provision of Explanation SA to Section 271( 1)( c) of IT Act applicable only to search cases. 4. For these grounds and for any other ground including amendment that may be raised during the course of the appeal proceedings

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. SRI MUTHUKUMARAN EDUCATIONAL TRUST, CHENNAI

In the result, we set aside the orders of the ld

ITA 113/CHNY/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Mrs. Ilavarasi, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 11(5)Section 115BSection 12ASection 132Section 139Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

penalty is attracted automatically as per the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of IT Act in view of the specific provision of Explanation SA to Section 271( 1)( c) of IT Act applicable only to search cases. 4. For these grounds and for any other ground including amendment that may be raised during the course of the appeal proceedings

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. SRI MUTHUKUMARAN EDUCATIONAL TRUST, CHENNAI

In the result, we set aside the orders of the ld

ITA 115/CHNY/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Mrs. Ilavarasi, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 11(5)Section 115BSection 12ASection 132Section 139Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

penalty is attracted automatically as per the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of IT Act in view of the specific provision of Explanation SA to Section 271( 1)( c) of IT Act applicable only to search cases. 4. For these grounds and for any other ground including amendment that may be raised during the course of the appeal proceedings

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MEENAKSHI AMMAL TRUST, CHENNAI

In the result, we set aside the orders of the ld

ITA 120/CHNY/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Mrs. Ilavarasi, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 11(5)Section 115BSection 12ASection 132Section 139Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

penalty is attracted automatically as per the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of IT Act in view of the specific provision of Explanation SA to Section 271( 1)( c) of IT Act applicable only to search cases. 4. For these grounds and for any other ground including amendment that may be raised during the course of the appeal proceedings

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MEENAKSHI AMMAL TRUST, CHENNAI

In the result, we set aside the orders of the ld

ITA 126/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Mrs. Ilavarasi, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 11(5)Section 115BSection 12ASection 132Section 139Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

penalty is attracted automatically as per the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of IT Act in view of the specific provision of Explanation SA to Section 271( 1)( c) of IT Act applicable only to search cases. 4. For these grounds and for any other ground including amendment that may be raised during the course of the appeal proceedings

SHRI.S.J.SURYAH,CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 806/CHNY/2023[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.806/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2002-03 V. Shri S.J.Suryah, The Asst. Commissioner- No.35-1D, Of Income Tax, 114, Neelakanta Mehta Street, Central Circle-2(4), T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Chennai. [Pan: Alyps 3012 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

exemption clause (f) of CBDT Circular as enumerated in letter dated 20.08.2018. Therefore, according to the Ld.DR, the appeal filed by the Revenue is maintainable. In his rejoinder, the Ld.AR fairly admitted that prosecution has been launched against the assessee from/after re- assessment order passed by the AO u/s.153A of the Act (after search) and not from the original assessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-10, CHENNAI vs. SJ SURYAH, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 594/CHNY/2024[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.806/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2002-03 V. Shri S.J.Suryah, The Asst. Commissioner- No.35-1D, Of Income Tax, 114, Neelakanta Mehta Street, Central Circle-2(4), T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Chennai. [Pan: Alyps 3012 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

exemption clause (f) of CBDT Circular as enumerated in letter dated 20.08.2018. Therefore, according to the Ld.DR, the appeal filed by the Revenue is maintainable. In his rejoinder, the Ld.AR fairly admitted that prosecution has been launched against the assessee from/after re- assessment order passed by the AO u/s.153A of the Act (after search) and not from the original assessment

C.ELANGO,TIRUPPUR vs. ACIT, TIRUPPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 118/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri R. Durai Pandian, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)Section 54F

exemption u/s. 54F of the Act in accordance with law and levied the minimum penalty on the disallowances u/s. 54F and 40A(3) of the Act and passed the order 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)

271(1)(c) of the Act and issued show-cause notice dated 15.03.2012. The assessee filed its reply dated 21.03.2012 by stating that the penalty proceedings may be dropped. The content of the assessee’s reply is reproduced as under: In the return of income filed for the A.Y.2000-01 the assessee-company had claimed exemption u/s