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.

39 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 158clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi210Mumbai209Ahmedabad58Jaipur54Pune46Raipur43Chennai39Bangalore38Allahabad24Chandigarh23Hyderabad21Kolkata18Indore13Ranchi13Cochin12Nagpur10Agra8Lucknow8Surat8Jodhpur7Patna6Dehradun5Rajkot4Jabalpur3Amritsar3Panaji2Guwahati1SC1Visakhapatnam1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)68Penalty34Section 270A24Addition to Income24Section 143(3)18Section 13217Section 27415Section 153A15Section 148

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

Showing 1–20 of 39 · Page 1 of 2

14
Section 271A14
Disallowance12
Survey u/s 133A8
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

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

158 BFA(2), it does not appear that in all the cases where the undisclosed income is determined by the AO under Clause(c) of Section 158BC, the imposition of penalty as specified u/S.158BFA shall follow as a natural consequence thereof. In our considered opinion, in terms of Section 158BFA, a discretion is vested with the Assessing Officer to levy

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

158 BFA(2), it does not appear that in all the cases where the undisclosed income is determined by the AO under Clause(c) of Section 158BC, the imposition of penalty as specified u/S.158BFA shall follow as a natural consequence thereof. In our considered opinion, in terms of Section 158BFA, a discretion is vested with the Assessing Officer to levy

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

Section 271(1B) the tax payer cannot take a shelter that he was not aware why the Penalty proceedings have been initiated. In the instant case, the assessee was found to have concealed its real income consequent to survey conducted based on an original return filed u/s 139, wherein he had admitted only Rs.1,00,920/- as his income. Consequent

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) must exist before the penalty is imposed. In the light of the above discussions, the assessee-company humbly request your Honour to kindly drop the proceedings under consideration. The Assessee relies on the Supreme Court decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd (322 ITR 158 (SC)} copy of which

DAKSHINAMOORTHY KUMARESAN,THIRUVARUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THIRUVARUR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2452/CHNY/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2024AY 2016-2017
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 147 of the Act dated 25.05.2023, the Id.\nAssessing Officer stated that penalty proceedings u/s.271 (1) (c) of the Act is\ninitiated separately as it is evidenced that the assessee has 'concealed his\nparticulars of income' by not filing his return of income voluntarily for A.Y. 2016-\n2017 as required u/s.139(1) of the Act.\n7. Penalty is imposed

R V R NAGESH LEGAL HEIR OF LATE VENGATTARAYALU RAJAN,KANCHIPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORP WARD - 22(4), TAMBARAM, TAMBARAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 789/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2025AY 2011-12
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

158. It was accordingly requested\nthat as the penalty order was infructuous and invalid, the penalty order\nimposing penalty in its case of Rs.10 lakhs may be set aside.\n3.0 Per contra, the Ld.DR relied upon the order of lower authorities.\n4.0 We have heard the rival submissions in the light of material\navailable on records. The issue of legality

M.ARUN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC-2(4), CHENNAI

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

ITA 573/CHNY/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.573/Chny/2021 िनधा)रण वष) /Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69

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

ANOTRA REALATORS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT (CENTRAL)- 1, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1451/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024AY 2016-17
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69A

u/s 271AAC are initiated separately.\n7. The Tax Computation Sheet and Demand Notice are enclosed.\n8. This order is passed with the prior approval of the Additional\nCommissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-1, Chennai as per section\n153D of the Income Tax Act.\nFrom the above, it is clear that this order is passed with the prior\napproval

PANJURAJAN GANESAN,,SIVAKASI vs. DCIT, CC - 2,, MADURAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 278/CHNY/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.278/Chny/2020 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Panjurajan Ganesan Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.74A, Velayutham Road, Corporate Circle-2, Sivakasi, Madurai. Tamil Nadu-626 123. [Pan:Abypg3315R] (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. D. Anand, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. G. Latchana, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.07.2025

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. G. Latchana, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act for ‘have concealed the particulars of your income or ….furnished inaccurate particulars of such income’. The ld. AR further contended that order imposing penalty has to be made only on ground of which penalty proceedings has been initiated. The ld. counsel further contended that ‘concealment of income’ and ‘furnishing of inaccurate particulars

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

ITA 1253/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2025AY 2017-18
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 154Section 270A

158\n79,73,302 (3,060 gms)\nAY 2016-17\n45,50,376\n39,13,497 (1,350 gms)\nTotal\n4,52,07,376\n2,18,80,032\n11. Without prejudice while before Ld CIT(A) the ‘A' submitted the value of gold\njewellery purchased by ‘A’between

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSHAKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

ITA 1271/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2025AY 2017-18
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 154Section 270A

158\n79,73,302 (3,060 gms)\nAY 2016-17\n45,50,376\n39,13,497 (1,350 gms)\nTotal\n4,52,07,376\n2,18,80,032\n11. Without prejudice while before Ld CIT(A) the ‘A’submitted the value of gold\njewellery purchased by ‘A’between

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSHAKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

ITA 1264/CHNY/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2025
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 154Section 270A

158\n79,73,302 (3,060 gms)\nAY 2016-17\n45,50,376\n39,13,497 (1,350 gms)\nTotal\n4,52,07,376\n2,18,80,032\n11. Without prejudice while before Ld CIT(A) the ‘A' submitted the value of gold\njewellery purchased by ‘A’between

C.R. TEXTILE MILLS, ,SALEM vs. ITO, CIRCLE-1,, SALEM

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

ITA 1361/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1361/Chny/2025 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. The Ld. Departmental Representative has relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The A.O has levied a penalty of Rs. 94,977/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of sundry creditors treated as income

ACHALA PUNJA,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2630/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2014-15
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 194Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

158, SC).\n4. The appellant also seeks to rely on the following decisions that squarely\nsupport her case that mere disallowance of a claim genuinely made does\nnot attract penalty u/s 271(1)(c).\n•\nCIT v. Harshavardhan Chemicals & Minerals Ltd. (259 ITR 212,\nRajasthan HC)\n•\nCIT v. SSP (India) Ltd (328 ITR 643, P&H HC)\n•\nShri

M/S.REDINGTON DISTRIBUTION PTE LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. ACIT,INTL TAXATION CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 889/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 144CSection 148Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271 (1) (c). Accordingly, ground no’s 6 and 7 are dismissed.” 11. Now, the assessee is in appeal before us. 12. Assailing the action of the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. Senior Counsel Shri. Percy Pardiwala pointed out that, the impugned issue under dispute was not settled on merits through an appeal route but rather through

M/S.REDINGTON DISTRIBUTIONS PTE LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. ACIT, INTLTAXATION CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 894/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 144CSection 148Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271 (1) (c). Accordingly, ground no’s 6 and 7 are dismissed.” 11. Now, the assessee is in appeal before us. 12. Assailing the action of the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. Senior Counsel Shri. Percy Pardiwala pointed out that, the impugned issue under dispute was not settled on merits through an appeal route but rather through

M/S.REDINGTON DISTRIBUTIONS PTE LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. ACIT, INTLTAXATION CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 893/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 144CSection 148Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271 (1) (c). Accordingly, ground no’s 6 and 7 are dismissed.” 11. Now, the assessee is in appeal before us. 12. Assailing the action of the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. Senior Counsel Shri. Percy Pardiwala pointed out that, the impugned issue under dispute was not settled on merits through an appeal route but rather through

M/S. REDINGTON DISTRIBUTION PTE LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. ACIT , INTL TAXATION CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 892/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 144CSection 148Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271 (1) (c). Accordingly, ground no’s 6 and 7 are dismissed.” 11. Now, the assessee is in appeal before us. 12. Assailing the action of the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. Senior Counsel Shri. Percy Pardiwala pointed out that, the impugned issue under dispute was not settled on merits through an appeal route but rather through